House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Brandon Lewis)
If you will indulge me for 30 seconds, Mr Speaker, I would like to apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office for his absence from the Chamber. As I think you know, he has a commitment that means that I am taking his place today.
I say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) that we have published over 300 items of no-deal content and we have broadcast across some 200 commercial radio stations. The Cabinet Office is facilitating the redeployment of staff between Departments, and it is co-ordinating contingency planning through established structures.
Gill Furniss
It was announced overnight that the Government plan to slash tariffs on the majority of products imported from outside the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Such a move would mean cheaper steel imports, with business saying that that could destroy our steel sector and our manufacturing sector more broadly. What consultation did the Government undertake with the steel sector before the announcement?
Brandon Lewis
The temporary tariff regime aims to minimise costs to business and mitigate price impacts on consumers while supporting UK producers. I stress again that that is a temporary scheme, and business will be consulted over the first 12 months.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
This morning, right hon. and hon. Members and I were serving on a statutory instrument Committee. Along the Committee corridor, there are SI Committees almost every day, preparing not only for a deal-Brexit but for a no-deal Brexit. Can I tell my right hon. Friend that we are prepared, in my view?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As the Government have said consistently over the past couple of years, we are working so that we are prepared, whatever the outcome. The legislative default for this Parliament is to leave without a deal, if we do not agree a deal.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
The country is hanging on to a no-deal cliff edge. Today, we read about the Government’s latest brilliant idea: a ludicrous TV advert telling the public, from Friday onwards, “Don’t panic”, which is a bit like Corporal Jones in “Dad’s Army”. However, this is not the Home Guard in the 1940s, and the prospect of thousands of job losses and shortages of food, medicine and so on are no joke. We can prevent this. Today, the Commons will take control from the Government to prevent such a disastrous scenario. Will the Minister join us?
Brandon Lewis
I find it somewhat ironic that the hon. Gentleman, along with his colleagues, is talking about preparation—the previous question was about preparation too—but complains that we are preparing the public for what may happen on 29 March. The simple answer is that he and his colleagues should have voted with us last night to make sure that we left the EU with a deal.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I regularly engage with unions on a range of civil service workforce issues, including pay. I most recently met union representatives across the wider public sector last month, and I will meet civil service trade unions on pay for 2019 very shortly.
Bambos Charalambous
Since 2010, wages for workers in the civil service have fallen 10% to 13% behind workers in the NHS, local government and the education sector. Despite that, the Cabinet Office has confirmed that any pay rise above 1% will have to come from further cuts in jobs, and in terms and conditions. Is it not time that the Government backed up their claim to be ending austerity by ending it first for their own employees?
Oliver Dowden
As the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, we have removed the 1% pay cap, and it is up to each Department to find efficiency savings and better ways of working to pay for greater pay rises. That is exactly what we have seen. For example, the Foreign Office agreed a deal of 4.6% on average over the course of two years, giving a pay rise but funded properly by efficiency savings.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend say whether in the discussions he has been having he has reflected on how much the national living wage will increase from next month, and how many workers that will benefit?
Oliver Dowden
As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. In fact, the effect of the national living wage this year is to hand workers a £700 pay rise.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Can the Minister confirm that permanent secretaries agreed a 1% pay offer across the board in Departments last year? Does that not make a mockery of the fact that the Government have 200 separate pay negotiations across the civil service?
Oliver Dowden
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in respect of lower grades—those below the senior civil service—there is a delegated pay process. The overall framework is set by the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, and it is for individual Departments to decide. We will go through the proper process, and no final decisions have been taken.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
The Minister without Portfolio (Brandon Lewis)
In December 2018, we launched the £250,000 EnAble fund, which provides grants to help cover disability-related expenses that people might face when seeking elected office ahead of the May local elections.
James Duddridge
I thank the Minister for that answer. In the past, I have been a trustee of SHIELDS—Supporting, Helping, Informing Everyone with Learning Disabilities in Southend. What plans do the Government have to engage people who have learning disabilities in the electoral process?
Brandon Lewis
I congratulate my hon. Friend, as I know he works hard in supporting what SHIELDS does. It is clearly doing positive work for people with learning disabilities in Southend. We are committed to supporting people with learning disabilities in participating in democracy. We are working, to that end, in partnership with the Royal Mencap Society, including, for example, through facilitating a meeting between Mencap and political parties on the provision of easy-read manifestos.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Perhaps I should declare an interest, in that my wife is disabled and I have been glad of her support in my elections in the past. At the recent snap election, we faced an issue with access to voting stations; sometimes a school would be declared unsuitable because repairs were being carried out and another place had to be found for a voting station. Sometimes disabled access was an issue. What are the Government doing to make sure that it is made as easy as possible for disabled people to get in there and cast their vote?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We are working with returning officers on this issue, and there is the wider issue of engaging with people with disabilities to address. All of us, in all political parties, can do more about that. We should be looking at what we can do to encourage people to get involved. That is why I am so proud of being part of the Conservative party whose Conservative Foundation does exactly that.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Brandon Lewis)
The Government are equipping themselves with the right people and the right skills to deliver the UK’s exit from the European Union. We now have more than 14,500 people working specifically on EU exit-related policy and programmes across government. Workforce plans will continue to be reviewed to ensure that the civil service can always respond to emerging capacity and capability requirements.
Ruth George
What assessment has the Department made of the impact on other Departments, many of which have seen civil servants transferred into working on our strategy for exiting the EU?
Brandon Lewis
We have more than 400,000 civil servants across Departments and across the country, many of whom have areas that cross over with the work they are doing on the EU. We work with Departments to ensure that we are using the right skills in the right places to make sure that we are prepared to leave the EU in a good and orderly fashion.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what measures are being taken to return civil servants who work in the EU—in Brussels and other parts—to the UK to carry on their duties?
Brandon Lewis
Obviously, as we leave the European Union, the civil servants who have been focused on those issues will continue to do the work they need to do that relates to the EU. Where that work ceases, they will be moved back into the relevant civil service areas, as is required, across Departments.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
At a meeting of the Cabinet Office in December, it was reportedly agreed that all non-essential Government business is to be suspended so that civil servants can concentrate on no-deal planning. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government consider the housing crisis, resourcing the Home Office to process settled status applicants, the failure of universal credit and the delays to HS2 to be essential or non-essential business?
Brandon Lewis
The best advice I can give the hon. Lady is not to get tempted to believe rumours of Cabinet leaks that she reads about in the newspapers. If she looks at the Government’s track record, she will see that we are delivering record employment levels and record low unemployment, that we are improving wage levels for people who work for the Government, and that we are delivering for people, with good and outstanding education continuing. I am sure she will look forward to hearing more about that in the spring statement later today.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Compared with two years ago when we triggered article 50, how much more and better prepared is the civil service right across the UK for what needs to happen in the next few months?
Brandon Lewis
Work has continued over the past two years. As the hon. Gentleman may recall from answers I have given at the Dispatch Box over the past year or so, the number of civil servants focused on this policy area has changed and increased as required, so that we are ready to leave the European Union on 29 March.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
It is clear, is it not, that Brexit will mean a lot of change, upheaval and uncertainty for ordinary civil servants throughout the country. I was therefore genuinely astounded to learn last week from the general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union that not a single meeting had taken place with national officers of that union to discuss Brexit. When will the Government start to discuss these matters with representatives of the workforce they depend on to deliver services throughout the country?
Brandon Lewis
We are engaged not only across the devolved authorities but with union officials, at both ministerial and official level, on a regular basis.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
We have a robust legal framework for money in elections, to ensure that elections are free and fair. Donations to political parties of more than £500 must be from permissible donors, which include individuals on a UK electoral register, UK-registered companies and trade unions, and UK political parties. Responsibility for regulating that sits with the independent Electoral Commission.
Helen Hayes
Even this week, hundreds of thousands of pounds of dark money is being spent on social media adverts by a pro-Brexit organisation warning MPs not to “steal Brexit”. There is no information in the public domain about who is funding these ads, which are being so heavily promoted at a critical time in the Brexit process and are clearly aimed at influencing it. There is no place for dark money in British politics. The Electoral Commission has been calling on the Government to take action for years; why have the Government failed to act?
Chloe Smith
A number of recommendations have been made in this and related policy areas—for example, by the Electoral Commission and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. As would be expected, we are considering them all together and will respond in due course.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
This matter really is first-order business for the Government. Our electoral system has always been something of which this country has been proud. I urge my hon. Friend to push ahead with the steps needed to control this activity, because it is clear that on these big issues it is very bad news if people believe that the electoral system has been corrupted.
Chloe Smith
My right hon. Friend makes a weighty and important point. He is absolutely right that we should not be complacent about the way our electoral system runs. We have already taken forward a series of measures to ensure that it is secure, and we will do more of that to ensure that our system is good for today and fit for tomorrow.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Chloe Smith
The hon. Gentleman will have noticed the written ministerial statement that I published only last week, which outlined the steps that the Government have already taken and will be taking to reduce intimidation in public life. It has to be a collective job, though, and the Committee on Standards in Public Life was right to ask various organisations, including the social media companies, on which I know the hon. Gentleman does some work with one of his all-party groups, to take action.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
We are addressing this issue through the application of the statutory national minimum wage and the national living wage, based on the advice of the Low Pay Commission. From April, the national living wage will rise again, from £7.83 to £8.21 per hour, handing a full-time worker a further £690 annual pay rise.
Carol Monaghan
The real living wage is £9 an hour, and, in terms of paying it, Scotland is already the best performing part of the UK. Over the next three years, the Scottish Government will be lifting more people— 25,000 more people—out of poverty and on to the real living wage. When will the UK Government follow Scotland’s lead in paying the real living wage, not the bogus national living wage?
Oliver Dowden
I am sorry to hear the hon. Lady referring to the national living wage as bogus. It is a very proud achievement of this Government and it is actually rising faster this year than the real living wage. Over the past three years, since it was introduced, the national living wage has handed the lowest paid workers a pay rise of almost £3,000.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
Our world-leading national cyber-security strategy, supported by £1.9 billion of transformational investment, sets out the steps that we are taking to defend our people, deter our adversaries, and develop the skills and capabilities that we need. Our vision is that, by 2021, the UK is secure and resilient to cyber threats and prosperous and confident in the digital world.
Alex Burghart
I was concerned to read that three quarters of FTSE 350 companies are not aware of the risks associated with businesses in their supply chain, particularly with businesses with which they have no contact. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that their own suppliers understand these vulnerabilities?
Oliver Dowden
As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this very important issue. Companies must do more to understand their supply-chain risks. Our cyber essentials scheme extends our influence to organisations that provide products and services to Government; it specifies standards that will improve their cyber-security. We use contractual arrangements to ensure that they help those in their supply chains, often small companies, to be more secure.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Technology can help deliver public services which are better, smarter, more tailored and put people in control, but that requires investment in people, processes and equipment. The 2017 WannaCry attack on the NHS was a consequence of a lack of investment in all three. What is the Minister doing specifically to give local authorities and other public service deliverers the resources and the skills that they need to ensure secure digital public services?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the challenge of cyber-security, but we have responded to that challenge. That is why we have created the National Cyber Security Centre, funded by £1.9 billion of additional money. On the WannaCry incident, we have learned the lessons since that attack and we are, for example, rolling out Windows 10 across the NHS.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
We know that 43% of businesses experience cyber-security breaches each year and, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), we know that half of all local authorities in England still rely on unsupported server software. We know from the Minister himself that the Government have no idea how many cyber-attacks hit Government. Does the Minister accept that we need a new approach? We need to look at how we foster cultural cyber-change and we need to look at how we put the public good rather than private interest back at the heart of Government cyber strategy.
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Lady says that we have no idea of the level of attacks. I am happy to set out the number for her. We have already managed more than 1,100 major incidents through the National Cyber Security Centre. The national cyber security strategy is delivering, for example, the removal of more than 4.5 million malicious emails every month, and the taking down of 140,000 fraudulent phishing sites. This strategy is bringing together the commercial side and the Government side and it is delivering.
Mr Speaker
We are out of time, but we must hear the question of the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan).
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
The increasing prevalence of intimidation in public life can seriously damage our democracy, as we have already just discussed. The Government are taking a range of actions to tackle this problem, including a consultation on a new electoral offence of intimidating candidates and campaigners.
Nicky Morgan
I thank the Minister very much for that reply. She may have seen the “Exposure” programme broadcast last week, which captured the abuse and threats of death that I have faced, that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) has faced, and that my former right hon. Friend—still a friend—the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), has faced. There was also an excellent response from the Speaker to a point of order that I raised on the matter. Does the Minister agree that the systematic intimidation of MPs in this place on the way they vote should be a real concern to anybody interested in our democracy?
Chloe Smith
Yes, I do agree. The Government have therefore been working closely with the parliamentary security team, the police, administrators and others, because tackling this issue requires action from everyone. It also goes wider than just Members of Parliament. For example, we are helping candidates at the local elections this year to be safer with their home addresses.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman is of course concerned about the implications for intimidation, to which I am sure the question relates.
Chloe Smith
The right hon. Gentleman should know that the Government cannot have such an inquiry because the agencies investigating are independent, and rightly so. I can reassure the House that we have seen no evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes, and that is as we would wish it to be.
Topical Questions
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Minister without Portfolio (Brandon Lewis)
Last week, the Minister for the Constitution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), updated the House on the actions we are taking to tackle the inexcusable intimidation of people in public life. We have legislated so that candidates in local elections have the choice to remove their home addresses from ballot papers. We have consulted on a new electoral offence of intimidatory behaviour. It is vital that everyone in the House works together to prevent such behaviour and address this worrying trend.
Henry Smith
My constituents rightly care about the security of their ballots. May I ask for Crawley to be considered for a future voter ID pilot?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We will be looking carefully at the evaluations from the 2018 pilots and—when they come forward in a few months—the 2019 pilots to help inform our next steps and to shape how the final policy will look when introduced. We can benefit from close collaboration with local authorities, and we would welcome the involvement of Crawley as we progress.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
There have been reports that the Conservative party is preparing to take part in the upcoming European elections. The Opposition have heard that on Monday, there was a telephone conference between the Cabinet Office and regional returning officers, who would run such an election, during which preparations for European elections were discussed. Are the Government saying one thing in public and another in private?
Brandon Lewis
As I said to the hon. Lady’s colleague earlier, she should not believe every rumour she reads in a newspaper or on Twitter. It is simply not true.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point. The Government continue to support that Bill and think it is the right thing to do.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
As the hon. Lady would expect, we keep under review the situation in relation to all our strategic suppliers. I assure her that we take appropriate contingency measures in respect of every strategic supplier.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Oliver Dowden
To date, we have already delivered almost 800 services online on gov.uk. In addition, I regularly engage with ministerial colleagues, principally through the digital implementation task force, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Oliver Dowden
This Government do not support national pay bargaining. It has been a step forward that we tailor pay to the needs of each individual Department. But I engage with all trade unions as we set the overall delegated framework that applies to pay grades below the senior civil service.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend rightly raises the issue of social enterprises. That is why, earlier this week, I made an announcement that we would be consulting on how to allow social enterprises to bid for a range of Government contracts and set out a clear framework for them to do so. I am confident that we will be able to unlock the opportunities of the over 100,000 social enterprises we have in this country.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Chloe Smith
We had a lengthy Westminster Hall debate on this last week. We are considering the Information Commissioner’s report on it, but we think that we are already supplying a lot of transparency on information and that that is adequate.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing our deepest shock and sadness at the news of the air crash in Ethiopia on Sunday. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of all 157 who were on board, including the British nationals who were among the casualties. I have sent a personal message of sympathy to Prime Minister Abiy and extended an offer of UK assistance.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary, who very helpfully offered to teach me sign language. In addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Baron
I am sure all of us concur with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the disaster in Ethiopia.
Many of us recognise the Prime Minister’s efforts to secure a deal, but given that we profitably trade with the majority of the world’s GDP outside the EU on largely World Trade Organisation, no-deal terms, has the time not come to look beyond this remain-dominated Westminster bubble and for all of us to recognise that the default position of our votes to trigger article 50 is that no deal is better than a bad deal, so that we can honour the referendum and leave the EU on 29 March?
The Prime Minister
It may be to the benefit of the House, Mr Speaker, and I am sure that people will recognise this, if I try to keep my answers shorter than usual today. Let me say to my hon. Friend that I want to leave the European Union with a good deal. I believe we have a good deal. Yes, no deal is better than a bad deal, but I have been working for us to leave on 29 March and leave with a good deal.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I absolutely concur with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the disaster of the air crash in Ethiopia, and indeed the earlier crash in Asia that affected the same type of aircraft. I commend the Civil Aviation Authority and the European Union for taking prompt action about the safety of the aircraft concerned. We need to ensure that all air passengers are as safe as they possibly can be.
The Prime Minister has been stubbornly declaring that the only choice is between her deal and no deal. Last night’s vote finished off her deal. Tonight she is not even showing the leadership to whip on no deal. Just a few weeks ago, she whipped her MPs against ruling out no deal. So how will she be voting tonight?
Jeremy Corbyn
Well, there may well be other votes, and the Prime Minister’s Brexit strategy is clearly in tatters. Her deal has been twice rejected and is now dead, and she is not even asking her MPs to support her on it tonight.
A couple of months ago, the Chancellor, who is here today—we will hear from him later—reassured business leaders that the threat of a no-deal Brexit would be taken off the table, while the Business Secretary said that a no-deal Brexit would be “ruinous” to the UK economy. Indeed, the Government’s own forecasts suggest that no deal would knock 10% off the economy, damaging jobs and industry. Why is the Prime Minister still ambivalent about the outcome?
The Prime Minister
I have been working for leaving the EU with a deal. Businesses and business organisations have been clear across the UK that they want MPs to back the deal. Yes, businesses worry about the uncertainty of Brexit, but there is one thing they worry about more, and that is a Corbyn Government.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister does not seem to understand. Her deal has been flatly rejected twice by this House by unprecedented majorities. Even this morning, the CBI said that no deal would be a “sledgehammer” to the economy and went on to say that there has been “no consultation with business”, adding:
“This is no way to run a country.”
The reason the Prime Minister’s deal is now dead is that at every step of the way, she has refused to listen—refused to listen to manufacturers and refused to listen to trade unions about the best way to protect jobs in this country, which is to agree a customs union. Manufacturing is now in recession. Many companies have laid off many workers. Her own deal has been decisively rejected. When will she listen to workers who are concerned about their jobs and to businesses that are concerned about their future and accept that there has to be a negotiated customs union with the EU?
The Prime Minister
The CBI said that the Labour party’s policies would lead to a drop in living standards. That is not very good for the people who the right hon. Gentleman claims to stand up and represent. He talks about a customs union, which of course was part of proposals that he put forward. That is yet another position he has taken. He has moved to being in favour of a second referendum, but I note that last night, he did not actually refer to a second referendum. He has just spoken about a deal involving a customs union—that has already been rejected, and in the past, very often rejected by him.
Jeremy Corbyn
It would be rather reckless for the Prime Minister to rule out any option at the present time, I would have thought. I do not think her answer will help workers at Honda in Swindon, those at Nissan in Sunderland or many others who are very concerned about their future because of the danger to the manufacturing industry.
Britain’s food producers are also in despair. A coalition of UK producers asked the Prime Minister to call for tariff-free access to the single market. With her red lines now in tatters, will she back the view of UK food producers and back close alignment to the single market, to secure their industry? After all, she promised at Chequers that there would be frictionless trade.
The Prime Minister
The deal that we have negotiated includes access to the European Union on the basis of no tariffs. It might help if he had actually read it.
Jeremy Corbyn
Former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), said while campaigning to leave in the referendum—this is not the kind of language I would use—that
“Only a madman would actually leave”
the single market.
The Prime Minister has previously said that we cannot just reject no deal; we need to be for something. With her own deal now so decisively rejected, can the Prime Minister inform us what she is now for? Does she recognise that the Labour alternative—the five pillars we put forward—is the credible show in town, available and ready to be negotiated? Is it not time she moved on from her red lines and faced the reality of the situation she has got herself, her party, this Parliament and this country into?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks about not wanting no deal yet repeatedly votes in a way that brings no deal closer. The deal that he is proposing has been rejected several times by this House. I may not have my own voice, but I do understand the voice of the country. They want—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The House must calm itself. I want to hear what the Prime Minister has to say and what everybody has to say, and it should not be necessary for voices to be raised for a Member to be heard.
The Prime Minister
And that is that people want to leave the EU, they want to end free movement, they want us to have our own trade policy, and they want to ensure laws are made in this country and judged in our courts. That is what the deal delivers, and that is what I continue to work to deliver. The right hon. Gentleman used to believe that too. Why is he just trying to frustrate it?
Jeremy Corbyn
I do have sympathy for the Prime Minister with her voice, and I hope it soon recovers. I understand how painful this is.
The Prime Minister’s deal has failed, and she no longer has the ability to lead. This is a rudderless Government in the face of a huge national crisis. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) recognises it, saying that the Government
“is not fit for purpose. We are not doing what we need to do, which is govern the country properly and effectively.”
Where the Prime Minister has so obviously failed, this House needs to listen to the country—listen to unions, people in work fearful for their future, manufacturers and businesses, workers, European Union citizens who have made such a fantastic contribution to our society and British citizens across Europe who are all facing uncertainty. With jobs and industry at risk and the country in crisis, she needs now to show leadership, so can the Prime Minister tell us exactly what her plan is now?
The Prime Minister
I continue to believe that the House today will have an opportunity to vote on no deal, and it will then have an opportunity tomorrow, depending on how it has voted tonight, to vote on the question of the extension of article 50. As I said last night, there will be hard choices for this House, but this House will need to determine what its view is on the way forward. As far as the Government are concerned, we want to continue to work to leave the European Union. That is what we will deliver for the people on the vote in the referendum. We will continue to work to deliver leaving the European Union, but to deliver leaving the European Union with a good deal.
As for the right hon. Gentleman, he does not agree with Government policy; he does not even agree with Labour party policy. He has nothing to offer this country.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
First, I am sure that Members from across the whole House will want to join me in sending our deepest sympathies and condolences to the family and friends of Jodie. I know there is nothing that we can do or say that is going to ease the pain the family are going through at her loss.
We are very clear that judges must have the powers they need to impose tough sentences on those involved in serious violence and knife crime. The law already provides for a mandatory prison sentence for a second offence of carrying a knife, and conviction of a knife or offensive weapon offence is now more likely to result in some form of custodial sentence—and for longer—than at any point in the last 10 years. Obviously, individual sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts, but we are catching and prosecuting more people who carry a knife, and those who are convicted are now more likely to go to prison and for longer. As I set out in Prime Minister’s questions last week, both I and the Home Secretary are working to see what more we can do to deal with the serious violence and knife crime that has beset so many of our communities.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister on the tragedy in Ethiopia and the tragic loss of life?
On this day, we of course commemorate the sad loss of the 16 young children and their schoolteacher in Dunblane who were cruelly cut down by Thomas Hamilton. The sanctity of young life is something we remember today when we hear the news from the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that his wife Krystle has given birth to their young son, and I am sure the whole House will want to congratulate him.
A no deal will result in unprecedented harm. Does the Prime Minister really want to be the first Prime Minister in history to deliberately plunge the United Kingdom economy into recession?
The Prime Minister
First of all, I am pleased to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and his wife on the birth of their son. I am also sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with the right hon. Gentleman in remembering the terrible loss of young life we saw in Dunblane.
The right hon. Gentleman will of course hear the spring statement from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a short time, and I am pleased to say that it will show the strength of the United Kingdom’s economy, in which Scotland is able to participate as a member of the UK.
Ian Blackford
In 16 days the United Kingdom runs the risk of crashing out of the European Union with no deal, which we know from the Government’s own analysis will crash the economy. Why does the Prime Minister not show some leadership today, do the right thing and whip all her MPs to take no deal off the table on 29 March and forever?
The Prime Minister
You can only take no deal off the table by doing one of two things: either revoke article 50, which means betraying the vote of the referendum; or agree a deal. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to take no deal off the table, he should have voted for the deal.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I fully appreciate the concern that my hon. Friend, our hon. Friend the Member for Romford and others across the House have shown on this issue. The most recent statistics show that 82% of offenders received a custodial sentence for repeat possession offences. Obviously, as I have said, sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts, but the Government regularly look at ensuring that the powers are there to allow tough sentences to be imposed on those involved in knife crime.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I will ensure that Ministers in the Department for Education have heard the hon. Lady’s request, but let me just remind her and Members of the House that the schools budget this year is £42 billion, which is the highest it has ever been—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) usually advocates good and respectful behaviour, which she must now herself exemplify, notwithstanding her passion or insistence upon her point of view, in which she in not exceptional.
The Prime Minister
The schools budget is the highest ever this year, and we have given every local authority more money for every pupil in every school this year.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for the spirit in which they have sought to broker a compromise in this House. The amendment has four propositions. The first is that we should publish our day-one tariff schedules; we have done so this morning. The second is that we should seek to extend the article 50 process; we remain committed to giving the House the opportunity to debate and vote on that tomorrow. The third is that we should unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK; I am pleased to reconfirm that we have done that. The fourth is to seek to negotiate an implementation period in return for a financial payment but without the withdrawal agreement that we have agreed. The EU has made it clear that there will be no agreement without a withdrawal agreement, and that includes what we have already negotiated on citizens’ rights, a financial settlement and a Northern Ireland protocol. The plan that exists and has been agreed is, obviously, the deal that was put to the House and rejected by it last night. As I have said, the EU has made clear that it would not accept elements of what is in the current withdrawal agreement without them being in a withdrawal agreement.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in sending our deepest sympathies and condolences to the families and friends of those affected by that terrible tragedy. I am pleased to say that our health and safety record for mines has improved greatly since 1979. That improvement has resulted from learning from previous incidents such as the Golborne tragedy and preventing as far as possible disasters like it. As the hon. Lady may know, in 2015, following an extensive review, the Mines Regulations 2014 replaced all previous legislation relating to health and safety in underground mines. They provide a comprehensive and simple goal-setting legal framework to ensure that mine operators provide the necessary protection for mine workers and others from what we all accept are inherent hazards in mines. I assure the hon. Lady that we will continue to review safety regulations so that we can make sure that a tragedy like this never happens again.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Obviously we continue to work to leave in an orderly fashion with a deal, but we have made funding available and it is being used to make sure that we have preparations for a no deal.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I continue to believe, as I have said in this House before, that the best route out of poverty is through work. The hon. Lady refers to figures that I quote. I also quote figures, which I have to say are very important for this House, regarding the reduction in the number of children living in workless households. There is very clear evidence of the advantages of children being brought up in a house in which there is work. Universal credit is encouraging work. It is delivering on ensuring that we see more people in work and able to provide for their families.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and for bringing her successful experience as an entrepreneur to the House. I am happy to join her in welcoming Alison Rose’s review. We are setting out our ambition to increase the number of female entrepreneurs by half by 2030 in various ways. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), will sponsor an industry-led taskforce alongside Treasury Ministers that will drive forward work to encourage greater investment in female entrepreneurs by all types of finance providers, including the banks.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I set out last week steps the Government are taking to increase our work on knife crime. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met the west midlands chief constable at the end of last week to discuss policing there. The hon. Lady refers to decisions taken by the Government in 2010. Yes, those were tough decisions in terms of public sector funding, but they were taken because of the appalling circumstances of the economy left by Labour.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) is about to namecheck his mother, an admirable woman—a former teacher and, in my view very importantly, my constituent.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I was tempted to start by saying that I suspect his mother and I were at the school at a different time—[Interruption.] Oh, he says it is true. Good.
I recognise that we have asked schools to do more. We have responded with £1.3 billion extra investment in our schools this year and next, so the core schools budget will rise by around £2.6 billion in total, and the Government are protecting overall per-pupil funding in real terms. Every school is attracting at least 1% more per pupil by next year, and thousands of schools will attract significantly larger gains of up to 3% per pupil per year.
That investment will mean more children having the chance of a better future, but the quality of education also matters. I commend my hon. Friend’s mother, who I understand was a teacher, for the work she has done in education. I say thanks from the whole House to all our teachers up and down the country for the work they are doing in education.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am sure that everybody across the House sends their sympathies and concerns to the family of Maryam. We recognise that this must be an incredibly difficult time. Decisions on such matters are rightly taken not by politicians but by clinicians. I understand that the hon. Lady recently met my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, and as she says, NICE considered the relevant information and recommendations at its appraisal committee meeting on 6 March. It is right, however, that the benefits and evidence in relation to new medicines be properly considered by the experts and clinicians in the field. The Department of Health and Social Care is working with NICE on this issue.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
My constituent Nicola Morgan-Dingley is a wife and mum. She was just 36 when she was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, the most virulent form, and, sadly, at 38, she has a terminal diagnosis. Nicola has asked me to ask three things today. First, will the Prime Minister consider publicising the fact that women should never miss a mammogram and the importance of attending? Secondly, will she consider lowering the age at which women can seek a mammogram so that more women are not missed out? Thirdly, there are some immunotherapy trials taking place across the country that could offer a lifeline to Nicola. Will she consider expanding those trials so that Nicola can get the help that could save her life?
The Prime Minister
I am sure the whole House shares my hon. Friend’s concern for his constituent Nicola. Our sympathies are with her and her family and friends. She asked about three things. On the age at which a screening becomes available or is required, that matter has been considered previously and I am sure will be considered again as part of the long-term plan, but I understand that the decision is based on the evidence of the benefits of screenings at certain ages.
My hon. Friend referenced immunotherapy. To date, the National Institute for Health Research has delivered 64 studies of immunotherapy for women with breast cancer, 28 studies are being opened up to recruitment and 14 studies are currently in set-up, but I will ask the Department to respond to him on the specific case of his constituent. On the third point, Nicola is absolutely right. I would urge all women to attend their mammogram appointments—they are vital: they could save your life.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman heard my response earlier. We are putting more money into our schools and ensuring that overall per-pupil funding is protected. Yes, we have asked schools to do more, and I recognise the pressures on them, but the Government have responded with more funding.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I call Mr David Duguid. No? He previously signalled an interest, and I was trying to accommodate him, but never mind.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
If my right hon. Friend had been elected leader of the Labour party, would she be allowing a free vote this evening?
The Prime Minister
There are passionately held views and differences of opinion on this issue, and I think it would be of benefit to the House if there were a free vote across the House.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I send my deepest sympathies to all those who work in, and indeed who visit, the observatory. As the right hon. Gentleman says, the fire will have been devastating for the local community. I also offer my praise to the local fire and coastguard services for all their efforts in bringing the blaze under control. I understand that investigations to establish the cause are ongoing. The right hon. Gentleman’s question gives me an opportunity also to thank the firefighters who dealt with a fire in my own constituency of Maidenhead yesterday, in the town centre.
I understand that the building to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred was comprehensively insured and the owners are not seeking additional funding at this time, but I will ask a Minister from the Scotland Office to meet the right hon. Gentleman to see whether any further support could be provided.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On 29 January, the House—including virtually the entire Conservative party, Brexiteers and remainers alike—voted for the Brady amendment, with the strong encouragement of the Government. The amendment was designed to facilitate the so-called Malthouse compromise. We do not yet have the Speaker’s selection of amendments for the debate, Prime Minister, but if he is minded to select amendment (f)—which is the Malthouse compromise—one, will there be a free vote, and two, how will you personally vote on it?
The Prime Minister
I referred to the elements of that amendment, which refers to one part of what became known as the Malthouse compromise, in response to an earlier question from one of my hon. Friends. As I said, the Government have already addressed some of those issues. However, my right hon. Friend referred to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). That was about alternative arrangements replacing the backstop, and my hon. Friend also indicated other ways in which concern about the backstop could be dealt with. What we have agreed with the European Union, in a legally binding character, is that commitment to ensuring that alternative arrangements are indeed available by the end of December 2020, so that they can do what that amendment required and replace the backstop.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this appalling case, and our thoughts and sympathies are with Ms Whiting’s family at this time. As he said, it has been identified that there were mistakes in the handling of her case. The Department has apologised for its failings, and is providing compensation for the family. That, of course, can never bring Ms Whiting back.
The point that the hon. Gentleman made is that we need to learn from this case, and that is why the Department is looking at it to ensure that we never see such failings happening again and leading to such a tragic consequence.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Prime Minister has rightly made it a priority to deliver more homes, so will she welcome the great work of pro-growth Rugby Borough Council? It is currently providing new homes at more than three times the UK average rate: 739 were built last year and 860 are now under way, with four house builders at Houlton.
The Prime Minister
I am happy to commend the work of my hon. Friend’s local council in providing more homes, which is very important. I am also pleased that last year, under this Government, more homes were built than in any of the last 30 years bar one. That is a record of which we should be proud, and obviously the hon. Gentleman’s council is very helpfully contributing to it. I am sure that it will continue to help to meet the real need to ensure that we have sufficient homes for families up and down the country.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
You will know, Mr Speaker, that West Dunbartonshire has two notable anniversaries this week. First, today is the 78th anniversary of proportionally the worst aerial bombardment in the history of the United Kingdom, the Clydebank blitz, and I am sure the Prime Minister will wish to be the first ever British Prime Minister to note it. Secondly, on Monday my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal will have been incarcerated for 500 days without trial and has suffered trial by media—sanctioned, some would say, by the Indian state. I appreciate that Ministers are working very hard, but can the Prime Minister now say this to their own Foreign Secretary: no guilt has yet been established and there has been no trial, so why will Ministers not meet with myself as the constituency MP and the family to hear what impact this incarceration is having on them?
The Prime Minister
First, I recognise the point the hon. Gentleman made about the aerial bombardment all those many years ago and the impact that had on the local community.
On the specific case, Ministers are dealing with this; they have been actively involved in it. Obviously the Foreign Secretary has heard the hon. Gentleman’s request for a specific meeting; I believe one of the Ministers is dealing with this case and will, I am sure, be pleased to meet with him.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
The media have started calling this place a failing Parliament; there was nothing failing about this place three weeks ago when we unanimously voted to protect the rights of citizens—British and EU nationals here. Aside from the letter the Secretary of State has written to Michel Barnier, can the Prime Minister update this House on what she has personally done? For example, has she phoned Merkel or Macron or President Tusk to help protect British citizens in the EU and EU nationals here?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I have spoken to a number of EU leaders about the desire that we have for UK citizens in their countries to be fully protected were there a no deal, and to be protected on a reciprocal basis. Some countries have already published legislation; we want to make sure that the basis on which they are providing guarantees for UK citizens is the same as the basis on which we are providing guarantees for EU citizens here.
Petition
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition signed by 1,183 residents of Heywood and Middleton. The Post Office recently announced a plan to close 74 Crown post offices, including the Middleton post office in my constituency, and to franchise the services to branches of WHSmith. That will put jobs at risk, affect quality of service and accessibility, and have a negative effect on Middleton town centre. In addition, there is uncertainty about the future of WHSmith itself, which has recently announced the closure of some of its high street stores. It is a huge risk to relocate post office services into a business that is closing stores and may lose more.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government and Post Office Ltd to keep Middleton Crown Post Office open at its current location.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of Heywood and Middleton,
Declares that Crown Post Offices provide a vital service to their communities; further that the Post Office propose to close the Middleton Crown Post Office and to franchise the service to a local branch of WH Smith; further that there is concern that this will adversely affect jobs, quality of service, and accessibility, and have a negative impact on Middleton town centre; and further that a local paper petition and online petition on this matter has received signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government and Post Office Ltd to keep Middleton Crown Post Office open at its current location.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002438]
Spring Statement
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
I am acutely conscious of the fact that the House has other pressing matters on its mind today, and to avoid making this statement any longer than necessary, I am tabling a written ministerial statement that contains additional announcements and provides further details of those that I will make.
Last night’s vote leaves a cloud of uncertainty hanging over our economy, and our most urgent task in this House is to lift that uncertainty. But the economy itself is remarkably robust: it has grown for nine consecutive years, with the longest unbroken quarterly growth run of any G7 economy, and is forecast to continue growing in each of the next five years. It is an economy that has created over 3.5 million net new jobs under Conservative-led government, that has almost halved Labour’s shocking legacy of youth unemployment, that has seen female participation in the workforce increase to record levels and that is now delivering the fastest rate of wage growth in over a decade.
It is an economy that has defied expectations and will provide the solid foundation that Britain needs to seize the opportunities that the future offers—a far cry from the eight recessions and mass unemployment predicted by the House’s very own Nostradamus over there, the shadow Chancellor. Perhaps he is not so much an astronomer as a man living in a parallel universe.
And thanks to the difficult decisions that we have taken in the past nine years and the hard work of the British people, I can also report today on public finances that continue to improve, so that, provided we do reach a deal to leave the European Union with an orderly transition and provided we avoid the disaster of a Government led by those now on the Opposition Front Bench, this country for the first time in a decade will have genuine and sustainable choices about its future.
Today’s Office for Budget Responsibility report marks another step on Britain’s journey out of austerity, and I should like to thank Robert Chote and his team for their work. Despite the slowing world economy, the OBR expects Britain to continue to grow in every year of the forecast: at 1.2% this year, with both the International Monetary Fund and the OECD forecasting the UK to grow faster than Germany; then 1.4% in 2020, as forecast at the Budget; and 1.6% in each of the final three years. This represents cumulative growth over the five years now slightly higher than the Budget forecast.
Meanwhile, Britain’s remarkable jobs story is set to continue. By 2023, the OBR expects to see 600,000 more new jobs in our economy. Despite the constant attempts from those on the Opposition Front Bench to talk down our remarkable achievement on jobs, the fact is that last year 96% of new jobs were full time. There is positive news on pay too, with the OBR revising up wage growth to 3% or higher in every year. With inflation now around the target throughout the forecast period, that means real wage growth in every year of the forecast. A growing economy, a thriving labour market and inflation on target—a solid foundation on which to build Britain’s future.
There is good news on the public finances as well. Borrowing this year will be just 1.1% of GDP—£3 billion lower than forecast at the autumn Budget—and a staggering £130 billion lower than in the last year of the Labour Government. But what is really staggering is that the shadow Chancellor’s critique of that Government was that they did not spend enough. Looking forward, borrowing will fall from £29.3 billion in 2019-20, then £21.2 billion, £17.6 billion, £14.4 billion and finally £13.5 billion in 2023-24—its lowest level in 22 years.
We remain on track to meet both our fiscal targets early, with the cyclically adjusted deficit at 1.3% next year, falling to just 0.5% by 2023-24, and with headroom against our fiscal mandate in 2020-21 increasing from £15.4 billion at the autumn Budget to £26.6 billion today. Less borrowing means less debt—now lower in every year than forecast at the Budget, falling to 82.2% of GDP next year, then 79%, 74.9%, 74%, and finally 73% in 2023-24. Our national debt is falling sustainably for the first time in a generation. This is a major milestone on the road out of the crisis we inherited from Labour, and a key dividing line today between a shadow Chancellor whose plans would send debt soaring above 100% of GDP and a Conservative Government committed to delivering world-class public services and keeping our national debt falling.
Since 2010, we have been steering the country on a journey of recovery from Labour’s recession. Back then, the most important task was to get borrowing down to manageable levels. But when I became Chancellor in 2016 I recognised that, with the progress we had already made, as well as getting Britain’s debt down, our continued success as a nation would depend on investing in our future, supporting our vital public services and keeping taxes low to attract talent and investment. I called it a “balanced approach”, and it is delivering, with the highest sustained levels of public capital investment in 40 years, cuts in income tax for more than 30 million people in three weeks’ time—cuts that Labour voted against—and debt on a sustained downward path for the first time in a generation.
I have made over £150 billion of new spending commitments since 2016, and I announced at the Budget that the long, but necessary, squeeze on current public spending would come to an end at the upcoming spending review, setting out an indicative five-year path of 1.2% per annum real-terms increases in day-to-day spending on public services compared with real-terms cuts of 3% per annum announced at SR 2010 and 1.3% at SR 2015. We have made our biggest choice on public spending to put the NHS first in line, as the British public would expect, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s announcement of £34 billion of additional funding per year by the end of the period—the single largest cash commitment ever made by a peacetime British Government—to support our long-term plan for the NHS. It will deliver improved cancer and mental healthcare, a transformation of GP services, more doctors, more nurses and better outcomes for patients.
Now we need to address wider departmental spending for the next review period. I can confirm today that, assuming a Brexit deal is agreed over the next few weeks and that the uncertainty that is hanging over our economy is lifted, I intend to launch a full three-year spending review before the summer recess, to be concluded alongside an autumn Budget. It will set departmental budgets beyond the NHS to reflect the public’s priorities between areas such as social care, local government, schools, police, defence and the environment, and it will maximise value for taxpayers’ money through a renewed focus on high-quality outcomes.
If we leave the EU with a deal and an orderly transition to a future economic partnership, we will see a deal dividend: an economic boost from recovery in business confidence and investment, and a fiscal boost from a reduction in the minimum necessary level of fiscal headroom once the risk of a no-deal exit is removed. That will give the nation real choices as we use the spending review to decide how much of the deal dividend we can prudently release, and how we would share it between increased spending on public services, capital investment in Britain’s future prosperity and keeping taxes low, while always continuing to keep debt falling. Real-terms increases in public spending, record investment in Britain’s future, more jobs than ever before, higher wages and lower taxes, meaning increased take-home pay, and, for the first time in a generation, our debt going down—that is what I mean by an end to austerity delivered by a Conservative Government.
The progress that we have made will be at risk if we cannot secure a smooth and orderly exit from the EU and a transition to a new partnership that protects the complex trading relationships that businesses have built up over 45 years and on which so many British jobs depend. I had hoped that we would do that last night, but I am confident that we, as a House, will do it over the coming weeks. Leaving with no deal would mean significant disruption in the short and medium term and a smaller, less prosperous economy in the long term than if we leave with a deal. Higher unemployment, lower wages and higher prices in the shops are not what the British people voted for in June 2016. That is why we all have a solemn duty in the days and weeks ahead to put aside our differences and seek a compromise on which this House can agree in the national interest.
The Government also have a duty to plan for every reasonably foreseeable contingency, and we have done so. First, we have plans in place to minimise disruption to our financial system, and the Bank of England judges that it is resilient to any likely no-deal shock. Secondly, we have worked across Whitehall to put in place mitigations at our border, although we cannot regulate how the EU will operate its border following a no-deal exit. Thirdly, we have published today our temporary UK no-deal tariff schedule, carefully balancing the needs of producers and consumers in the context of the pressures that the no-deal economy would face. Fourthly, the Treasury and the Bank of England together have all the tools of fiscal and monetary policy available to us, including the fiscal headroom I have held in reserve.
I need to be straight with the House: a no-deal Brexit would deliver a significant short to medium-term reduction in the productive capacity of the British economy. Our economy is operating at near full capacity, so any fiscal and monetary response would have to be carefully calibrated not to simply cause inflation, compounding the effect of any movement in the exchange rate on the price of goods in our shops. While fiscal and monetary intervention might help to smooth our path to a post-Brexit economy, both could only be temporary and neither would allow us to avoid the effects of a relatively smaller economy nor the pain of restructuring. The idea that there is some simple, readily available fix that can be deployed to avoid the consequences of a no-deal Brexit is, I am afraid, just wrong.
I am confident that we are going to do a deal, and when we do, the British people will fully expect us to fire up our economic plan to seize the opportunities as confidence in our economy returns, but it is not just the spectre of uncertainty that we need to overcome to restore confidence and unlock a brighter future, because while we Conservatives will always be the party of business, and small business especially, the shadow Chancellor identifies business as “the enemy”. A Government led by the Leader of the Opposition would
“chill the very marrow of our economy, destroying jobs and stifling innovation”.
Those are not my words, but those of the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), a former member of the Labour party, and she is right.
Our task is to demonstrate to the British people that, working with business through the mechanism of a well-regulated market economy, our plan will deliver a brighter future for them, so that they are never ever tempted by the empty promises and dangerous rhetoric of Opposition Front Benchers. The plan will make the most of the opportunities ahead as we make our own way independent from, but in continuing partnership with, the European Union. It will embrace the technologies of the future and equip British workers to use them, back the enterprise and ambition of British business, support our world-leading entrepreneurs, creators, innovators, inventors and discoverers, and build on the UK’s fundamental strengths and competitive advantages so that we can slay, once and for, all the twin demons of low productivity and low wages and build an economy that works for everyone.
The only sustainable path to higher wages and rising living standards is to boost productivity. To do that, we are investing in infrastructure, skills, technology and housing under our plan for Britain’s future, with £37 billion in the national productivity investment fund, the largest ever investment in England’s strategic roads, the biggest rail investment programme since Victorian times and a strategy for delivering a nationwide full-fibre network by 2033. At SR 2019, we will set multi-year capital budgets following a zero-based review, protecting our record levels of capital spending, while ensuring that investment is focused to deliver the greatest impact on productivity.
Our investment strategy is benefiting the whole the UK. I can announce today up to £260 million for the innovative borderlands growth deal, covering the border regions of England and Scotland, which comes on top of the £100 million housing infrastructure funding already announced for Carlisle. Negotiations are progressing on future deals for mid-Wales and Derry/Londonderry, and I reiterate our commitment to the Northern Powerhouse Rail project and look forward to considering Transport for the North’s business case ahead of the spending review. We will publish the updated national infrastructure strategy alongside the spending review, and I am publishing today a consultation on our approach to supporting private infrastructure investment once we leave the European Investment Bank and now that we have retired Labour’s discredited private finance initiative.
Raising our productivity is not just about investing in physical capital—it is also about investing in people. The Augar review will be published shortly and will represent an important contribution to our overall plan for post-18 education. The Government will respond later in the year. We are committed to returning technical and vocational skills to the heart of our education system, with the new T-level system on track to deliver the first three routes in 2020; the first phase of the national retraining scheme starting this summer; and the apprenticeship programme rolling out 3 million new high-quality apprenticeships. To help small businesses take on more apprentices, I can announce that I am bringing forward the £700 million package of reforms that I announced at the Budget to the start of the new financial year in April.
The productivity agenda is above all about increasing the wages of the lowest paid, and the pay of a full-timer on the national minimum wage has risen by £2,750 a year since 2016. We have confirmed the Low Pay Commission’s remit for the national living wage to reach 60% of median earnings by 2020, but later this year we will need to set a new remit beyond 2020. We want to be ambitious, driving productivity across the income distribution, with the ultimate objective of ending low pay in the UK.
We also want to take care to protect employment opportunities for lower-paid workers, so we have asked Professor Arin Dube, a world-leading expert in the field, to undertake a review of the international evidence on the employment and productivity effects of minimum wage rates. This study will support the extensive discussions that we will have with employer organisations, trade unions and the LPC itself over the coming months, starting with a roundtable that I will chair next month. While the Opposition Front Bench grandstands, this Conservative Government are delivering sustainable pay rises for millions of British workers.
Alongside our commitment to giving British workers the skills that they need is a commitment to maintaining the openness of our economy to talent from around the world. As we leave the EU, free movement of people will end, and we will take back control of our borders. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set out a framework for a future immigration system in the immigration White Paper, focused on attracting those with the skills we need in the UK economy, no matter where they come from. We have committed to consulting business to ensure that the new system supports the needs of our economy, and as we do so, I can announce that from June we will begin to abolish the need for paper landing cards at UK points of entry and we will allow citizens of the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Singapore and South Korea to start using e-gates at our airports and Eurostar terminals, alongside the EEA nationals who can already use them. Our ambition is to be able to go further in due course—a signal to the world of our commitment to global Britain.
Another key pillar of our plan is backing Britain to remain at the forefront of the technology revolution that is transforming our economy, and to support that ambition from this autumn we will completely exempt PhD-level roles from the visa caps. Since 2016, we have launched our modern industrial strategy and committed an additional £7 billion to science and innovation—clear progress towards our target of total research and development spending reaching 2.4% of the economy.
But technology does not stand still, and neither can we. To maintain the UK’s technological edge, we will invest £79 million in ARCHER 2, a new supercomputer to be hosted at Edinburgh University. I am told that it is up to five times faster than the current generation of supercomputers, capable of a staggering 10,000 trillion calculations per second. I am told that with the right algorithms it might even be able to come up with a solution to the backstop.
I am allocating £45 million of the northern powerhouse investment fund to the European Bioinformatics Institute, ensuring Britain’s continued lead in genomics research. I will guarantee our commitment to the UK’s funding for the JET—Joint European Torus—nuclear fusion reactor, whatever happens with Brexit, and invest £81 million in a new extreme photonics centre in Oxfordshire to develop new types of laser— literally the cutting edge of technology. [Hon. Members: “Oh!] Sorry about that.
The digital economy presents enormous opportunities, but enormous challenges as well. I have already responded to concerns about unfairness in the tax system with a new digital services tax so that digital platform companies pay their fair share, but we also need to adapt our regulatory environment to ensure that competition works for consumers in the digital marketplace, as it does in the real marketplace. I asked Professor Jason Furman, Barack Obama’s former chief economist, to review competition in the digital market. I welcome his report, published today, in which he sets out far-reaching recommendations, including new powers for consumers and an overhaul of competition regulation, updating our regulatory model for the digital age. As a first step towards implementing reforms, I am asking the Competition and Markets Authority to undertake a market study of the digital advertising market as soon as possible.
The UK will remain a great place to do digital business, but it will be a place where successful global tech giants pay their fair share, where competition policy works in consumers’ interests, and where the public are protected from online harms. Under this Government, Britain will lead the world in delivering a digital economy that works for everyone.
We on this side of the House, and many on the Opposition Back Benches, understand that a well-regulated market economy is the best—indeed, the only—way to deliver a brighter future for our country. Our challenge is to demonstrate to the next generation that our market economy can fulfil their aspirations and speak to their values, so before I finish I want to talk about two subjects dear to them: housing and the environment. Last year, housing delivery exceeded 220,000 additional homes—the highest level in all but one of the past 31 years. Our ambitious plan to restore the dream of home ownership to millions of younger people is already delivering: planning reform to release land in areas where the pressure is greatest; a five-year, £44 billion housing programme to help raise annual housing supply to 300,000 by the mid-2020s; the Help to Buy equity loan scheme; and the abolition of stamp duty for first-time buyers, which has so far helped 240,000 people on to the property ladder and restored the proportion of first-time buyers to above 50% for the first time in a generation.
Today I can announce a new £3 billion affordable homes guarantee scheme, to support the delivery of around 30,000 affordable homes; the launch next month of the £1 billion Enable Build SME guarantee fund that I announced at Budget; and £717 million from the housing infrastructure fund to unlock up to 37,000 new homes on sites in west London, Cheshire, Didcot, and Cambridge, the last two being at opposite ends of the Oxford-Cambridge arc, for which I am publishing a new vision statement today.
As with the challenge of adapting to the digital age, so with the challenge of shaping the carbon-neutral economy of the future. We must apply the creativity of the marketplace to deliver solutions to one of the most complex problems of our time—climate change—and build sustainability into the heart of our economic model.
The UK is already leading the world, reducing the carbon intensity of our economy faster than any other G20 country, with ambitious and legally binding targets for the future. Today I can announce our next steps: first, we will publish a call for evidence on whether all passenger carriers should be required to offer genuinely additional carbon offsets, so that customers who want “zero-carbon travel” have that option and can be confident about additionality; secondly, we will help small businesses cut their carbon emissions and their energy bills, publishing today a call for evidence on the business energy efficiency scheme that I announced at the Budget; thirdly, we will publish proposals to require an increased proportion of green gas in the grid, advancing the decarbonisation of our mains gas supply; and, finally, we will introduce a future homes standard, mandating the end of fossil-fuel heating systems in all new houses from 2025, delivering lower carbon and lower fuel bills, too.
Climate change is not our only environmental challenge. We are already consulting on new tax and regulatory measures to tackle the scourge of plastic waste defacing our countryside and choking our oceans. Now, for the first time in 60 million years, the number of species worldwide is in sustained mass decline. The UK’s 1,500 species of pollinators deliver an estimated £680 million of annual value to the economy, so there is an economic, as well as environmental, case for protecting the diversity of the natural world. So, following consultation, the Government will use the forthcoming environment Bill to mandate biodiversity net gain for development in England, ensuring that the delivery of much needed infrastructure and housing is not at the expense of vital biodiversity.
But this is a global problem, so later this year, the UK Government will launch a comprehensive global review of the link between biodiversity and economic growth. This is to be led by Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, Emeritus Professor of Economics at Cambridge. We in this House should be proud that the UK, with its overseas territories, has already declared more than 3 million sq km of marine protected area. Today, I can announce our intention to designate a further 445,000 sq km of ocean around Ascension Island as a marine protected area. This Conservative Government are taking action today on our pledge to be the first in history to leave our environment in a better condition than we found it.
Before I conclude, I have three further short announcements to make. First, in response to a rising concern among headteachers that some girls are missing school attendance due to an inability to afford sanitary products, I have decided to fund the provision of free sanitary products in secondary schools and colleges in England from the next school year. I congratulate those hon. Members, in all parts of the House, who have campaigned on this issue, and my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary will announce further details in due course.
Secondly, I announced a year ago that we would take definitive action to tackle the scourge of late payments for our small businesses. A full response to last year’s call for evidence will be published shortly, but I can announce today that as a first step we will require company audit committees to review payment practices and report on them in their annual accounts. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will announce further details in due course, and I congratulate the Federation of Small Businesses, in particular, on its tireless campaign on this issue.
Thirdly, the recent surge in knife crime represents a personal tragedy for the scores of families of victims, and I know I speak for the whole House when I offer my deepest sympathies to them. We must, and we will, stamp out this menace. Police funding is due to rise by up to £970 million from April. Many police and crime commissioners have already committed to using this extra funding to recruit and train extra police officers, but that takes time and action is needed now. So the Prime Minister and I have decided, exceptionally, to make available immediately to police forces in England an additional £100 million over the course of the next year, ring-fenced to pay for additional overtime targeted specifically on knife crime, and for new violent crime reduction units, to deliver a wider cross-agency response to this epidemic. Ahead of the spending review, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will work with the police to consider how best to prioritise resources going forward, including newly funded manpower, to ensure a lasting solution to this problem.
To be frank, last night’s events mean we are not where I hoped we would be today. Our economy is fundamentally robust, but the uncertainty that I hoped we would lift last night still hangs over it. We cannot allow that to continue. It is damaging our economy, and it is damaging our standing and reputation in the world. Tonight, we have a choice: we can remove the threat of an imminent no-deal exit hanging over our economy. Tomorrow, we will have the opportunity to start to map out a way forward, towards building a consensus across this House for a deal we can, collectively, support, to exit the EU in an orderly way and to a future relationship that will allow Britain to flourish, protecting jobs and businesses. We have huge opportunities ahead of us: our capital is the world’s financial centre; our universities are global powerhouses of discovery and invention; our businesses are at the cutting edge of the tech revolution; and we have shown that we are not shy, as a nation, of the tasks that lie ahead.
We are addressing the environmental challenges that threaten our planet; we are building the homes that the next generation desperately need; and we are investing in our future, tackling the productivity gap and embracing technological change—rising to its challenges and seizing its opportunities. Our potential is clear. Our advantages are manifest. We are the fifth largest economy in the world. We are a proud, successful, outward-looking nation, with no limit to our ambition and no boundaries to what we can achieve. A brighter future is within our grasp. Tonight, let’s take a decisive step towards seizing it and building a Britain fit for the future—a Britain the next generation will be proud to call their home. I commend this statement to the House.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Let me thank the Chancellor for providing me with an early sight of his statement, no matter how heavily redacted. We have just witnessed a display by the Chancellor of this Government’s toxic mix of callous complacency over austerity and their grotesque incompetence over the handling of Brexit. While teachers are having to pay for the materials their pupils need, and working parents are struggling to manage as schools close early and their children are sent home, and as 5,000 of our fellow citizens will be sleeping in the cold and wet on our streets tonight, and young people are being stabbed to death in rising numbers, the Chancellor turns up today with no real end to or reversal of austerity. He threatens us—because this is what he means—saying that austerity can end only if we accept this Government’s bad deal over Brexit.
Let us look at some of the claims this Chancellor has made. He has boasted about the OBR forecast of 1.2% growth this year, but what he has not mentioned is that this has been downgraded from 1.6%. Downgrading forecasts is a pattern under this Chancellor. In November 2016, forecasts for the following year were downgraded from 2.2% to 1.4%. In autumn 2017, forecasts for the following year were downgraded from 1.6% to 1.4%. Economists are warning that what little growth there is in the economy is largely being sustained by consumption, based on high levels of household debt.
On the public finances, the Chancellor boasts about bringing down debt. Let me remind him that when Labour left office—having had to bail out his friends in the City, many of them Tory donors—the nation’s debt stood at £1 trillion. The Government have borrowed for failure and added another three quarters of a trillion to the debt since then. That is more than any Labour Government ever.
The Chancellor boasts about the deficit; he has not eliminated the deficit, as we were promised by 2015. He has simply shifted it on to the shoulders of headteachers, NHS managers, local councillors and police commissioners, and worst of all on to the backs of many of the poorest in our society. The consequences are stark: infant mortality has increased, life expectancy has reduced and yes, our communities are less safe. Police budgets have faced a £2.7 billion cut since 2010. Nothing that the Chancellor said today will make up for the human and economic consequences of those cuts.
The Chancellor talks about a balanced approach; there is nothing balanced about a Government giving over £110 billion of tax cuts to the rich and corporations while 87 people a day die before they receive the care they need. The number of children coming into care has increased every year for nine years. Benefit freezes and the roll-out of universal credit are forcing people into food banks in order to survive. Let me give the Chancellor a quote:
“Sending a message to the poorest and most vulnerable in our society that we do not care”.—[Official Report, 20 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 876.]
That was the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) referring to the cuts to tax credits in 2015.
The number of pensioners now officially living in severe poverty, in the fifth largest economy in the world, has reached 1 million. We have a Government condemned by the UN for inflicting destitution on its own citizens. There is nothing balanced about the Government’s investment across the country. There is nothing balanced about a Government investing more than £4,000 per head for transport in London and only £1,600 per head in the north. There is nothing balanced about the fact that a male child born in Kensington in Liverpool can expect to live 18 years less than a child born in Kensington and Chelsea.
On employment and wages, this is the Government who have broken the historic link between securing a job and lifting yourself out of poverty. The Chancellor has referred to a “remarkable jobs story”; what is remarkable is that this Government have created a large-scale jobs market of low pay, long hours and precarious work. More than 2.5 million people out there are working below 15 hours a week. Some 3.8 million people are in insecure work. The Chancellor talks about pay; average wages are still below the level of 10 years ago. So it is hardly surprising that 4.5 million children are living in poverty, with nearly two thirds of them in households where someone is in work.
The Chancellor has bragged about his record on youth unemployment. Let us be clear: youth unemployment is 7% higher than the national average, it is higher than the OECD average, and it is at appalling levels for some communities. Some 26% of young black people are unemployed and 23% of young people from a Bangladeshi or Pakistani background are unemployed.
The Chancellor has claimed an advance with regard to women’s unemployment. What he does not say is that women make up 73% of those in part-time employment and are disproportionately affected by precarious work. Let me give one example: by 2020, the income of single mothers will have fallen by 18% since 2010. According to the much-respected Women’s Budget Group, women are facing the highest pay gap for full-time employees since 1999. All that on his watch.
On infrastructure and housing, the Chancellor has been claiming that he is on the way to delivering record sustained levels of investment. Let us be clear: he is talking about wish lists; he is not talking about what the Conservatives have actually done. The UK ranks close to the bottom of OECD countries for public investment. We are 24th out of 32 countries, according to analysis done by the Trades Union Congress.
The Chancellor describes
“the biggest rail investment programme since Victorian times.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 667.]
Well, tell that to the people who faced the timetabling chaos of last year. Tell that to the rail passengers who have to deal with the incomparable incompetence of the Secretary of State for Transport.
The Chancellor has been hailing his announcement of a national infrastructure strategy. Let me remind the House that the Government announced a national infrastructure delivery plan for 2016 to 2021, and then announced a national infrastructure and construction pipeline. So, there are plans, pipelines and strategies, yet today he announced another review of the financing mechanisms, but no real action to deliver for our businesses and communities. The Institute for Government described this Government’s decisions on infrastructure as
“inconsistent and subject to constant change.”
The Chancellor made announcements on housing, again. Let us hope he has learned the lessons of the Government’s recent initiatives, which have driven profits of companies such as Persimmon to over £1 billion, with bosses’ bonuses at more than £100 million.
The Chancellor has some cheek to speak about technical and vocational skills: almost a quarter of all funding to further and adult education has been cut since 2010. The number of people starting apprenticeships has fallen by 26%.
On research and development, this Government have slashed capital funding for science across all departments by 50%.
Unlike at the Budget, the Chancellor has at last actually referred to climate change. The review of biodiversity he mentioned might, hopefully, show that the budget of Natural England, the body responsible for biodiversity in England, has more than halved over a decade. A review of carbon offsets might reveal that they do not reduce emissions, and that offsetting schemes such as the clean development mechanism have been beset by gaming and fraud. This from a Government who removed the climate change levy exemption for renewables; scrapped the feed-in tariffs for new small-scale renewable generation; and cancelled the zero-carbon homes policy. Gordon Brown pledged a zero-carbon homes policy standard. We endorsed it and celebrated it; the Tories scrapped it in 2015, just one year before it fully came into force.
Of course, Brexit looms large over everything we discuss. Even today, the Chancellor has tried to use the bribe of a double-deal dividend or the threat of postponing the spending review to cajole MPs into voting for the Government’s deal. What we are seeing is not a double dividend; we are seeing Brexit bankruptcies as a result of the delay in the negotiations. The publication of the tariffs this morning was clearly part of this threatening strategy. It is a calamitous strategy. It is forcing people into intransigent corners rather than bringing them together.
What we need now is for the Chancellor to stand with us today and vote to take no deal off the table; to stand up in Cabinet against those who are trying to force us into a no-deal situation; and then, yes, to come and join us to discuss the options available, including Labour’s deal proposal and yes, if required, taking any deal back to the public.
Outside this Westminster bubble, outside the narrow wealthy circles in which the Chancellor moves, nine years of hard austerity have created nine years of hardship for our constituents. Today, and in recent times, the Chancellor has had the nerve to try to argue to those who have suffered the most at the hands of this Government that their suffering was necessary. If austerity was not ideological, why has money been found for tax cuts for big corporations while vital public services have been starved of funding? Austerity was never a necessity; it was always a political choice. So when the Chancellor stands there and talks about the end of austerity and about a plan for a brighter future, how can anyone who has lived through the past nine years believe him?
This Government have demonstrated a chilling ability to disregard completely the suffering that they have caused. To talk of changing direction after nine years in office is not only impossible to believe, but much too late. It is too late for the thousands who have died while waiting for a decision on their personal independence payments; too late for the families who have lost their homes due to cuts in housing benefit; too late, yes, for the young people who have lost their lives as a result of criminal attack; and too late for those youngsters whose clubs and youth services have been savaged. This is the Chancellor’s legacy; it is this that he will be remembered for. He was the shadow Chief Secretary to George Osborne and designed the austerity programme. History will hold him responsible for that. There are no alibis. He is implicated in every cut, every closure, and every preventable death of someone waiting for hospital treatment or social care. It is time for change. People have had enough, but increasingly they know that they will not get the change that they so desperately need from this tainted Chancellor or from his Government. It is time for change, and it is time for a Labour Government.
Mr Hammond
We have just heard the same old recycled lines. I must be going a little bit deaf, because I did not hear any mention of record employment. Perhaps the shadow Chancellor is so ashamed of Labour’s record: no Labour Government have ever left office with unemployment below that which they inherited. I did not hear anything about rising wages; they are rising the fastest in a decade. He did not mention the extra £1.3 billion for local government, or the extra £1 billion of police funding, both of which he voted against. He did not mention the fact that we have had nine years of unbroken growth. He did not mention the fact that this economy is out-performing that of Germany this year. He witters on about manufacturing without any recognition of the global economic context in which this sits—perhaps he does not inhabit the global economy. If he did, he would know very well that the downturn in manufacturing is happening across Europe and is affecting everyone. He did not mention the remarkable turnaround in our public finances and the real choices that we have as a consequence. He just relentlessly talked Britain and its economy down.
Once again, we hear this absurd proposition that the decisions that we took in 2010 were some kind of political choice—as if we could have gone on borrowing £1 for every £1 spent indefinitely, racking up interest bills and burdening future generations with debt. No responsible politician could credibly believe that these were choices in 2010.
The shadow Chancellor talks about homelessness. We have committed £1.2 billion to tackling homelessness and rough sleeping—I did not hear any mention of that. He talks about the downgrade of the 2019 economic forecast without mentioning the global context. He confuses the debt and the deficit. The reason that the debt has risen—[Interruption.] He is not listening, but it is very, very simple. It is not even economics; it is just maths. It is very, very simple. If you have a £150 billion deficit in your last year in office, your successor will find that debt is rising, and that is what we found. I have announced, since 2016, £150 billion of additional public spending as well as getting the forecast deficit down to 0.5% of GDP. That means that we have real and genuine sustainable choices in this country for the first time in a decade.
The shadow Chancellor delivers repeated misinformation which we have heard countless times from those on the Labour Benches. Let us take transport funding for example. He knows that central Government transport funding is higher per capita in the north than it is in London and the south—that is a fact. He knows that there are 665,000 fewer children in workless households now than there were in 2010—that is a fact. He knows that public investment set out in the OBR report today represents Britain’s biggest public capital investment programme for 40 years—that is a fact. He accuses me of talking about housing again. Well, I will talk about housing again, and again, and again, because we have announced £44 billion investment in housing, and that is an awful lot of announcements that I will have to make.
The ultimate audacity is the moral lecturing tone in the shadow Chancellor’s closing remarks. I really do take exception to being lectured to by a man who has stood idly by, turning a blind eye, while his leader has allowed antisemitism to all but destroy a once great political party from the inside out. Attlee and Bevan must be rotating in their graves. People should look at what this pair have done to the Labour party and just think what they would do to our country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. It might be helpful to the House if I indicate that, given the pressure of time and the importance of subsequent business—to which reference was made earlier—it will almost certainly not be possible on this occasion for me to take everybody on this statement, which, as the House knows, is ordinarily my practice. I am looking to move on at approximately 2.45 pm. It may be possible to move on before then, but I certainly do not want it to be significantly later than then.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
May I sincerely congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on keeping his head while all around are losing theirs? I am sure that he would have liked to have delivered a rather different statement if the vote had gone the other way last night. Does he agree that economic forecasting is difficult at all times, particularly at a time of slowing global growth, trade war, Chinese debt problems, and, above all, the uncertainty of Brexit? Does he agree that the optimistic forecasts by the OBR are based on a smooth progression to Brexit, with no new barriers to trade and investment with our most important market on the basis that we currently enjoy under the customs union of the single market?
Finally, will the Chancellor guarantee to me that he will keep his fiscal powder dry—keep his reserves, as he may need them to avoid a recession or a financial crisis; that he will resist the irresponsible approach of the Opposition, who have the idea of spending and borrowing money only as a policy platform on every issue; and that he will resist all the other understandable demands from all parts just to spend money in response to lobbies, because he has the duty of keeping the British economy intact at a time of almost unprecedented crisis and unforeseeable problems?
Mr Hammond
I can confirm to my right hon. and learned Friend that the OBR’s central forecast is based, as before, on an assumption of a deal done with the European Union so that we exit via a transition mechanism and have a future close trading relationship with it. I can assure him—I am sure he needs no reassurance—that I will not be remotely tempted by the policies or the profligacy of the shadow Chancellor. My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right that until such time as we are sure that we will not exit via a disorderly no deal, I have to keep that fiscal powder dry, but no one will be happier than me when I can release some of that headroom to support public services, capital investment and lower taxes in this economy.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
There is no certainty about the future health of the economy. Whatever happens regarding the Prime Minister’s deal—whether this House eventually accepts or continues to resoundingly reject it—we are still not clear about what the UK’s future trading relationship with the EU will look like. What is clear is that Brexit is bad for the economy. So far, the picture is bleak. Key economic indicators show that the UK economy grew by a meagre 0.2% in the fourth quarter of 2018. The OBR previously forecast growth of 1.6% for 2019. Even with the assumption of a smooth Brexit, it has downgraded that to 1.2%. Whatever the Chancellor’s spin, is that not the cost of Brexit?
Of course, the Chancellor predicted that himself. He told Radio 4:
“The economy will be slightly smaller in the Prime Minister’s preferred version of the future partnership.”
We now face the prospect of a no-deal Brexit, which would have a severe impact on the economy, people and businesses across Scotland. It could push the Scottish economy into a deep recession, similar in scale to the financial crash of 2008. The British Retail Consortium estimates that no deal could hike food prices by some 29%. My constituents cannot afford that. Will the Chancellor commit to voting against no deal tonight?
Given such massive uncertainty, we needed a bit more than this damp squib of a statement. It is a laudable aim to have only one Budget a year, but in these circumstances, the Chancellor should have brought forward an emergency Budget, and I call on him to do so.
We need the Chancellor to explain how he will fix the fiscal gap created by discouraging immigration. We know that the average EU citizen who chooses to live and work in our country contributes £34,400 annually to the Scottish economy. How will he plug that gap? Will he exempt those coming for PhD-level roles from the salary cap, as well as from the visa numbers cap? We need the Chancellor to provide funding to small businesses that are not prepared to cope with Brexit. Only 8% of Scottish firms feel fully ready.
We need concrete action to tackle the lack of productivity growth. It was woeful anyway, compared with our European neighbours, but over the past two years business has been so focused on Brexit damage limitation that it has lacked the resources to increase growth and productivity.
This week the New Financial think-tank said:
“Our conservative estimates show that banks and investment banks are moving around £800bn in assets; asset managers have so far transferred more than £65bn in funds; and insurance companies have so far moved £35bn in assets.”
That appears to have entirely passed the Chancellor by.
People who live in these islands have suffered through a decade of austerity. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the current benefits freeze has made life harder for more than 27 million people across the UK. It is the biggest policy behind rising poverty, costing families an average of £340 a year. If the freeze continues, by 2020 it will have driven 400,000 people into poverty. It must end now.
While the poor get poorer, the rich get richer under this Government. FTSE 100 CEO pay has gone up by 66% while the Tories have been in government, while wages for the rest have failed to reach 2008 levels. The Chancellor has had many opportunities to press his colleagues to halt the roll-out of universal credit. The system is broken and it must be fixed before more misery is inflicted. His emergency Budget should end the benefits freeze and halt the roll-out of universal credit. He has managed to find money for plenty of other things—he has allocated billions of pounds to the Democratic Unionist party to buy its support, but he has failed to allocate the £3.4 billion to Scotland that should have been our share of that largesse. Will the Chancellor ensure that the Barnett formula is properly applied to the new funding he has announced today, unlike his actions regarding the DUP deal?
Scotland’s resource block grant for 2019-20 is almost £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2010-11. That is a direct consequence of the Chancellor’s continued obsession with austerity. He has created the stronger towns fund, pumping money into leave-voting areas as yet another bribe. How well did that work this week? The Chancellor has not yet announced details of the shared prosperity fund. Especially important is whether it will replace the £2.4 billion a year that communities across the UK currently receive as a result of EU structural funds. Will he provide us with full details now? Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that the Scottish Government will be treated as equals and will continue to distribute the funding in Scotland, as has been the case under the EU programmes?
Yesterday, a majority of Scottish MPs put their names to an amendment saying that the best future for Scotland would be as an independent country within the EU. With independence, we will be able to encourage immigration, recognising the benefits brought by those who come to live, love and work in our country. We will be able to reject austerity, supporting our citizens when they need it most. We will be able to increase productivity, improve participation in our workforce and encourage and support companies to grow. We will be able to trade frictionlessly with Europe, a market eight times the size of the UK. Scotland has been badly served by consecutive Westminster Governments. We need to take our lifeboat and get off this sinking Brexit ship.
Mr Hammond
I am sure it was a momentary oversight by the hon. Lady that she did not say anything about the decommissioning measures that will be so important to her local industry in Aberdeen and that are listed in the written ministerial statement. She says that no deal will be bad for the economy, and I absolutely agree, but if she understands that, why did she not vote for the deal? I have a great deal of respect for her, but I am afraid she is creeping towards the practices of those on the Labour Front Bench when she quotes the fourth quarter growth figure of 0.2% without mentioning the more recently published growth figure of 0.5% for the first quarter of this year. [Interruption.] If she does the maths, she will find that is okay.
The hon. Lady talked about the downgrade that the OBR has applied to the 2019 growth figure. We would of course like it to be higher, but she has to see the figure in the global context. I know she understands this. Germany’s economy has slowed down and France’s economy has slowed down. Across the G7, we are exactly in the middle of the pack. We will grow faster than Germany, Japan and Italy this year. We will grow exactly the same as France and slower than Canada and the US. That is a perfectly creditable performance. Would I like to do better? Of course I would. If she is going to be honest with the House, she needs to put what she says in the context of what is happening across the global economy.
The hon. Lady asked about PhD-level roles. They will be completely exempt from the visa cap. She asked about assets being moved abroad. Of course I am concerned about that, and £35 billion of insurance company assets moved abroad is £35 billion more than I would like, but she needs to understand that that is in the context of the many trillions of pounds of assets that the companies are managing in London and, increasingly, in Edinburgh. Edinburgh’s ranking in the global asset management league table has once again risen, which we are extremely pleased about.
The hon. Lady talked about pay for the lowest paid. Those on the national minimum wage and the national living wage have seen their incomes increase by an average of £2,750 a year since 2016. She asked about universal credit. Universal credit delivers. People on universal credit are more likely to be in work than those trapped on legacy benefits. I have put billions of pounds into the system over successive fiscal events to smooth the transition to ensure that the movement of people from legacy benefits on to universal credit operates smoothly.
Finally, Scotland gets its share of the increased spending on capital and resource, but precious little thanks do we ever hear from those on the SNP Benches in exchange for it.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
Building on the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the OBR has made it clear today that it has not been able to update its forecast to reflect the current Brexit situation, saying that
“we still have no meaningful basis for predicting the post-Brexit trading relationship beyond the near term.”
I sense the Chancellor’s frustration with the House’s inability to approve the withdrawal agreement, but does he agree that this means that many of the forecasts are obviously going to have to be revisited as the Brexit scenario plays itself out over the next few months?
The Chancellor mentioned the forthcoming CSR and education spending. May I urge him also to think very clearly and closely about spending on further education colleges, which is another critical part of improving productivity in our country?
The Budget report recently produced by the Treasury Committee said that the Chancellor was effectively disregarding the fiscal objective to run a balanced budget in the mid-2020s, and the OBR has said today that the target will not be met again. So does he intend, by the next Budget, to ensure that the existing fiscal charter will be updated for this Parliament?
Mr Hammond
My right hon. Friend is right, of course, about the OBR’s Brexit assumption—I said so earlier and the OBR has said so clearly. It has to make an assumption, and until there is a new policy, that is unfortunately the way it is mandated to work. On the forecast, I have addressed this in this House many times before. The forecast is based on those assumptions. We are either going to have a no-deal exit, in which case I would expect a significantly worse outturn, or we are going to lift this cloud from above our economy, in which case I would expect a significantly better outcome. A number of important commentators, including the Governor of the Bank of England, have suggested over the past couple of weeks that there is more juice in the economy if we can just lift this cloud.
I have noted my right hon. Friend’s early bid for further education in the spending review. There will be lots to discuss as we go into the spending review, and we will ensure that there are proper, structured arrangements for Members of this House to make their views known. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will be happy to engage across the House.
My right hon. Friend asked about the target for the mid-2020s. I simply do not accept that the figures published today show that it is impossible to reach a balanced budget in the mid-2020s. In 2023-24, the deficit will be 0.5% of GDP, but whether we choose to get the deficit down to zero or choose to do other things is a choice, and we are lucky to have it.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who is ordinarily known for her buoyant and enthusiastic smile, was gesticulating at the Chancellor to speed up. I think she was auditioning for the role of Speaker, and presumably seeking to give the right hon. Gentleman a masterclass in brevity, notwithstanding her desire often to make her own point with enormous eloquence but at not inconsiderable length—but we will see.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
In today’s forecast from the OBR, GDP growth this year is being revised down by 0.4%. The largest downward revision is to business investment—a downward revision of 3.2%. Business investment is now expected to shrink by 1% this year after shrinking by 1% last year. The Federation of Small Businesses says today that confidence is at “rock bottom”. The CBI says on tariffs that there has been
“no consultation with business and no time to prepare”,
and that this is
“a sledgehammer for our economy.”
Does the Chancellor recognise that businesses are losing patience with this Government and that unless businesses invest and help to grow our economy, productivity and wages are going to stay at rock bottom? What is he going to do to reverse this incredibly worrying and dangerous reduction in business investment?
Mr Hammond
What the hon. Lady has not mentioned is that business investment recovers to 2.3% next year, and, over the forecast, recovers entirely, so this is a cyclical change, not a structural change. There are two drivers. Of course Brexit uncertainty is having a damping effect on investment—I have said that before and I will say it again. The sooner we can lift it, the sooner investment will come into our economy, with welcome effect. But we cannot ignore what is happening in the car industry across Europe. A large part of this effect has been in our car industry. That is very worrying, but it is not a UK phenomenon; it is a much broader phenomenon.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Given the fall in new car sales that followed the big increase in vehicle excise duty, other regulatory changes and the car loan squeeze, will the Chancellor now review policy towards the car industry to make it cheaper and easier to buy a new car made in a British factory?
Mr Hammond
As my right hon. Friend knows, we are not able, under the current regime, to discriminate between cars made in British factories and cars made elsewhere, but we do keep all fiscal policy under review, and I am acutely conscious of the pressures that the car industry is facing at the moment.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
I am trying to find something positive to say about a rather less than earth-shattering event, but I do welcome the support for industrial strategy and innovation. I also welcome the Furman report. However, does it not rather give the game away that global monopoly abuse is being referred to the British competition authorities at a time when we are walking away from the much more powerful European Commission, which could really deal with the problem?
On growth, is it not the case that while we are escaping recession, which is very welcome, that is primarily due to continued extraordinary monetary policy and low or negative real interest rates, which cannot continue? It may have been useful after the financial crisis, but it is an addictive drug.
Finally, how on earth does the Chancellor expect this proposed surge of business investment to occur when, even under the Government’s Brexit plans, there is going to be a cliff edge in two years’ time that any business will naturally seek to avoid?
Mr Hammond
I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman would want to break the habit of a lifetime in finding something positive to say in response to a statement, but I will take him at face value. On the Furman report, I do think it is quite important that we ensure that the UK’s regulatory environment is at the cutting edge of the changes that are going on in the 21st-century economy. Regulation is one of our competitive advantages. We have excellent regulators, and there are plenty of examples of the UK being ahead of the global curve in setting regulations that can both protect the public and encourage investment.
I cannot comment on monetary policy, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—that is a matter entirely for the Bank of England—but as for a future cliff edge, it will be my fervent intention to give business the maximum confidence and clarity that we can about our future relationship with the European Union, as soon as I can.
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Can the Chancellor reassure me that the very welcome consultation on future infrastructure financing will not become any reason to delay a start on some of the essential major projects such as the lower Thames crossing, which will not only relieve pressure on the Dartford crossing but will be a fundamental link between two great wealth-creating regions of our country?
Mr Hammond
I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. I am acutely conscious of the fact that we are committed to building a tunnel under the Thames but we have not yet committed to the link roads that will link that tunnel to the rest of the road network, and of course we absolutely will do so. This is a broader-based review to look at how we replace PFI and EIB funding over the medium term.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome this statement and the news that despite the best and concerted efforts of those who think that by talking the UK economy down they can somehow stop us leaving the EU, it is pleasing that employment is up, job creation is up, and the Government finances are in a better shape. That shows that we do not need the EU as some kind of economic crutch in order to enable us to stand on our own two feet. I also welcome the Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland.
For the future, what progress has been made on the review of air passenger duty and VAT on the hospitality industry in Northern Ireland? If the Chancellor is going to help subcontractors deal with late payments, will he consider the use of project bank accounts, which have been very successful in Northern Ireland in ensuring that public sector spend on infrastructure projects actually reaches the companies that spend the money?
Mr Hammond
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that one of the features of the jobs growth we have delivered is the regional distribution of it. This is not London-centric jobs growth; it is across the country. Productivity, wages and employment have grown in every region of the UK, which is very welcome.
The APD working group has been established, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but we are not in a position to take any action in that area until there is a devolved Administration in Stormont. On VAT, as he knows, we are not able to take any action while we are members of or subject to the rules of the European Union, but we will continue to look at these issues.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you should see what the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) is like in my Education Committee.
I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Given that there is a 10-year plan for the NHS—and rightly so—can we have a 10-year plan and a 10-year funding settlement for our schools and colleges in his statement before the summer?
Mr Hammond
Let me make this clear, for the avoidance of doubt. The NHS 10-year plan has been published, but the funding plan that we have announced is a five-year plan, and there will be a mid-point at which we fund the NHS for the latter part of the plan. We have no plans, I am afraid, to set out a 10-year funding plan for any area of our public services. That would not be prudent or sensible, given the cyclicality of the economy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Manchester Central is much talked about. I think it is time we heard from her.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am reclaiming “bossy”.
Is it not the case that cuts to police, local services and schools are a false economy? We pay for the cost of failure, the cost of rising knife crime, the cost of school exclusions, the cost of rising poverty and the cost of failing families and children. Will the Chancellor prioritise in his forthcoming spending review early intervention, to support families and help children get the best start in life?
Mr Hammond
There will be many demands on the available funding at the spending review, and we intend to look at the public’s priorities in the round. Our challenge, as always, is to ensure that we direct funding in the way that most effectively delivers the end result that the public need. If I look at the knife crime debate that we have been having over the last couple of weeks, it is clear that it is not a simple question about putting more money into policing. [Interruption.] No, it is not. If the hon. Lady talks to police chiefs or school heads, they will tell her that it is a multifaceted challenge, and we need to address it as such. That is the point of having a cross-departmental spending review—we can look at our priorities in the round and decide how to allocate funding in a coherent way, to get the outcomes that the public want at the best value for money for the taxpayer.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
I warmly welcome the big improvements in the public finances, particularly those as a result of the last spending review in 2015, but the Chancellor has a problem with stamp duty. Today’s report says that the forecast has “deteriorated significantly” since October, when it was already £4 billion short. Receipts fell 9.8% in 2018, which is a new £2.7 billion shortfall in the scorecard. Transactions in my constituency are down 31% since the reforms. That is something he will need to look at and propose reforms for in due course, perhaps in November. Would he like to comment on the latest deteriorating numbers?
Mr Hammond
Yes. My right hon. Friend—perhaps unsurprisingly, given his constituency—is very interested in these issues, and I would be happy to meet him to go through the numbers. There are a number of moving parts underneath the headline number. Stamp duty in Wales has been devolved, which takes a significant chunk out of the total number. There is an overall slowdown in the market, which has an effect. We have also exempted first-time buyer purchases from stamp duty, which is a considerable chunk of the reduction he refers to, but I would be happy to talk him through the details.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Ind)
It is a fundamental mistake for the Chancellor to underestimate the impact of Brexit on his future forecasts. To dismiss the 3.2% collapse in the forecast for business investment is a strategic error that he is making for the future. We hear the Chancellor talk about a “deal dividend” and the shadow Chancellor talk about a “jobs-first Brexit”, but that is a mythology. Brexit in all forms will hit our business investment and our tax revenues and create austerity for a decade. Can the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor stop treating this as business as usual?
Mr Hammond
While the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view and often makes a valuable contribution to the debate, he has to be careful that he does not accidentally veer off-piste into “talking Britain down” syndrome. He talks about a collapse in business investment, but I hope he would agree that this is likely to be a cyclical reduction in business investment. If he talks to businesses, they will tell him that they are postponing investment decisions until they have greater clarity about the future. I agree; we cannot keep them hanging there forever. We need to give them clarity and certainty as quickly as possible. I believe we will do that in this House over the next few weeks, and when we do, I believe that the great majority of that investment—postponed, not cancelled—will flow back into our economy later this year.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I am delighted at the Chancellor’s announcement about the borderlands growth deal, which is welcome news for the area. Will he confirm that Departments will move to an early discussion about details of the various projects with the local authority, so that it can get on with implementation as soon as possible? Would he like to visit Carlisle and the borderlands, to see those initiatives in action?
Mr Hammond
I can confirm that we want to move ahead as quickly as possible with agreeing the individual projects and getting disbursement under way. I would be delighted to visit Carlisle, to see not only the effects of the borderlands growth deal but the £100 million housing infrastructure fund investment that we are making to facilitate a major expansion of new build housing in the area.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Many Members on both sides of the House have expressed worry about the slowdown in growth forecast, but all of us see that there is some growth. Given that the economy is growing, albeit too modestly, will the Chancellor look at the £1.4 billion of cuts that will be made to benefits through the benefit freeze in three weeks’ time, which means that he is taking money away from those who are least able to afford it? All economic theory shows that those who are on very low or modest incomes spend money that is given to them, which will stimulate our economy some more. Will he get up at the Dispatch Box and tell us that he is going to end the benefit freeze, which is due to hit all those people in three weeks’ time?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Lady talks about reductions in economic forecasts. It is actually one year—[Interruption.] I will answer the question in my own way, if the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) does not mind. It is only one year for which the OBR has downgraded the forecast. In two further years, it remains unchanged, and in the fourth year, it increases.
The hon. Lady asked about the benefit freeze. That has been one of the many difficult decisions we have had to take. Under the last Labour Government and Gordon Brown’s stewardship, the welfare budget increased by 65% in real terms, getting it completely out of kilter with wages and making it unsustainable. That, combined with the fiscal pressure we faced in 2010, made it inevitable that we had to take action, but we have made it clear that we have no intention of repeating the current freeze. When it is over, increases in benefits will resume in line with CPI in the normal way.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s announcements, particularly on investments in science and infrastructure and, seeing as the workers’ party has not welcomed them, the rise in the national living wage, the £700 pay rise for the lowest-paid and the tax reductions, with 32 million of our lowest-paid receiving a tax cut. You would think the Labour party would cheer that. I also welcome the fact that the Chancellor has reminded British business that if Brexit is a threat, the shadow Chancellor, who is still a Marxist, is an even bigger threat.
On growth, 1.2% is too low a figure. May I urge the Chancellor to use the comprehensive spending review to make sure that, as well as increasing spending on services, we incentivise really bold public sector leadership for innovation and enterprise, and make sure we get this economy growing at 3% again?
Mr Hammond
Nobody shares my hon. Friend’s ambition to see faster growth more than I do. There are many ways we can deliver that, but it has to involve raising productivity in both the public sector and the private sector. We are taking initiatives, with the National Leadership Centre, on public sector leadership to enhance productivity in the public sector, and we are taking action to reinforce leadership among smaller and medium-sized enterprises in the private sector to ensure that productivity is driven, technology is taken up effectively and we are all better off as a consequence.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I have more respect than many in this House for the work of economic forecasters, but let us be honest: what we have today is a big long sum predicated on the idea that Brexit will be fine. However, surely the events of the past 24 hours demonstrate to us that Brexit is not going very well, is it? Things are not going well in the country either. Last year, the Trussell Trust gave out nearly 1.5 million three-day food parcels, which is a massive increase on last year. When will the Chancellor admit that Brexit is a massive distraction for our country, and that it is about time we got back to tackling what the public really care about—rough sleeping, poverty and the position of the worst-off in our society?
Mr Hammond
I have never been afraid to acknowledge that, as far as the economy is concerned, Brexit uncertainty is a distraction, and it is something we need to get lifted as soon as possible. I think I said that at the beginning of my statement. The sooner we can do that, the better. It will help us to grow faster, and it will help us to raise productivity more quickly, and that means higher wages across the economy.
On the issues that the hon. Lady mentions, we are putting £1.2 billion into addressing homelessness and rough sleeping. We are consulting on an additional 1% stamp duty levy on properties bought by non-UK resident owners, with the whole of that money ring-fenced to address the rough-sleeping challenge in our cities. In relation to poverty, she knows the figures. We have over 3.5 million more people in work, with 665,000 fewer children living in workless households. However much Opposition Members may not like it, it remains the case that work is the best sustainable route out of poverty.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on his statement. If we do get the orderly Brexit that I know he and I want, may I urge him to consider schools funding in the spending review? Schools in my constituency are doing enormously important work, but they are facing increased challenges, particularly with pupil volatility, pupil complexity and rising demands. They are having to do more, and I invite him to ensure that they have the resources to match.
Mr Hammond
As my hon. Friend knows, we put £1.3 billion into the schools budget in 2017, and we have protected per pupil real funding since then. He will also know that there is a significant variation in the level of funding between schools and authorities across the country, which is now being addressed through the fair funding formula. I understand that there are pressures in the system until we have that rolled out and operational, having delivered the result throughout the system. However, I can confirm to him that schools funding will be considered in the spending review, along with all other areas of departmental spending in the round.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
To follow up on that question, I am sure the Chancellor has noticed that there are children all over the country, including in the Prime Minister’s constituency—and among those children are my children—who will no longer be able to go to school all day on a Friday. My son’s school is going to shut at 1 o’clock, like 15 other schools in Birmingham and hundreds of schools across the country. They have been getting in touch with me, including those in the Prime Minister’s constituency, and I am sure they will be writing to her, because they are certainly writing to me. What has he offered today for the Government to do the most basic thing, and keep my children in school? What is being given today and what will be given in the CSR? I hope he is looking forward to seeing my children, because I am bringing them to be looked after by him every Friday at 1 o’clock.
Mr Hammond
I shall look forward to it.
Today is not a fiscal event, and the opportunity to look at spending priorities in the round will happen at the spending review. What I have described today is a world where improving public finances mean that, if we can lift the Brexit cloud from our economy and get that certainty restored, we will have choices. Frankly, that is something we have not enjoyed in this country for a decade now, because of the consequences of the crisis under the previous Labour Government.
If the hon. Lady wants to talk to me about schools, I am happy to talk about our record on schools, with the attainment gap narrowing, record rates of disadvantaged 18-year-olds going to university, and 84% of children being taught in good or outstanding schools compared with 66% in 2010. Those are outcomes of which we are proud.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
May I ask the Chancellor’s view on the question of poverty? Under the previous Labour Government, we saw 1 million men and women thrown on the dole. Under this Government, unemployment is down to its lowest rate for 40 years. Yet we hear the argument from the Opposition that work is not the way out of poverty; only spending ever more on benefits is the answer. Am I correct in noting that, in reality, when a workless couple move from being out of work into full-time work, their chances of being in poverty drop from 38% to a negligible less than 1%, so work is the way out of poverty? What assessment has the Chancellor made of the combined effects of cutting taxes for the lowest-paid, reducing unemployment to the lowest level for 40 years and the new national living wage, and what assessment has he made of his intention to go further today in boosting the proud achievement of the national living wage of reducing poverty further?
Mr Hammond
We have seen the proportion of people on low pay falling to its lowest level in 20 years. I have already mentioned the statistics on the number of people in work, and I agree with him that being in work is the only sustainable way out of poverty. He is right: the previous Labour Government left 1.4 million people languishing on out-of-work benefits, and anyone who thinks that that is a good outcome—[Interruption.] Absolutely true: they should be ashamed of themselves. I can assure my hon. Friends that this issue is high on our agenda, and that we are looking at ways of maintaining the record we have built up, which is exactly the one I want to deliver.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor confirm that many millions of pounds more are being cut from the police budget than the £100 million he has put in for overtime to support our hard-pressed police officers? Will he confirm something in particular? In his statement, he said that the £100 million is for England. When I was a Home Office Minister with responsibility for the police, Home Office funding was for England and Wales. Has Wales been left out again?
Mr Hammond
I believe—[Interruption.] I am aware of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. My understanding is that the funding figure is for England. [Interruption.] Sorry; my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) is telling me it is for England and Wales. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if the statement misled him, but I am told that the funding is for England and Wales.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome the continued improvement in the public finances, which is due in no small part to the continued resilience and innovation of our businesses, some of which the Chancellor met when he recently opened the University of Gloucestershire’s new business school. What a symbol of change that is, because only nine years ago we lost 6,000 business jobs in Gloucester, thanks to the disastrous policies of the Labour party, and youth unemployment was four times higher than it is today. My right hon. Friend knows the extraordinary enthusiasm on both sides of the House for continued funding for schools and, from my letter with 165 colleagues from four different parties, for improved funding for further education colleges. Will he therefore look at those priorities very closely in the spending review?
Mr Hammond
I very much enjoyed my visit to the University of Gloucestershire and was interested to see the innovative work going on there. The improvement in the public finances, to which my hon. Friend referred, is being driven by increased business tax receipts, partly as a result of the Government’s relentless clampdown on opportunities for tax avoidance and evasion and partly as a result of the very significant increase in employment. Some 3.5 million more people in work is very good news not just for 3.5 million households, but for the Exchequer, the public finances and, ultimately, our public services.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Is it not true that poverty in this country increasingly wears a working face, that we now have the highest ever proportion of families in poverty who are in work, that a family of four with two people working full time on the national minimum wage will be £600 a year worse off by 2020, thanks to the Chancellor’s benefit freeze, and that, because he will not tackle the benefit freeze, including on in-work benefits, families in that condition will see absolutely nothing as a consequence of today’s statement?
Mr Hammond
I have already made the point about the unsustainable rise in welfare payments under the previous Labour Government. A 65% real-terms increase in the welfare budget was not sustainable. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) can chunter from the Opposition Front Bench as much as she likes, but it will not make it sustainable. I will tell the hon. Lady what will help her constituents: the £6,500 tax cuts per family for people earning low wages and buying fuel, which Opposition Front Benchers voted against, and the £2,500 increase in the national living wage since 2016 for people working full time on low wages.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I was delighted to hear that the Chancellor is ploughing £260 million into the borderlands growth deal, which shows this Government’s commitment to cross-border infrastructure investment. It will allow the borders railway extension—from Tweedbank to Hawick, Newcastleton and on to Carlisle—to move forward. I was also pleased to hear his response to the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) to visit his constituency, so when he visits will he also come across the border and visit my constituency in the Scottish borders, which will see significant benefits from this investment?
Mr Hammond
The whole point of the borderlands growth deal is to celebrate the economic geography of the borders region on both sides of that non-line between Scotland and England, so my hon. Friend makes a very good point. If I am coming to Carlisle, I shall certainly cross the border and visit his constituency.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Ind)
Growth is now forecast to be 1.2% in 2019 and 1.4% in 2020. It is worth reflecting on the fact that, before the EU referendum, it was forecast to be 2.1% in each of those years. Growth of under 2% over the forecast period is sluggish and unimpressive, and the problem will be exacerbated if we fall off a cliff and leave the EU without a deal. Can the Chancellor therefore tell the House—I think we need the benefit of knowing this before we vote—whether, when we vote on the motion this evening, he will be voting against us leaving without a deal?
Mr Hammond
Yes, I will be voting against us leaving without a deal. I have always believed that leaving without a deal would be bad for the UK economy, and that continues to be my view. May I just take the hon. Gentleman up on his point about the relatively higher growth forecasts we saw until a year or so ago? We need to remember that this is a structural downgrade. The OBR revised its estimate of the growth rate of productivity in the economy. Until we get that productivity growth rate back, we will not see sustainable higher growth in the economy. That is why it is my No. 1 priority, and it drives every announcement I make.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), I am pleased to hear that the Chancellor recognises the urgency of schools funding in the spending review, but will he not ignore children’s social care? Spending on early intervention by local authorities has fallen from £3.7 billion to £1.9 billion, but at the same time their spending on late intervention has risen from £5.9 billion to £6.7 billion. It does not take rocket science to work out the link, so will he acknowledge that not investing early is a false economy, both socially and financially?
Mr Hammond
I am all in favour of early-intervention approaches where they can be shown to be effective. My hon. Friend will know that at the Budget I announced an extra £410 million next year for social care, including for children, and we also announced £84 million specifically over five years to pilot schemes to try to keep more children safely at home. However, his representations are noted, and he will have an opportunity to make more formal representations ahead of the spending review to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We need to speed up, because I want to accommodate colleagues. Can we have a one-sentence question?
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I, too, want clarity from the Chancellor. When he talked about environmental spending in England, did he mean only England, or England and Wales? Will a certain amount of money be given to Wales? When I was first elected, 35 years ago, my constituency had one of the worst industrial polluters in the whole UK. It has left us with 27 acres of derelict land at the bottom of a valley, and a lot of wasted investment. Will he please help us to get that toxic waste cleared up and taken away so that the land can be made suitable for people to use?
Mr Hammond
The environmental reviews that I have announced today do not involve the distribution of further money. Of course, under the devolution settlement, where matters are devolved, any money announced will be for England only; where they are reserved, money will be made available more widely.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I very much welcome the focus on the environment and climate change in today’s announcement. I thank the Chancellor for listening to so many representations, not just from the people of Taunton Deane but from people everywhere, on the marine conservation belt and, in particular, on linking the decline of biodiversity with the economy. Will he please give some indication of when we might hear the results of the new review, which could do for biodiversity what the Stern review did for climate change?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is right that the review could have far-reaching consequences, but it has not yet started and we are only just scoping the terms of reference with the reviewer, so I am afraid that I cannot give her a definitive answer on how long it will take, but I will let her know as soon as I can.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Although any extra money for the police is welcome, officers will be looking on in horror to find that it is due only on overtime as they are so overstretched already. We know that the Chancellor has said that they should be reprioritising, but does he agree with the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) that they should be deprioritising spending on historical child sexual exploitation?
Mr Hammond
The money that we have announced today—exceptionally, because this is not a fiscal event—is targeted at overtime, because police chiefs are telling us that is the tool immediately at their disposal. There is £970 million in additional spending capacity going into police forces in 2019-20, from April, but many police forces have already committed that to fund recruitment and training. That will not come on line for some time, so overtime mutual aid is the preferred immediate response that police officers are signalling to us.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Recognising that women and girls face different challenges in life from men and boys, I want to thank the Chancellor for listening to MPs from across the House and making his announcement on free sanitary products today. Can he advise us on when he expects the initiative to start?
Mr Hammond
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her part in this campaign. We are ready to fund the distribution of free sanitary products from the start of the new school year in September, but I cannot commit my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to a September start until the procurement process—which unfortunately has to be gone through because we have to comply with rules—has been properly scoped. However, it will be as early as possible in the new school year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Now, this is the challenge: can people ask their question in fewer than 30 seconds?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It seems that the Chancellor is hoping to buy off the rising tide of youth campaigning with a sprinkling of announcements on the environment, but the science is clear and he is doing nothing like enough. We have 11 years to avoid climate breakdown, and protected species are in freefall. I have one test for him to prove whether he is remotely serious about the agenda: will he reverse the savage funding cuts that his Government have made to Natural England—yes or no?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Lady is nothing if not cynical. Funding for any bodies will be considered in the spending review, and I would be very happy to have a representation from her.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Chancellor made a welcome but passing comment in respect of Northern Powerhouse Rail, but when will he bring forward investment in the east coast main line to make it fit for purpose and HS2-ready? Without that investment north of York, the communities on the HS2 east coast main line risk being further away from, rather than closer to, the required connections.
Mr Hammond
We are allocating capital funding to our railway at the fastest rate than at any time since the Victorians. The way it works, as I think the hon. Lady knows, is that we allocate the funding for the so-called control periods of investment in the railway and the Transport Secretary then works with Network Rail to prioritise that investment. I will pass on to him the hon. Lady’s concerns.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the Chancellor for his announcement on the package of reforms to take on apprentices. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on disability, I ask him to support in particular those businesses that take on apprentices with disabilities. It is extremely important that they achieve their full potential. They currently face so many challenges and barriers to the workplace. Mr Speaker, you have championed internships in this House for people with disabilities. That has been working miraculously, but we need to roll this out right across the United Kingdom, so will the Chancellor please ensure that people with disabilities get that equality of choice?
Mr Hammond
We do of course support people with disabilities going into work, with financial support for employers where necessary. We have an extremely good record in this country, over many years, on employment of disabled people—well ahead of many of our competitors. We also have an extremely good record over the past nine years of this Government of increasing the number of disabled people in work. It is a simple fact that as employment rises, as we have seen, the barriers for disabled people getting into work are lowered automatically by virtue of the operation of the labour market.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
By 2021, this Government will have cut £1 billion from the Metropolitan police budget. That is why I wrote the Chancellor a letter, signed by every single London Labour MP, asking for more funding to tackle the rise in violent crime. Can the Chancellor confirm how much additional funding has been allocated to the London Met?
Mr Hammond
I cannot. The £100 million that we have announced today will be for the police as a whole, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will engage with police chiefs. If the hon. Lady is concerned, as she obviously is, about policing in London, may I suggest that she gets in touch with the Labour Mayor of London and asks him to get off his backside and do something about it?
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
I listened carefully to the Chancellor’s statement and very little was said about freelancers and the self-employed. In Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon, the Prime Minister said that the Government want to increase female entrepreneurship, but excluding the self-employed from sharing parental leave is causing women’s businesses to fail. Research by the Campaign for Parental Pay Equality showed that only 20% of mums were back to their pre-baby earnings by the time their child was two. Will the Chancellor and his colleagues please work with Members across the House and support my Bill so that all parents can share parental leave and women can fulfil their full potential?
Mr Hammond
I am happy to look at the issue raised by the hon. Lady. We have been looking at access to employment rights and benefits by the self-employed. As she knows, however, there is an issue: the self-employed pay significantly lower contributions than the employed into the Exchequer. The pressure is always to raise entitlements and access for the self-employed, but it is very clear—I learned the hard way in 2017—that the self-employed do not want their contributions to the Exchequer to rise, and that creates a tension.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Select Committee on Education has received evidence that children with special educational needs and disabilities are getting support based not on their needs but on the rationed resources available. SEND funding is in crisis and parents are feeling desperate. Will the Chancellor take this opportunity to act immediately and make ring-fenced funding available to give all our children the support they need?
Mr Hammond
No, I cannot do that but I can assure the hon. Lady that special educational needs funding will be considered as part of the spending review. I am sure that her Committee will want to make representations. We have to make choices. I can confidently predict that the spending review will receive far more bids for funding from across the Government and agencies in all Departments than there is funding available, so we have to look at what our priorities are as a nation.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Government have slashed millions of pounds from policing, with 21,000 police officers taken out of the system. Violent crime has gone up; the knife crime epidemic is terrorising our communities; and the police are at breaking point. Will the Chancellor, ahead of the next spending review, prioritise investing in the police service so that we can genuinely tackle knife crime and violent crime in our country?
Mr Hammond
Well, I have just done it with £100 million today. As the hon. Lady knows, we have put £460 million into the police this year, £970 million will go in next year and an extra £100 million has been announced today. Of course the police will be considered very carefully in the spending review.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
May I very gently exhort caring and sharing comrades to care for and share with each other, and not to speak in such a way as to stop others speaking? I am sure they would not want to do that—it would be uncomradely.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I and my colleagues, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and, I presume, the Work and Pensions Secretary have encouraged the Chancellor to scrap the final year of the benefit freeze. Given that he knows that, alongside the two-child policy, it is one of the worst policies for driving up child poverty, why has he maintained it? Why has he not scrapped it in the spring statement?
Mr Hammond
I repeat once again that the spring statement is not a fiscal event, so I am not making fiscal announcements. I have already explained why the benefit freeze was necessary—difficult but necessary—and that we have no intention of extending it. When it comes to an end, benefits will resume their increase in line with CPI inflation.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
While I welcome the period provision announcement and thank the Chancellor for listening to campaigners, will he extend it to primary schools, universities and homeless shelters, and will he also commit to scrapping the tampon tax as soon as we come out of the EU? Does he recognise that the girls he talks about missing days of school are the same girls who go to school hungry and that we will not end period poverty until we have ended poverty?
Mr Hammond
I suppose that is a manifestation of the universal truth that you can never satisfy. A good case has been made for providing free sanitary products in secondary schools and colleges where there is a controlled environment for their distribution and where the bulk of the need clearly lies. Of course, I understand that there is an issue regarding primary schools. I am open to sensible suggestions for how we might address that, but the core of the problem is in secondary schools and colleges. We have addressed that today, and I hope the hon. Lady recognises that.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The DEFRA budget has been cut by 35% over the past eight years, so while I welcome what the Chancellor has said on the future homes standard, which is genuinely new and innovative, he cannot expect the people in Natural England and the Environment Agency to keep doing more with less while enduring a pay freeze—a 15% real-terms pay cut over the past 10 years.
Our Prime Minister has signed up to the sustainable development goals. In July, she will go to New York and say what she is doing to end poverty, violence and hunger. With infant mortality and child hunger rising, what has the Chancellor announced today to tackle that?
Mr Hammond
As I have said, this is not a fiscal statement today. I take on board the various points the hon. Lady has made, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is of course going to the conference in New York. Sometimes I do not recognise this country from the descriptions I hear from Opposition Members—[Interruption.] I get out plenty, but I do not recognise this country from their descriptions. Of course we have problems and challenges, but could we stop talking Britain down relentlessly?
Several hon. Members rose—
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Will the Chancellor clarify the extent to which reduced business investment and fewer tax reliefs have contributed to higher corporation tax receipts?
Mr Hammond
I am not sure I entirely understand the question, but clearly corporation tax receipts have gone up as a result of reducing corporation tax rates, making the UK one of the most attractive places for businesses to establish and invest. As I have acknowledged, business investment is depressed by Brexit uncertainty. The sooner we can end it, the sooner we can get back to business.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Chancellor will be aware that the budget for the Welsh Government has been reduced by some £4 billion since 2010 because of his austerity. There is a massive impact on local councils and public services. Jobs and frontline services are all that is left to cut, so will the Chancellor end that austerity and apologise for the pain he has caused public services?
Mr Hammond
I have announced a trajectory for the growth of public spending in the next spending review period—there will be at least a 1.2% per annum real-terms growth, which will have positive consequences for Welsh Government spending.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The fragmentation of money and control in further education, the apprenticeship levy, T-levels and the adult education budget is a barrier to productivity in Bristol and the wider economic region. What support will he give to Bristol and the wider west of England region to bring those things together so that we can improve our productivity?
Mr Hammond
I am interested in the hon. Lady’s suggestion that fragmentation is a barrier to productivity. If she is working with her local enterprise partnership, I would be happy to engage with them and talk about the challenge. We want to drive improved productivity throughout our public services, including our further education sector.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Has the Chancellor ever heard of the WASPI campaign? If he has, is he deliberately choosing to ignore WASPI women?
Mr Hammond
I have heard of the campaign. We settled the issue a number of years ago. [Hon. Members: “What?”] Yes, we have. We were dealing with a very difficult set of challenges but did what we had to do. I know the campaign continues, but I have no further announcements to make.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government will know that, since they walked away from local councils, frontline services such as adult social care and children’s safeguarding have been massively underfunded, adding more and more pressure on low-income families and council tax. When will he eventually give proper funding for children’s services and adult social care?
Mr Hammond
At the risk of being repetitive: we will have a spending review later this year. The question of local government funding and how business rates retention interacts with other funding structures will be looked at, but in the meantime we have increased funding for local government by £1.3 billion, meaning that local government has a real-terms spending increase available this year. Labour Front Benchers voted against it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
When will the Government end state-sanctioned age discrimination and ensure that everybody, including those under 25, are entitled to a real living wage?
Mr Hammond
As I have said many times, the most important thing for under-25s is to ensure that they get into the workforce and establish a pattern of work.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Almost half the children living in my constituency are living in poverty as a direct result of the Chancellor’s ideological austerity agenda. Why is the stain of rising child poverty not enough for him to act today?
Mr Hammond
There is nothing ideological about getting a deficit down from £150 billion a year to enable us to fund our public services sustainably in future.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor confirm that the new £3 billion affordable homes scheme he announced is a re-announcement from 2017? Will he also confirm that £20 billion has been cut from the social housing grant since 2010, and that 30,000 fewer social homes are being built each year than were built under the last Labour Government?
Mr Hammond
No, that is not correct. The £3 billion is part of the £44 billion total package for housing that we have announced. I announced an overall framework, and in a series of announcements will say how we will spend that money.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Chancellor’s statement ignores the position of Shelter, which claims that we need to build 155,000 social homes a year. Why the lack of ambition?
Mr Hammond
In total, more than 220,000 new homes were built last year. That is the highest total in all but one of the past 31 years. This is not about money. This is about the capacity of the industry to deliver. We are taking steps not just to build houses, but to support the industry to expand by funding directly smaller and medium-sized enterprises so that they can expand the capacity of the house building industry.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
To end Brexit uncertainty, business wants a commitment to the customs union; frictionless access to the EU market; and the skilled and unskilled labour that comes from it. Will the Chancellor commit to supporting a deal that delivers just that?
Mr Hammond
I am committed, as I have been since 2016, to delivering a deal that allows us to continue our complex and long-established trading relationships with the European Union—our closest neighbours and most important economic partners. I will continue to advocate such a deal.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Given that a single Scottish police force was a Scottish Tory manifesto commitment, and given that the economy is so good that the Chancellor has found extra money for policing in England and Wales, why is he not moving towards refunding the £175 million VAT to Scottish police and fire services?
Mr Hammond
Scotland will benefit from the £100 million that I announced today through the Barnett formula. At the request of a group of my hon. Friends, we looked at the question of VAT and changed the rules, but the Scottish Government did what they did—they reorganised Police Scotland—in the full knowledge that it would have those VAT consequences.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Ind)
Does the Chancellor understand that ending the benefits freeze is not just about people in work? It is about our welfare safety net. People who cannot work because they are too ill cannot afford to live on the basic amount. The benefits freeze must end. The core amount of universal credit and employment and support allowance have not risen for three years.
Mr Hammond
As I have said, the benefits freeze will end at the end of the forthcoming year. We have no intention of renewing or prolonging it. Those were difficult decisions, but ones that we had to take.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Four babies in 1,000 will not reach their first birthday as a result of this Government’s austerity policies. If the Government are so keen on tackling burning injustices, why will they not end the freeze and end it now?
Mr Hammond
I am sorry—I did not hear which freeze the hon. Lady asked about.
Mr Hammond
I have answered the question. The benefits freeze will end at the end of the forthcoming year.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York schools are the worst-funded in the country, we have the highest attainment gap, and the schools in the most deprived areas have had the largest per pupil funding cut. When will the Chancellor address this huge inequality?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Lady has a legitimate point. The funding as between schools and authorities is very unevenly distributed. That is why, when we put an extra £1.3 billion into the school system in 2017, we committed to a fair funding formula that would redistribute over time. That is happening. I understand that schools that are underfunded relative to the mean would like it to happen more quickly, but that has to be the answer. We have to move towards a fair distribution of funding between schools.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor accept that his changes to vehicle excise duty penalise the cleanest diesels on the market while offering no incentive whatsoever to motorists to get rid of older, dirtier diesels, which has led to an increase in CO2 emissions from new cars for the first time in a decade? When will he sort this out?
Mr Hammond
No, I do not accept that, but I accept that, because of the scandal of manipulated emissions test, we have a very difficult situation in the vehicle excise duty tables, whereby vehicles have turned out to have much higher emissions than was originally thought. We do have to address this issue, as I acknowledged in the last Budget, and we will address it.
Point of Order
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are soon to start a debate on the subject of a no-deal Brexit. It may be that some Members have business interests that might benefit from a no-deal Brexit, such as companies involved in shorting the pound or the value of shares, or that might have secured payments from companies that are enthusiastic backers of a no-deal Brexit. How would you advise that those Members declare their interests?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that the registration of interests is a matter for the judgment of each individual Member; no precise advice can be given to cover every eventuality. Whenever I am asked by Members for my advice, I say: if in doubt—if there is uncertainty, if they think someone might subsequently criticise—it is better to err on the side of over-declaration than of under-declaration. That has been my own philosophy, and I would commend it to colleagues. I hope that that is helpful.
Tenancy (Deposits and Arbitration)
Wednesday 13th March 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Tenancy (Deposits and Arbitration) Bill 2017-19 View all Tenancy (Deposits and Arbitration) 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
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a single custodial tenancy deposit scheme; to provide for that scheme to invest deposits; to require interest on such investments to be used for the provision of tenant advocacy, tenant support and arbitration services; to establish a mandatory arbitration service for the resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants; and for connected purposes.
I declare an interest in that I use the current tenancy deposit system as a landlord. It neither works for landlords nor provides the safeguards the last Labour Government intended in the original legalisation.
I am introducing my Bill partly because of the treatment of my constituent Andy Smith. He was living in an apartment owned by Baron Homes and had a tenancy agreement to December 2018. In January of that year, he was offered council accommodation, which he gratefully accepted, and, as his tenancy required, he got a mutual agreement in writing to break his lease. Given that he had fulfilled all aspects of his contract, one might have thought him entitled to his £650 back. Sadly, that was not the case. Baron Homes alleged that there was damage to the property and said it would keep the entire deposit. I have seen photos of before and after, showing that the damage it alleged was pre-existing, accept for some wear and tear, but, in any event, withholding the deposit was an act of bad faith because the property was to be gutted and turned into two luxury studio flats.
Brighton has a history of rogue landlords, from Nicholas van Hoogstraten, when I was growing up, to Baron Homes today, which has a woeful record of exploiting tenants in our city. It was no surprise, therefore, when Baron Homes forced Andy to challenge its decision through MyDeposits, the tenancy deposit scheme that Baron Homes uses. Judgment day came and MyDeposits ruled there was no damage to the property, but it claimed that Andy had broken his lease early, meaning that Baron Homes could keep the deposit as punishment.
I thought there had been an error. Andy had proof of an agreement to leave early, but, because both the challenge and the withholding of the deposit were not on this point, he had not provided the letter as evidence. I wrote to MyDeposits with the further information, and after chasing them for months, I finally got a very simple letter stating: “We don’t do appeals. There is no right to a review”. When I went back to Baron Homes, its response was to threaten that if Andy continued to complain, it would take him to the cleaners, charge him for council tax covering a period when he was not in the property and require him to settle the rent due. This required further appeals, including to Brighton Council, which, I am pleased to say, ruled in Andy’s favour.
All this is commonplace in Brighton and many other places up and down the country. Just as the law had to change to prevent the practices of people such as Peter Rachman, whose name in the 1960s became a synonym for exploitation and intimidation, so the law again needs to change to prevent the names of, in this case, Ms Blencowe, the director of Baron Homes, and many other landlords and agents from becoming synonyms for today’s unethical practices.
As a result of legal aid cuts, Andy has no access to legal advice and the only route left is an expensive challenge through the courts. Baron Homes and its partner in crime, MyDeposits, and landlords and agents across the country have in effect stolen my constituent’s money and that of many other constituents.
That is why I am introducing my Bill. Michael Ball, professor of urban and property economics at the University of Reading, concludes:
“Tenancy deposit schemes are poor value for money in the UK - costing the sector more than £275 million a year in fees and administration”.
He also points out that last year they released only £7 million pounds in disputed rents. A recent Nationwide survey found that the average waiting time for a deposit return was nearly two months. Most people do not realise it, but about half of deposits are not even held in a custodial scheme; instead, they are held directly by landlords and underwritten by their insurance, meaning that tenants have to complain to the insurance underwriter, which many do not do. Even when they do, as we have seen with my constituent, there is no right of appeal and no ability to set a precedent when a case is won, and of course, because the landlords are their clients, the companies have an incentive to keep them happy.
Some £4 billion is held in deposits in this country, almost all of it providing interest to the landlords or schemes, not the tenants. Generation Rent suggested I look at a deposit scheme in New South Wales, Australia. Set up in 1977, this scheme is wholly administered by the Government with no third parties involved. The landlord must deposit the bond in the scheme within 10 working days—no insurance, no underwriting—and every year the scheme earns interest of 56 million Australian dollars. Half covers the cost of running the scheme and the remaining 26 million dollars is used to fund services for tenants, including tribunal, advice, including legal advice, and advocacy programmes. Further, low-income tenants can receive what is called a “rentstart” loan, which is an interest-free loan from the Government to cover the cost of the deposit. Renters can also transfer deposits between tenancies. I propose that we introduce a similar scheme here.
Turning back to this country, £4 billion of private renters’ money is currently being held, as I mentioned, serving no productive value. If I was to put that in an ISA, it would produce £40 million to £80 million a year in interest. My Bill would create a single custodial tenancy deposit scheme that would eventually hold that £4 billion. I would propose to use the money to fund two areas.
First, the Bill would create an independent arbitration tribunal service that could hear disputes from landlords, agents and tenants, not only over deposit deductions at the end of a lease, but over whether a landlord had fulfilled its obligations in respect of tenant evictions and requirements for property repairs. It would be a way of abolishing no-fault evictions, and would provide tenants with a way of seeking redress without costly court proceedings. Until recently, MyDeposits even allowed landlords to withhold deposits without giving any reason whatsoever. That, along with their track record on due process and appeals, shows that we need to cut them out of the system altogether. It should be noted that £8 million would restore the early legal aid for housing that was removed by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
Also, the money could be spent on renters unions. I am a trade unionist and a co-operator, and I know that unions and co-operatives turn power relations on their heads. After decades of privatisation in the housing market, landlords now have almost unprecedented power in the lives of the renting public. In Brighton we have a growing renters union called Acorn, a democratic member-led organisation that empowers its members with knowledge of their rights in the rental sector and takes direct action when it is required. If we funded such organisations they would be able to provide legal support and advocacy, and to fight for their members just as trade unions and co-operatives do. I have seen them achieve incredible successes—preventing evictions, winning repairs in dangerous properties, and stopping banks requiring landlords to discriminate against tenants on housing benefit. We could do that for all tenants throughout the country.
We can change the law all we like in this place, but unless we empower people out there with the tools and skills that they require to support their rights, our words and our laws are hollow. That is why my Bill is intended to establish a fund for renters unions to fundamentally rebalance the power relationship between landlords and tenants. It would cost the Exchequer no money, and it would provide justice in an area in which we desperately need it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Marsha De Cordova, Matt Western, Faisal Rashid, Yasmin Qureshi, Stella Creasy, Stephen Doughty, Gareth Snell, Mr Paul Sweeney, Catherine West, Ruth George and Helen Hayes present the Bill.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March and to be printed (Bill 358).
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU not later than 7.00 pm; such questions shall include the questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mike Freer.)
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 308 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 164 / Noes: 374 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 321 / Noes: 278 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected amendment (a), in the name of the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), and amendment (f), in the name of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green).
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
I beg to move,
That this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship on 29 March 2019; and notes that leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this House and the EU ratify an agreement.
Let me begin by paying tribute to our Prime Minister. She may have temporarily lost her voice, but what she has never lost, and will never lose, is a focus on the national interest and a full-hearted desire to do what is right for our country.
Michael Gove
No.
Since the withdrawal agreement was concluded, the Prime Minister has stood at the Dispatch Box for more than 19 hours. She has answered many questions, and made compelling arguments. Throughout this process she has shown fortitude, tenacity, thoughtfulness, diligence and, above all, an unselfish and unstinting patriotism. I think it only appropriate that in all parts of the House, whatever political differences we have, we recognise that the Prime Minister always, always puts country first, and that we are fortunate to have her in that position.
Michael Gove
Not at this stage.
The House voted to give the people of this country a choice as to whether we were to remain in the European Union or leave it, and 17.4 million people—a clear majority—voted to leave. That is a mandate that we must respect, and an instruction that we must deliver. It is also the case that at the last general election, both principal parties stood on manifestos that pledged them to deliver our departure from the European Union. It is vital that we honour that manifesto promise, those instructions, and our democracy. Those outside the House who sent us here to act on their will and deliver that mandate will take a very, very dim view of those who seek to frustrate, deny or dilute the mandate that we were given.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the successful Vote Leave campaign of which he was part made clear that one of its primary objectives would be to deliver an exit from the EU with a deal, in an orderly fashion?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me also take this opportunity to pay tribute to his consistent championing of the rights of EU citizens in this country: we admire his commitment to principle. The Vote Leave campaign did indeed make clear that it was seeking a mandate to leave the European Union, and to conclude a free trade deal with the EU. That was the explicit aim of the campaign, and it is the policy of this Government.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
Might I suggest that if we do want an orderly Brexit involving the Prime Minister’s deal, one way of securing it would be to invite the Secretary of State and his colleagues to vote for the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman)? It would take crashing out of the European Union off the table, which might convince some of the Secretary of State’s friends that that is no longer an option, and that if we are to deliver on our promise, the only way in which we can do so is the Prime Minister’s deal. Might the Secretary of State also consider when we can have an opportunity—when we are not going to crash out—to vote on the Prime Minister’s deal again?
Michael Gove
Like me, the right hon. Gentleman argued that we should leave the European Union, and I take seriously the case that he makes. I shall go on to say a little about the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), but we should all be clear about one thing: the only way in which to ensure that we take no deal off the table is either to revoke article 50, which would dishonour the mandate, or to deliver a deal. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the deal that the Prime Minister put before the House last night, which sadly did not command a majority, allows us to leave the European Union in an orderly fashion, and in a way that honours our democratic mandate while also preserving our economic advantages. It is much to the regret of people outside the House that we were not able to command a consensus for it then.
Toby Perkins
I am grateful to the Secretary of State. He seems to be making a speech about last night’s debate rather than today’s. The debate that we are having today is about no deal. Can the Secretary of State imagine being the Prime Minister—I am sure he spends a lot of time imagining that—and coming to the House for a vote of this importance, and the Government’s not having an opinion on whether their own members should vote for or against it?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman has a wonderful cheek in saying I was speaking about the events of last night when he sought to intervene on me in the very first second of my speech. Perhaps he has pretensions to clairvoyance.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I have none, so I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) will ask me.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Sadly, in his undoubted wisdom the Speaker did not select amendment (g) in my name, which instructs the Government to keep no deal on the table during negotiations with the EU. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to keep no deal on the table, as otherwise how will we get a better deal?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The motion which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and which I will vote for this evening makes it clear that we do not believe we should leave on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement, but it does not take the option of no deal off the table because, as I underlined earlier, the only way in which that can be done comprehensively is either through revocation or agreement to a deal.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I voted leave in the referendum, and my right hon. Friend led the campaign. There is going to be a choice in the end for this House between the Prime Minister’s vision for Brexit, which I support, and the Leader of the Opposition’s vision. The Leader of the Opposition’s vision is to stay in the customs union, remain in the single market and continue to have free movement of people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that in no sense honours the spirit of the referendum vote to leave the European Union?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an admirable point, and I note that the Leader of the Opposition is not in his place today. I note also that in the point of order he made last night he did not refer to the newly adopted policy of embracing a second referendum, which is now Labour’s position. To add to the incoherence of the Labour party’s position in saying that it wants to be in a customs union and a single market and indeed to accept free movement, it wants to overturn the promise it has made to honour the referendum mandate, and not to bring forward a second referendum. In their naked pursuit of political advantage I am afraid that the Labour Front Bench are letting this country down, and more importantly letting their voters down.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I want to make a little progress but will accept more interventions in due course.
As a result of the House’s failure to agree to the deal the Prime Minister presented last night we now face a number of unattractive choices, and it is important that the House realises that all of these choices are less attractive than support for the deal the Prime Minister negotiated. We can choose as a House to leave without a deal, but there are significant economic, political and constitutional challenges if we embark on that course which I will go into in just a second. We could accept a deal less attractive than that which the Prime Minister secured, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) has pointed out, there are many in this House who would have us leave the EU in a way that does not honour the referendum mandate and does not honour the manifesto promises at the last general election. Doing that would not only circumscribe this country’s sovereign right to make decisions in its own interests, but undermine and further erode faith in democracy. But if we are talking about faith in democracy, either frustrating the vote altogether by revoking article 50 or seeking to overturn it with a second referendum would be choices of far greater magnitude, and to my mind be far more damaging.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I am very happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry).
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The cat is out of the bag: on his own admission this motion does not take no deal off the table. I will be guided by you, Mr Speaker, but my understanding was that at the Dispatch Box this House was given a guarantee that today we would have the opportunity to take no deal off the table. Will the right hon. Gentleman not only confirm that, Mr Speaker, but also inform us of the following? Is it the case that the Government are offering a free vote on amendment (f) in the name of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), which Mr Speaker has selected, yet they are whipping against amendment (a) in the name of the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman)? [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear it, but it is a shameful carry-on when a former chairman of the Conservative party is whipped against to the extent that she will not press that amendment to the vote. This House will be denied the chance to take no deal off the table; that is the truth of it, isn’t it?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Lady is a distinguished criminal barrister; now I know what it is like to be cross-examined by her, but I also understand why lawyers are paid by the hour.
Anna Soubry
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Whether I was ever a distinguished member of the Bar is debatable, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman as a member of the criminal Bar that we were never paid by the hour when I was at the Bar; in fact repeatedly I worked pro bono, as many criminal barristers have to do under his cuts.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Lady has put the facts on the record. I do not think we should get into the subject of who has been remunerated by how much, whether for legal work or penning articles in newspapers or whatever. Instead let us focus on the terms of the debate. I say to the Secretary of State that, in his own interests, the less said about that matter the better.
Michael Gove
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; I believe as a former Lord Chancellor that that is what is known as a refresher, but thank you.
Mr Clarke
On the point that was concerning the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), can the Secretary of State confirm that it is the Government’s position that we are ruling out leaving on 29 March with absolutely no arrangements at all—that we are ruling out the complete collapse of all our legal and trading arrangements with the continent that we have built up over the last 50 years?
Michael Gove
Yes, I would not use exactly the same language as the Father of the House, but his point is correct. The motion commits the Government not to leave on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement; I hope that is clear and unambiguous. But the motion also makes clear that the default position in law is that we do leave the EU unless we can secure assent to a withdrawal agreement, which is why, as I mentioned earlier, it was so disappointing that we did not secure a mandate last night.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I will give way first to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and then to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve).
Mr Bradshaw
Will the right hon. Gentleman now attempt to answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and explain the media reports? Given that the Prime Minister last night promised free votes—[Interruption.] Yes she did, at the Dispatch Box; the right hon. Gentleman should not shake his head. Can he therefore explain the reports that the right hon. Member for Broxtowe has pointed to that the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) will be a free vote on the Conservative Benches but the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) will be whipped against? That is an absolute disgrace and bad faith to this House.
Michael Gove
If only the Labour party would give its own Members a free vote, then we could find out what they really think.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It seems to me that the difficulty that might be arising across the House is as follows. If the House passes this motion this evening, and I have no reason not to support the motion in the terms of its ruling out no deal, in order to achieve that two things have to happen: first, we need to get an extension to article 50; and secondly, we are going to have to make a change to primary legislation in the withdrawal agreement Act. I assume the Government are undertaking, if this motion is passed in its own terms, to do exactly that?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention, because it allows me to underline and further elucidate the point. It is absolutely correct that tomorrow the House will have an opportunity, if the motion passes tonight, to decide how to seek an extension. Obviously an extension is not something we can insist upon and automatically see delivered; it is in the gift of the EU and requires the assent of all 27 other EU members. But of course there will be an opportunity further to debate that tomorrow.
Mr Grieve
Just to remind the Secretary of State: there was a second part to the question, which is equally critical. It is that the Government will have to bring a statutory instrument to the House to alter the departure date set out in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. In those circumstances, I assume that the Government are undertaking to do exactly that.
Michael Gove
The Prime Minister and others have said that previously, and I am happy to place on the record once again at this Dispatch Box exactly that commitment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I want to make a bit of progress, but there will be time for others to intervene. I am also conscious that many Members want to speak—
Michael Gove
Forty Members. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
I stressed earlier that if we choose to leave without a deal on 29 March, this country will face economic, political and constitutional challenges. We are a great country, and we would get through it. We would in due course ensure that this country was more prosperous, freer and successful, and of course the Government have been working hard to ensure that we can be prepared for any eventuality and that we can mitigate the risks of leaving without a deal. At this stage, I should like to pay particular tribute to the civil servants across the Government who have been working exceptionally hard and with great skill to ensure that we are ready for any eventuality. We do not pay tribute to civil servants often enough, and I am sure that everyone across the House will recognise how important their work is. However, I stress that that work is work to mitigate the challenges.
If we were to leave on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement, we would be treated as a third country by the European Union. That would mean that we would face tariffs on many of our products. I am acutely aware that some of the highest and most severe tariffs would be imposed on food. Our sheep farmers and beef farmers would face the instant imposition of tariffs of at least 40% and in some cases more than 100%. Their livelihoods, and indeed the economic and social health of our countryside, would face very challenging circumstances. None of us can be blithe or blasé about those challenges.
We also know that there are at least 145,000 businesses in this country that trade with the EU—and of course do commerce in the UK—but do not trade outside the EU. As soon as we become a third country, they will need to register with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in order to ensure that their trade can continue. Those businesses will need to secure their economic operator registration and identification—EORI—numbers and the other documentation necessary to trade. At the time of speaking, only about 50,000 of those 145,000 businesses have made those preparations. That means that, just over a fortnight away from the prospect of leaving without a deal, a significant number of businesses in this country do not have the wherewithal, the means, or the appropriate documentation to carry on trading.
On top of that, products of animal origin being exported to the European Union will need to undergo sanitary and phytosanitary checks—in addition to customs and other checks—at a border inspection post. A significant amount of our food produce crosses the narrow strait from Dover to Calais or goes through Eurotunnel. At the time of speaking, there is no border inspection post at either of those ports. Of course, there are many things that this Government can do to mitigate the consequences of no deal, but we cannot dictate what the EU’s tariffs will be, we cannot instruct the port authorities in France on how to order their affairs, and we cannot compel businesses to acquire the means necessary to continue to trade in the way that they have been doing. These all represent cumulative costs that businesses would face in the event of a no-deal exit on 29 March.
Several hon. Members rose—
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. He is right to say that the European Union does not have border infrastructure in place to carry out the border inspection checks that he mentions. Is that perhaps why the EU has asked us to dynamically align our regulations for a period of nine months so that it would not have to carry out such checks during that period?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is right, but dynamic alignment during those nine months would mean our being a rule-taker during that period. Dynamic alignment would allow us to be registered as a third country, but there would also be sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—checks on a variety of products.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The Secretary of State speaks as though there is some distance between him and the tragedy that he has just outlined, but is it not the case that he is a senior author of that tragedy? Does he feel no sense of shame or responsibility? Should he not apologise for the mess that we are facing?
Michael Gove
It is the responsibility of those who voted against the withdrawal agreement last night—[Interruption.] If Scottish National party Members had a care for Scotland’s industry, Scotland’s prosperity and Scotland’s farmers, they would have voted for the withdrawal agreement last night, but I am afraid that when it comes to political positioning and separatist posturing, rather than serious politics, there is no equal to the ranks of the Scottish National party.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
My right hon. Friend might not be aware that the authorities in Calais have said to me that they will have a border inspection post open at the end of the month. I urge his Department to work with my port and with the community in Dover on this, because they want us to have a border inspection post just outside the port—just as they do in places like Rotterdam—but the unfortunately restrictive position of DEFRA means that it is trying to say that it has to be inside the port, which it does not. Can my right hon. Friend get his Department to be more flexible?
Michael Gove
My Department has been flexible, and will continue to be flexible. We will continue to do everything possible in order to facilitate trade, but as my hon. Friend points out, although that border inspection post could be in place by the end of the month—and we hope it will be—it is not in place now.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows, as I do, just how important agriculture is to this country through the jobs that it creates and through all that it adds to biodiversity and the environment. Does he agree with my assessment that no right hon. or hon. Member who purports to understand and support farming in their constituency can support leaving the European Union without a deal?
Michael Gove
Obviously there is a diversity of views in this House, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is in the interests of British farming, and indeed our broader environment, that we do not leave on 29 March without a deal. This is one of the reasons why I am making these arguments at the Dispatch Box now.
There are also political challenges in leaving on 29 March without a deal. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) pointed out, during the referendum campaign we argued that we should leave with a deal. I am also conscious that, while our mandate was clear, it is also the case that with a 52:48 result, we need to take into account the hopes and concerns of those people who did not vote to leave the European Union. The Prime Minister’s deal does that; it does more than that. Many people who voted to remain—including Members of this House in my party and in others—have accepted the result and wish us to leave in order to honour that mandate. However, they do not want us to leave on 29 March without a deal. There would inevitably be political strains and pressures consequent on leaving without a deal on 29 March that no Minister can afford to ignore.
More than that, it is important to stress that there are also significant constitutional challenges. It is the case, as several hon. Members have pointed out, that a majority of voters in Scotland and in Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU, but we voted as one United Kingdom, and we voted to leave. It is striking that support for the Union in Scotland has risen since the vote—[Hon. Members: “It’s gone down!”] Well, we only need look at the ranks of Scottish Conservative MPs, who turfed out the partitionist part-timers of the SNP, to see which way the tide was flowing—[Interruption.] They don’t like it up ’em.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The Secretary of State will be well aware, as will other Members, that Northern Ireland has not had a functioning Assembly for over two years. We have had no Ministers in Northern Ireland for over two years. This House, including the Members of the Democratic Unionist party, must therefore give due weight to the serious warning issued last week by the head of the Northern Ireland civil service, David Stirling, about the grave consequences for Northern Ireland of a no-deal Brexit.
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady, for whom I have enormous respect, is absolutely, 100%, totally right. Of course, it is up to this House to take that decision, but it is the case, whatever the position in Scotland—there can be no doubt that leaving without a deal would impose additional pressures on our precious Union—that there would be particular pressures on Northern Ireland if we leave without a deal on 29 March. As the hon. Lady points out, Northern Ireland has been without a devolved Government for two years and, in the absence of the Stormont institutions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has introduced legislation and guidance to empower Northern Ireland’s civil servants, including the wholly estimable David Stirling, to continue to take decisions that are in the public interest. That arrangement is sustainable at the moment, but it is the sincere hope of myself, my colleagues in Government and, I believe, almost everyone across the House that we can restore the Northern Ireland Executive.
However, it is also clear that the current situation, with no Executive, would be difficult to sustain in the uniquely challenging context of a no-deal exit. If the House voted for no deal, we would have to start formal engagement with the Irish Government about further arrangements for providing strengthened decision making in the event of that outcome. That would include the real possibility of imposing a form of direct rule. That is a grave step, and experience shows us that it is hard to return from that step, and it would be especially difficult in the context of no deal.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s written statement today, which affords frictionless trade to the Republic of Ireland in terms of tariffs and there being no checks. If that can be the basis of no deal, why can it not be the basis of a deal?
Michael Gove
It is the case that my right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary has issued a written statement, and it is the case that those provisions seek to minimise the consequences of no deal, but that is a temporary arrangement that could be open to legal challenge. To put it at its highest, it is a sub-optimal arrangement. It is a reflection of the hard work of the Northern Ireland civil service and my right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary that we will do everything we can to minimise frictions and checks at the border in order to underpin the importance of both commerce and peace on the island of Ireland. However, it is emphatically not an arrangement that any of us can regard as genuinely sustainable or ideal.
Michael Gove
I am happy to give way to all my hon. Friends, but I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford).
Vicky Ford
My right hon. Friend is making a clear case for why leaving without a deal at the end of this month would bring such uncertainty. Will he provide more clarity on how the time could be used during an extension?
Michael Gove
It would be for the House to decide tomorrow what type of extension it believes is appropriate. The most important thing that we could do is to rally behind a withdrawal agreement that ensures that we can preserve not just the strength of our economy, but the gains from leaving the EU. It is also the case, as I indicated earlier, that civil servants are working incredibly hard to ensure that we can mitigate all consequences.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I will give way to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) in a second, but I will not give way to the hon. Gentlemen from the SNP. First, however, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).
Dr Murrison
This morning’s written statement’s bearing on tariffs is welcome, particularly the zero tariffs on goods travelling north to south on the island of Ireland, but what discussion has he had with Dublin about tariffs on goods travelling south to north? Given the importance of agrifood in Northern Ireland, he will appreciate the potential grave disadvantages for agriculture in Northern Ireland in the event of no deal.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have spoken to Michael Creed, who is the responsible Minister, but there are additional challenges that agriculture and food processing in Northern Ireland would face in the event of a no-deal scenario on 29 March.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) and then to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford.
Mr Gyimah
My right hon. Friend is being incredibly generous with his time. The overwhelming view of business is that no deal should be taken off the table. Given that those of us on the Government Benches know that the success of our party and our country is based on backing the job creators and the wealth creators, how does he think the Conservative party of the 1980s would look at our response to business at the moment?
Michael Gove
I am fortunate to speak after the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a spring statement in which he underlined the fact that this country has had the longest period of uninterrupted growth of any G20 economy and that we have a faster-growing economy—and are predicted to have a faster-growing economy—than Italy, Germany and Japan. It is also the case that we have a record number of people in work and real wages are rising. Under his leadership and that of the Prime Minister, anyone nostalgic for the ’80s would say that, actually, what we have once more is economic success delivered by a Conservative Government putting the national interest first.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I am happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, but then I will make progress.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is making a very strong argument against no deal and the damage that it would cause. The purpose of the votes today and tomorrow is to establish the default position. If we do not have a deal in place—and we do not have a deal in place with the majority behind it in the House—what will the default position be on 29 March? Will he clarify his position on this, as it is not clear in the motion? If there is no deal in place by 29 March, does he agree that the default position cannot be simply to leave without a deal?
Michael Gove
That is exactly what the motion today is designed to assert, and that is why I hope that people will support it.
Michael Gove
No. I wanted to stress that in underlining all these challenges and by emphasising that we are doing everything that we can to mitigate them, it is not the case—I made this point earlier, and I want to underline it for the benefit of all—that we are taking no deal off the table. The only way that that can be done is either to revoke article 50 and decide to stay in the European Union, or to conclude an agreement. That is an inescapable fact, and that is why we face a series of unattractive choices. Many of the alternatives that have been put forward would undoubtedly be worse.
Michael Gove
No. The Labour party is now committed to a second referendum, and indeed there has been no more impressive and articulate advocate of that position than the hon. Gentleman—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State has made the position clear. Let me conduct the very briefest tutorial for the benefit of the illustrious Chair of the International Trade Committee of the House of Commons. It is unseemly, to the point of being disorderly, to try to speak one’s intervention by mouthing it before permission has been given to undertake it. It is a point that is so blindingly obvious that, as I often observe, only an extraordinarily sophisticated person, possibly from Na h-Eileanan an Iar, could fail to grasp it. Secretary of State.
Michael Gove
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Once again, I am grateful that you are in the Chair.
The Labour party is now committed to a second referendum, but many of its leading spokespeople have made clear what they thought of a second referendum in the past. The shadow Education Secretary said that it would be a mistake and would show disdain for democracy. Indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), when asked about a second referendum, said, “No, we don’t think that’s right. If we went for a second referendum we would be saying to people, ‘We think you’re stupid. We think you made the wrong decision. We’re going to do something else.’” Now that she embraces a second referendum, I am afraid that having once sneered at the flag of St George, she now confirms that she wants to tell the British people that they are, in her view, wrong and stupid. That may be a view popular in Islington South, but it is not the view of the Government, who are determined to honour the votes of the British people and who will not dismiss their sovereign decision as either wrong or stupid.
Michael Gove
I will tell you one thing that is worse than Jeremy Corbyn, and that is the prospect of an independent Scotland with the gaggle of, as I said earlier, part-time partitionists in favour.
Michael Gove
There is one thing that is better than Jeremy Corbyn, and that is the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle).
Peter Kyle
I take compliments wherever I can find them. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have said at the Dispatch Box, previously and today, that the House is very good at striking down things that are on the table but very bad at putting forward alternatives. I have noticed in recent days that both of them have been doing exactly the same thing; they spend a lot of time striking down any other proposition that is mentioned from across the House, but the one they are sticking to has also been decisively struck down more than any other—twice, in historic proportions. If we carry on doing the same thing, we are going to get the same result. Is he suggesting that he will bring the deal back again and again and again, or will he show the leadership expected of somebody in his position and someone in the Prime Minister’s position and change course, listen to other propositions and engage with people who are trying to compromise?
Michael Gove
I said before the hon. Gentleman was better than Jeremy Corbyn and he proved by his intervention that he is much, much better than Jeremy Corbyn. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on everything, but I do think it is right that we have dialogue across this House. We are in an uncomfortable position. I was an enthusiastic supporter of the Prime Minister’s deal. It commanded more votes last night than it did at the first time of presentation, but it did not command a majority in this House. That is why it is the responsibility of us all not only to listen and reflect, but to recognise that none of us can dodge choices. The choices before this House as a result—
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
No. The choices before this House as a result of the decision not to endorse the Prime Minister’s deal last night are unattractive, and I have laid out just how unattractive some of them are. Another proposition has been put forward—
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State has just made it clear that the Government’s intention is to keep putting the same deal back to the House over and again, even though it has been decisively defeated twice, possibly ad infinitum. Is that not out of order?
Mr Speaker
There are historical precedents for the way in such matters are regarded. I do not need to treat of them now and no ruling is required now. There may be people who have an opinion about it. I am not really preoccupied with that, but a ruling would be made about that matter at the appropriate time, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me that such a ruling might at some point in the future be required.
Michael Gove
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. For the benefit of the hon. Lady, let me say that I am simply making it clear that as a result of last night’s vote we face a series of unpalatable choices. The Government have put forward a motion tonight that I hope right hon. and hon. Members will support. It would ensure that we do not leave on 29 March without a deal, but this House has to decide—it has to decide what it wants—and that is why I agreed with the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). This House has been very good at saying no and insufficiently statesmanlike in supporting the Prime Minister in her efforts. It is now make your mind up time for this House. It is crucial that Members on all sides respond appropriately.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why it is democratic to keep bringing back to the House a proposition that has been overwhelmingly defeated on two occasions, but it is somehow undemocratic to suggest that the British people should be asked whether they want to change their minds?
Michael Gove
I point out two things on that. First, the proposition that was put before the House was significantly different from the one that was put before the House beforehand. [Laughter.]
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman taxes me about stupidity. I will return to his comments in just a second. The key thing is that the proposition was different, but of course we did not secure support for it and the House now has to decide. I respect the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) very much, as he knows, but it was the official position of his Front-Bench team not to endorse a second referendum and they have done what might inelegantly be called a flip-flop or U-turn. I was merely pointing out to the House the nature of that flip-flop and U-turn.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
My right hon. Friend keeps saying that when we reach 29 March, we will not leave unless we have a deal, and he has been considering the alternatives, because currently doing nothing means that, by law, we will leave with no deal. He keeps suggesting revoking article 50. Is that because we could seek an extension, if by then the House has some idea of what it is seeking an extension for, but the EU might then refuse it? Is he prepared to contemplate and is it the Government’s position that if the EU refuses an extension, we will revoke article 50, no doubt with the intention of invoking it later, once Parliament and the Government have decided what it is we are seeking for our future?
Michael Gove
The Father of the House makes an important point, but we cannot revoke article 50 and then invoke it again later. The European Court of Justice has made that absolutely clear, which is why—
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
If the Government are serious about engaging with alternatives to the deal that we voted on last night and serious about listening, why will they not grant a series of indicative votes, as recommended by the Exiting the European Union Committee, on which I serve and which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), to determine the will of the House?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Depending on how the House votes today, we may have an opportunity to vote on that proposition tomorrow. It is important is that we find consensus as quickly as we possibly can.
Joanna Cherry
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Secretary of State has got confused between the ruling of the Court of Justice and the preliminary opinion of the advocate-general. It was the preliminary opinion of the advocate-general that suggested that once article 50 was revoked, it could not be implemented again, whereas the opinion of the Court of Justice does not say that. Given that it is a judgment of the highest court in Europe, how can I put the record straight? The Secretary of State seems to have misunderstood the judgment.
Mr Speaker
That attempted point of order suffered from the material disadvantage of not being a point of order. The hon. and learned Lady has made her point. Legal exegesis as between a court and an advocate-general is not a matter for the Chair. I would go so far as to say that it is well beyond my limited capabilities. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for elevating me to a level of prowess that I cannot profess.
Michael Gove
That was revealing of the Scottish National party’s position: it wants to be in and then out, in the same way as it wants to be in the European Union but out of the common fisheries policy. We now know that the SNP is the hokey-cokey party—in, out, shake it all about.
Michael Gove
No. I think we have had more than enough from the collection of circus acts of the Scottish National party.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member of the House of Commons Commission, and I therefore hope that his point of order is authentic and genuine.
Stewart Hosie
It is as authentic as almost every else’s. Mr Speaker, the Secretary of State just said that we know what the SNP is, what it believes and what its positions are; how can he know that if he refuses to engage in debate, and instead simply behaves like a little primary school bully, refusing to take proper engagement and hiding behind the big boys who are sitting behind him?
Mr Speaker
Perhaps the Secretary of State is invested with psychic powers—I have no way of knowing—but I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman that in my dealings with the Secretary of State, I have never regarded him in any way as a bully. He is sometimes insistent upon his point of view, but I must say that I have never found him remotely pressurising. Dealing with him is not difficult at all.
Michael Gove
Thank you very much for that generous encomium, Mr Speaker. I am always happy to debate with the SNP.
Michael Gove
What I am not happy to do is to allow the time of this House, when there are so many other serious speakers who want to make their points, to be absorbed by repetitious and self-serving chicanery from the representatives on the SNP Benches.
I wish to turn to one other proposition that has been put forward as an alternative, and that is the position of the official Opposition, which, while not shaped by an amendment today, is their policy, which is that we should be members of a customs union. What is striking about the position that they put forward for the customs union is that they say that, in that customs union, we should be able to offer businesses state aid, which we are not able to offer in the EU. Well, that would be illegal. They also say that we should have a voice in that customs union in the EU’s negotiation of trade deals. Well, no such voice for any member of the customs union who is not a member of the EU exists. They also say that we should have independent trade remedies separate from those that the EU provides.
Mr Speaker
I will take the point of order in a minute.
I was very generous to the Secretary of State. We all enjoy his rhetorical flourishes and I will not repeat the precise words, but he used a little formulation a moment ago that was very, very borderline as far as the procedures of this House are concerned. I very gently say to him that what passes muster at the Oxford Union might not be acceptable in the Chamber of the House.
Justine Greening
My point of order very much follows on from that. This debate is about whether this House believes that we should leave with no deal, yet the Secretary of State has spent quite some time discussing anything apart from that. I just wondered whether we could get your advice, Mr Speaker, about when this debate is actually going to go back to the terms on the Order Paper.
Mr Speaker
Those addressing the House from the Treasury Bench get a degree of latitude, but I do note what the right hon. Lady says and I hope that contributions will focus on what the debate is supposed to be about, for if that were not to happen, there would have to be another debate on the matter in order to meet the terms of the commitment that has been given. That might be inconvenient for some people, but that debate on that matter will take place, and about that there need be no doubt on any Bench—Back or Front.
Michael Gove
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I hope that I was able to outline earlier some of the real difficulties in leaving without a deal on 29 March. It is perfectly open to Members to take different views on that matter.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Ind)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Michael Gove
No, no, no.
I hope that people recognise that I have tried to take as many interventions as possible, but we must now move on to hear from the principal Opposition spokesman and, of course, to make sure that as many Back Benchers as possible have their voices heard.
Michael Gove
No!
It is important that all of us in this House recognise that, as a result of the vote last night, there are no easy options, no attractive choices, left. I hope in the debate today and, inevitably, in the debate that follows tomorrow, we all take the responsibilities of representing our constituents as seriously as possible. We all need to recognise that leaving on 29 March without a deal would impose economic, political and constitutional challenges and risks for this country that I do not believe that we should undertake. I therefore think that it is important that we all work across this House, and across old divisions, to try to seek a consensus—a consensus that could unite all four nations of the United Kingdom and could unite all our citizens in making sure that we honour the referendum mandate and we leave the European Union in a way that is economically sensible and democratically legitimate. That is why I commend this motion to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I have now to announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions. In respect of the question relating to environmental protection, the Ayes were 315 and the Noes were 235, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the question relating to immigration, the Ayes were 314 and the Noes were 276, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I welcome today’s debate. The Prime Minister is leaving; I know she wanted to open this debate and we understand why she cannot; I send our best wishes for her speedy recovery. I am sure that goes for the whole House.
If the Prime Minister had opened the debate, I think she would have engaged seriously with the points being made by others, rather than hurling easy insults and not engaging with the points. This is a serious debate about a very serious matter, and it needs to be conducted in the right way. The debate is long overdue. On this side of the House, we have never accepted that there should be a binary choice between the Prime Minister’s deal or no deal—“very bad” or “even worse” is not a meaningful choice and would be a very sorry end to the negotiations. Yesterday, the House overwhelmingly voted to reject the Prime Minister’s deal, which is the first of those options. Today, we have the chance to reject the second, and we should do so with as big a majority as possible. The mantra of “My deal or no deal” needs to be dead and buried tonight.
Keir Starmer
I will in just a moment. Labour has always opposed a no-deal outcome. We have repeatedly warned that it would be catastrophic for jobs, for the economy, for security, and for peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland, and I will come to those points later.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, but I implore him to use the language of moderation when talking about no deal. He will remember the dire economic warnings during the referendum campaign of, for example, 500,000 extra people unemployed by Christmas 2016. Those things did not come about. So bad were the predictions that the Bank of England had to publicly apologise afterwards. He should not rest his case on predictions. Economic reality is dictated by comparative advantage, such as lower tax rates and more flexible labour markets. That is why the economy is doing so well, despite the prospect of no deal.
Keir Starmer
Lots of things were said by both sides in the referendum that should never have been said, some of them by Members who have already addressed the House.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
One of the things that was said time after time was that there would be no consequences for peace on the island of Ireland. We have heard today from the Dispatch Box—the Secretary of State may want to come back on this—that a consequence of the Government not ruling out no deal tonight is, potentially, direct rule. That is a major shift in the Government’s position. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those are not fears, but the actualities we are dealing with?
Keir Starmer
I will come to the position in Ireland, because it was and has been treated casually, as if it is all a technical question of a line in the road. Anyone who has spent any time in Ireland in the past two years will realise the impact that Brexit is having on the politics of Ireland, which go well beyond the technicalities of the customs union and the single market.
Keir Starmer
I was going to complete my answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, because I accept that we have to deal with the facts as they are. One of my concerns is that because so many things were said in the referendum, there is now a licence to pretend that real risks and outcomes will not happen by simply saying that other things did not happen. That is a real cause for concern.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am very grateful. Following on from the point that the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), made to the Secretary of State and the legal correction that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) made, we are in a situation where the European Union will not give any other deal. There are 16 days to go. There will be no extension beyond the end of May. The question that the Secretary of State and a lot of other MPs need to answer is whether they are going to go for no deal or for revoking article 50. That is what it will come down to in the end. I was in Brussels last week, and the European Union is fed up with the childish antics of the UK Government. The choice is between those two things. I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is there yet, but he and everyone else really need to choose between no deal and revocation. That is the game. Brexit is a busted flush.
Keir Starmer
I have spent a lot of time talking to officials in Brussels over the past two years, and I have been discussing the question of an extension for six months, because it occurred to me back then that we would be in this position. We will need to address that in tomorrow’s debate, but, for my part, I have not received the message from Brussels that there is no prospect of an extension—quite the contrary.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I will just make some progress and give way again in a minute.
The Prime Minister used to tell us that no deal would not be the end of the world. Past Brexit Secretaries even talked up the merits of leaving on WTO terms or told us how crucial threatening no deal was to the negotiations. But Labour Members have been steadfast in insisting that no deal is not a viable option. Why? It is hard to know where to begin. First, there is the economy. On this, the vast majority of businesses and the trade union movement speak with one voice—and that does not happen very often. I have been to meetings with businesses all over the country, and I have spoken to trade unions in those businesses, and I have taken notes of what they tell me. At the end of those meetings, one could almost rub out the identity of who was in the meeting and have the same read-out of their level of concerns. That persuades me that they have a very good point and a very strong case.
Only today, Carolyn Fairbairn from the CBI said that no deal would be
“a sledgehammer to the economy.”
Frances O’Grady from the TUC said that a no-deal Brexit
“would be a hammer blow to our manufacturing industries and the communities they support.”
A no-deal Brexit could be terminal for Britain’s manufacturing and the thousands of skilled jobs it provides. As the son of a toolmaker, I remember when manufacturing was in the doldrums, but now there has been a revival. Manufacturers operate a just-in-time regime that relies on open borders, and they do so successfully. No deal poses a huge risk to them.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State has been talking about what may happen. It is very obvious to me, following his hon. Friends’ exchanges with the Secretary of State, that the Government are intent on bringing the withdrawal agreement back for yet another go. May I make a small prediction? They will go to the European Council on 20/21 March and plead for some additional concession, however small. They will come back to the UK; rerun Maastricht; declare game, set and match; and then try to persuade the House to vote for it. For 50 quid for Help for Heroes, I bet that the third meaningful vote will be on Tuesday 26 March. Will he take my bet?
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier the Secretary of State referred to the 140,000 or so companies that trade exclusively with Europe, only about 40,000 of which have registered and got their EORI numbers, which is necessary in order to do so. The business community has pointed out that there is no reason why HMRC could not give companies an automatic EORI number if they are VAT-registered, as most of them are. It is very worried that the Government are trying to shift the blame for a chaotic no-deal Brexit from their own lack of support and on to business.
Keir Starmer
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is a real cause for concern. In all my discussions with businesses in the past two years, but particularly in the past three to six months, I have detected that while some of the bigger businesses have had the resource to do some planning for no deal, most of the small and medium-sized businesses have not. They have said to me, “We simply do not have the resource to do it, and therefore we haven’t done it.” That is among the reasons why I have always said that a no-deal Brexit is not a viable option.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
My right hon. and learned Friend has said that he is not a gambling man, but it seems that the Secretary of State for Wales might be, because he is refusing to rule out supporting no deal. If one considers Wales’s agriculture, manufacturing industry and so much more, that is absolute madness, in my view. Does the Secretary of State—not quite the Secretary of State yet, but the shadow Secretary of State—agree?
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
My constituency voted to leave. I am a democrat, and I respect the result of the referendum, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a no-deal Brexit would not be in the interests of my constituents or this country?
Keir Starmer
I do not think that a no-deal Brexit would be in the interests of constituents anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I will give way in a moment, but I have given way a lot, and I need to make progress. I am aware that others want to contribute to the debate.
I was dealing with the impact on manufacturing. Some of the large manufacturers have told us what the impact of no deal will be on them. Ford was clear that it
“would be catastrophic for the UK auto industry and Ford’s manufacturing operations in the country”.
Airbus used similar language, saying that it would be “absolutely catastrophic for us”. More recently, Honda said:
“If we end up with WTO tariffs, we’d have something like 10% of costs in addition on products shipped back into Europe”,
which would impact its “productivity” and “competitiveness”. This is not exaggeration. These are companies speaking about their businesses. This will impact on their businesses, and real people’s livelihoods will be at stake.
We do not have to only take the word of businesses and the trade unions, though it is a powerful voice. We can also look at the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who I believe is still a Business Minister in the Government, said that no deal
“would be completely disastrous for business in this country”—
no doubt because, like me, he has been talking to those businesses. He then took a novel approach to collective responsibility by saying:
“I am very happy to be public about”
the dangers of no deal
“and very happy if the Prime Minister decides I am not the right person to do the business industry job.”
He was backed up by the Business Secretary, who said
“no deal is fully acknowledged—certainly by me and the industry—as being ruinous for our prospects”—[Official Report, 4 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 68.]
The Government’s own figures show that no deal would mean a reduction in the economy of between 6.3% and 9% over 15 years, and every region would be poorer—Wales by 8.1%, Scotland by 8% and the north-east of England by 10.5%. Anybody who votes tonight to keep no deal on the table needs to explain to their constituents why they are taking that risk with jobs and our economy.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mistaken my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) with my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It is important to make that correction.
What businesses are saying to me is that their key enemy is uncertainty. If they do not have certainty over the future terms of trade, investment decisions will continue to be postponed. There is certainty over those terms of trade if we leave the European Union on 29 March either with the Prime Minister’s agreement or moving to World Trade Organisation terms.
Keir Starmer
As for the anxiety of businesses over uncertainty, and their yearning for certainty and the impact it is having on their decision making and investment, that is absolutely true. It should be a cause of great concern to all of us. None of the businesses I have spoken to—I have spoken to thousands in the last two years—has suggested that the certainty they want is no deal. They all say to me that they do not want no deal, and they normally point out the consequences of no deal.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. and learned Friend is making the point that the worst deal is no deal. He has talked about manufacturing, and this issue has been raised with me by GMB, Unite and other unions. Does he agree that the uncertainty over the trade agreements between other countries and with the EU, which we trade under and which account for about 12% of our imports and exports, is already causing great problems for manufacturing, imports and exports and jobs in our constituencies?
Keir Starmer
Absolutely. They have real concerns about that, and they raise them regularly.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I have great confidence in my right hon. and learned Friend, and he is making a very good speech. When this all started, those in my manufacturing sector were saying, “Surely, intelligent people on the Benches across the House could come to a solution.” They have now changed, and they are calling for me to push here for a second vote or a people’s vote.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention, because it takes me to a point that was repeatedly made by the Secretary of State, which is that it is somehow somebody else’s fault that the deal is not going through and that the Government do not bear any responsibility for failing to bring the House with them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
No. I want to make this point because it is important. The Government have failed to get the House behind their deal, and they cannot get away with simply saying, “That is somebody else’s fault. It’s not our responsibility. We’ve done nothing wrong.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
No. I want to make this point because it is a really important point. The Prime Minister and the Government had a choice two years ago. They could have invited this House to express a view on the type of deal this House would accept, and they refused to do so—repeatedly refused to do so. Anybody in the Government must have been able to foresee the divisions on their own side. They must have been able to foresee that. In those circumstances, they would have been much wiser to seek the consensus two years ago that they may look for now. Having been blinkered, and having red lines that never came about, for the Government to come here now and say that it is other people’s fault for rejecting the very thing they said for two years that they would reject is not to take responsibility for their own actions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I am going to make some progress.
I have been concentrating on the economic issues, but there are wider issues in relation to no deal. There is Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State spoke about Northern Ireland, and we all know how serious the implications are for Northern Ireland. No deal is a risk to the Good Friday agreement. The Government’s own EU exit paper makes that clear.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
No! [Interruption.] I did not mean that rudely; it is just that I do need to make some progress.
The “EU Exit” paper from the Government last year said that
“WTO terms would not meet the Government’s commitments to ensure no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.”
A hard border cannot be allowed to happen, and I do not think this Prime Minister or the Government would countenance that happening.
On security and counter-terrorism, as hon. Members know, intelligence and evidence passes across EU borders in real time every day and it saves real lives. That can only happen subject to agreements with the EU27—that is the basis for passing such information and intelligence—but we also need agreements to decide to what use we can put that evidence and intelligence and, crucially, to plan joint operations. I know that because for five years, as the Director of Public Prosecutions, I was part of that exercise in Eurojust. I know how seriously the Prime Minister takes this because I worked with her when she was Home Secretary, and she knows full well how that such provisions save real lives. A no-deal puts that at risk. No responsible Government would take that risk, and if they did take such a risk, they would not remain in government for long.
Mr Bradshaw
Given what my right hon. and learned Friend said a moment or two ago, which was absolutely right, about the Government’s repeated failure to seek consensus to get us out of this Brexit mess, will he please reaffirm Labour’s firm commitment to our policy of supporting a public vote, with remain being an option on the ballot paper?
Keir Starmer
I will. Back in 2017, we made it clear that we would respect the outcome of the referendum, and we set out in our manifesto what we would seek to negotiate if we were elected into government, which was an agreement that would have the benefits of the customs union and the single market. However, in that manifesto, we also said as a party that we would reject the Government’s red lines, rip up the White Paper and reject no deal. We lost that election, and because we lost we voted to trigger article 50, notwithstanding how we had voted in the referendum, and we allowed the Prime Minister to start the negotiations. Consistent with our manifesto, we conditionally said what deal we would accept when it came back.
We have now got to a hopeless end, and it is a hopeless end. To lose by 230 votes eight weeks ago and then to lose by 149 votes is a hopeless end. The Government cannot just blame others for that; they need to look at themselves and ask why it happened. In those circumstances, both the things that we ruled out in our manifesto—the Prime Minister’s red lines and no deal—are the only things on the table, which is why we support a public vote, to protect against those outcomes. I am proud that we are doing that at this stage in the exercise, and it is obvious why we need to do so.
Anna Soubry
All of us who believe in a people’s vote are grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend—he is my friend, in a legal sense—for what he has said. Were such an amendment to be tabled, would he and his party now support it and get a people’s vote up and running?
Keir Starmer
Two weeks ago on Monday, the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that we would support an amendment to that end or put one forward ourselves. Obviously, the timing depends on discussions across the House and with others, but that is the clear position that we have put down.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I am aware that other Members wish to intervene. I am not being rude, but I really must press on.
Lady Hermon
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to intervene?
Lady Hermon
That is very gracious of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and no surprise; it is characteristic of him. He has been a great friend to Northern Ireland. He mentioned Northern Ireland earlier in his comments, but he did not spend enough time talking about his assessment of the constitutional risk faced by Northern Ireland if—heaven forbid—the United Kingdom were to leave the European Union without a deal. Will he reflect upon his assessment of that risk?
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the opportunity to do so, because there is high anxiety in Northern Ireland, and indeed across Ireland as a whole—across all different communities—about the prospect of no deal. The people of Northern Ireland know that the open border is a manifestation of peace, and there is great concern that if anything happens at the border, that could put back the good work that has been done over the past 20 years. That anxiety is being debated while some of those elected to this House are not here to make known the views of those whom they were elected to represent. I do not say one way or another whether that voice should be here, but it is not in this debate. The Northern Ireland Executive are not functioning, so the constitutional circumstances that prevail in Northern Ireland, for a variety of reasons—I am casting no judgment—are such that there could hardly be a worse time to have this discussion. It has turned into a discussion about the very future of the island of Ireland. That is why I am impatient with those who think that we could somehow deal with the issue with a drone and a camera, because we could not.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that opportunity to speak about Northern Ireland, but I must now press on and talk about the impact on health matters.
A no-deal would have a huge impact on our health service. It would put real strain on an already underfunded NHS, by disrupting medical supplies, access to medicines and the ability of hospitals to hire staff. Niall Dixon, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation, has said:
“A ‘no-deal’ without alternative arrangements to protect patients is simply not acceptable and could put lives at risk.”
Keir Starmer
No, I am going to make progress.
Farming would also be badly hit. The National Farmers Union has been clear—I think it set this out this morning—that the proposed tariff regime would be a disaster for UK agriculture, stating that
“everything must to be done to avoid a no deal Brexit, and the catastrophic impact this could have on British farming.”
I am not quoting the voices of politicians here; I am quoting the voices of those in the field in each of these areas.
Finally, as if the Transport Secretary has not struggled enough already, imagine how he would deal with a no-deal scenario, which would bring chaos to transport. Hauliers would face hours of delay as new checks would be put in place at borders, and family holidays could be jeopardised by a no-deal Brexit as British travel companies lose their current access and rights.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I am going to make some progress.
For all those reasons and more, Labour will act tonight and oppose no deal. We support amendment (a), tabled by the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), because we believe that it is the cleanest and clearest way for the House to express its opposition to no deal.
We recognise, however, that simply opposing no deal is not the end of the story. It is necessary but it is not sufficient. The House needs to have a chance to debate the steps necessary to move forward, and I think there is growing consensus that that needs to happen. The Labour party supports a close economic relationship with the EU and, as I have just said, we also support a public vote.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I give way to the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve).
Mr Grieve
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the difficulty with the Government’s motion is that it is in fact inaccurate? The fact is that the default position, indeed, applies only if we do not ratify or choose to revoke, which one could do either by our own motion or after a referendum, for example. That is why—he may agree with me—suspicions have been raised in the House that the motion is slanted. That may be unintentional, but of course it is within the power of the Government potentially to remedy that with a manuscript amendment to their own motion before this debate is over.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s intervention and agree with his interpretation. I think it would be helpful to have the motion amended. One thing that has not helped is the House making a decision only to find weeks later that the decision we thought we had made is called into question. I invite clarity on that, so that we can express a clear view.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
Further to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and with a view to trying to avoid the no deal that the majority of this House want to avoid, when the Government enter into discussions about the extension of article 50, the other side will want to seek a purpose. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if this House expressed a view, subject to the Labour party’s public support for a public vote, in advance of the European Council on 21 March?
Keir Starmer
If the vote tonight is to reject no deal, and I think it will be, and the vote tomorrow is to seek an extension of article 50, and I think it will be, but it is only to seek an extension of article 50, the question of purpose will be absolutely central. That will be a test for the Prime Minister in the first instance, because she will have to make a decision whether that is the point at which she drops her red lines and her blinkers and opens up the debate to other options.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I want to finish this point because it is very important. The Prime Minister needs to decide, if it goes that way tomorrow, whether she is a Prime Minister who is willing and able to do that and to embrace other options, or whether she will press on only with her own deal. If she presses on with her own deal, I think we will still have to go on and look at other options and get a common purpose. If the Prime Minister forces us down that road, she will be forcing us down the road where the majority will be forcing a view on the Executive, and there are constitutional implications for that.
I accept the force of the point. The test will be tomorrow night, if it gets that far, when we hear from the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box as to what her attitude will be. If it changes from the attitude of the past two years, we might be able to proceed more quickly to find that common purpose. We need to find that purpose, we need to find a majority for it, and it needs to be a sustainable majority, not just for one night or one week. That is what we should have done two years ago.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I do not mean to pause the right hon. and learned Gentleman for too long, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) specifically asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who opened the debate, whether he would agree to revoke article 50. His answer was clear: it is not the Government’s policy to revoke. On the logic of voting to take no deal off the table and the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s policy of a referendum, if the other side—an EU country or countries or the Parliament—rejected a proposal to delay, would Labour’s policy, in extremis, then be to revoke article 50, in the sense of the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend?
Keir Starmer
I believe in addressing each problem as it arises, but let me deal with the question of policy. The right hon. Gentleman makes it sound as if extension is a policy choice of the Labour party. It is not a policy choice of the Labour party. It is driven by necessity because of the situation we find ourselves in. We need to deal with no deal today, and with extension tomorrow.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I am going to make some progress.
No deal should never have been an option. It is the worst possible outcome. Businesses know that, unions know that, and I suspect most of the Cabinet know that. It is extraordinary that the Government have acceded to a free vote on a matter of such importance today, and for them not to have a position on whether this country should exit the EU without a deal. It is the latest evidence of the Government not governing and that they cannot act in the national interest. I urge colleagues to support amendment (a). We can speak clearly and with one voice that this House will not accept leaving the EU without a deal, and we can bury that so deep that I hope it never resurfaces.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
It is almost three years since we had the referendum, and we have reached this extraordinary moment. Effectively, we are back to square one. There is absolutely no consensus within the Government, within the main Opposition party, within this Parliament or among the public on exactly what leave means. We are having to have a debate today on the question whether, after three years of futility, in 16 days’ time we just give up and leave and see what happens, although many of us know and fear the combination of things that are likely to happen if we do so.
This is bizarre because it is also still not totally clear how, if the House votes as I think it will by a large majority to rule out no deal tonight, we propose to guarantee that we deliver that conclusion. It sounds as though more attempts will be made to reach an agreement. I have voted for it twice, but the Government’s withdrawal agreement is dead in the water. Any kind of agreement must now find alternative routes.
We will get there somehow in 16 days. Tomorrow, we will probably vote for an extension, but we have to be clear: extension for how long, and extension what for? The whole thing is dependent on 27 other Governments, all of whom are fed up to the back teeth with the state of British politics, and with trying to negotiate with a British Government who cannot say what they want because they cannot even agree internally on what they want. We depend on the approval of those 27 countries to avoid this disaster, so as we debate no deal, we must consider further things.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The Father of the House signed amendment (b) with me. Is not the reality of the situation that the only two choices in the hands of this Parliament are no deal—walking over the cliff—or revocation, a luxury that exists for only another 16 days because after 29 March it is gone too? The only certain choices are those two choices.
Mr Clarke
We have 16 days left. The hon. Gentleman and I have tabled an amendment that faces up to something that I think very few Members are facing up to. I have discovered in a fortnight that things change very rapidly—I did not anticipate 16 days ago that we would be in this debate—and anybody who forecasts with confidence the state of British politics in 14 or 16 days is being a little reckless. Unless somebody has an alternative, the only way of guaranteeing not leaving with no deal is to revoke article 50, as our amendment suggests.
We will have no other method to follow. I will not go back into the legalisms. I had this discussion with the Attorney General, who kindly sent me his opinion. He is a much superior lawyer to me—I am a very out-of-date criminal lawyer—but I do not altogether agree with him. It is the advocate-general who has expressed doubt about whether we could be said to be acting in good faith if we revoked and then invoked again. I think that is very arguable. I think we would be acting in extremely good faith if we made it clear that we were in no state to leave and would invoke again if and when we decided what we were pursuing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clarke
I really should get on. I am not a Front-Bench spokesman, and lots of people want to speak. I am tempted to give way and debate—I would like to— but, knowing myself, I know I would take too long if I did.
I do not wish to intrude on tomorrow’s debate, but we need to agree as quickly as possible what we are now seeking and the reason for the delay that I think the majority of the House is going to seek. It is important that we do that. Not only is opinion polarised here—lots of factions are pursuing their own preferred ways—but the public are even more polarised than at the time of the referendum. They hold the House in near contempt for the confusion they see, and the sooner we decide what the majority here wish to pursue as an alternative to leaving without a deal, the better, and to do that we may need some time. I have been calling for indicative votes for a very long time, and the Government have been resisting and avoiding them. The only way to proceed now is to explore and demonstrate the view of the House.
I have a suggestion for what might placate the public, satisfy a lot of leavers and remainers and command majority support across the House. If I was outside speaking on a public platform to a less well-informed audience, I would suggest reverting to leaving the political European Union and staying in the common market, which nowadays means the customs union and the single market, or something very much like it. I think that quite a lot of the public thought that that was what they were voting for when they voted leave. If we put that proposition to the public now, it certainly would not be as polarising as some of the arguments we are having inside and outside this House, which are having such a dramatic and catastrophic effect on the nation’s political dialogue.
Chris Philp
The Father of the House is making the case for membership of the customs union and single market while being outside the EU. Isn’t the problem with that approach that we would have no decision-making rights over any trade deals that the customs union might agree or over single market regulations to which we might be subject?
Mr Clarke
I am being drawn outside this debate. The best deals with other countries are achieved through the EU—that is the basis on which British Government have proceeded for years—and it is a disaster that we are in danger in 16 days of falling out of some of the most favourable trade deals, which the British Government have played a part in negotiating. I think that if we insist on that proviso, and if we insist on tackling the problem of our no longer being directly part of a regulation-making power, we are powerful enough to be allowed more consultation than countries that are outside the EU and are part of, say, the European Free Trade Association or European economic area arrangements. We have to tackle the problems that arise from the fact that we are giving in to the idea of leaving the European Union politically, and leaving its institutions.
I think that these problems are grossly exaggerated. I have never heard anyone argue against the EU trade deals that we have with other countries. The Japanese deal was a tremendous stride forward. It is the biggest free trade agreement in the world, and we are about to fall out of it after only a month or so. We talk about losing our powers, and about the threat posed to our sovereignty by the fact that we are not allowed to pass our own different laws on product quality, consumer protection, health and safety, animal welfare and the licensing of products, but I have yet to hear a Brexiteer advocate the reversal of any European regulation that we have passed so far. Members of the public tend to demand higher regulatory standards, and I am lobbied for new regulation more than I ever am for sweeping away what we have.
If the virtue of no deal is meant to be leaving to have a trade agreement with, say, the United States, I can tell the House that I have been involved in trade negotiations with the United States under President Obama, and it is protectionist. The Americans are not dying to open up any of their market to us; they will want us to open up our food market to them. We will not be making regulations here. The Americans will not let the House of Commons decide on animal welfare or food standards. Those are nothing to do with us. We made an agreement. The House of Representatives and the Senate, along with the powerful American food lobby, will decide what the welfare standards for animals and the standards for food should be. We will not get a trade deal with the United States unless we agree to that.
I am being drawn into the merits of the basic argument, but I think it should be underlined that we must look at realistic alternatives to no deal. No deal was not being advocated by anyone at the time of the referendum. I do not think that it was being advocated by more than a handful of people until a month or two ago. Most Brexiteers were not in favour of it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is nodding. Even those who campaigned for us to leave were not campaigning for us to leave with no trade arrangement with our greatest partner. This is just an accident that has loomed because the House of Commons is not able, and the Government are not able, to solve problems in a way that we can agree with the other 27. We are drifting into it, which will be a catastrophe.
Mr Clarke
I am going to be very brief—as brief as I can be. I have already taken longer than I intended.
The argument is that these matters were settled by the referendum, but one of the problems is that the debate at the time of the referendum does not resemble the debates that we keep having, with ever more frequency, in the House. That is not because we are out of touch with the real world. It is because the referendum was conducted in the most bizarre, broad-brush terms, with the leading figures on both sides using ridiculous or dishonest arguments in order to make their case, which had nothing whatever to do with the merits or otherwise of being in the European Union.
Remainers, I am afraid—the key remainers, David Cameron and George Osborne—decided to raise all those fears of immediate catastrophe, which did not actually materialise. That has led people now to say that every future warning from every major business lobby in the country, from the Treasury, from the Government and from everyone else is to be ignored. That is a classic case of crying wolf: one day the wolf actually arrives, and we cannot conduct the government of this country on the basis that we ignore every expert piece of opinion we have, which most of us in fact agree with because we think their warnings are correct.
The referendum gets invoked in all our other debates, too. When I ask my constituents who are leavers—most of them, I am glad to say, voted remain—it is clear that the idea that they were expressing a view on the Irish border and the problems of the Good Friday agreement when they voted to leave, or that most of them were expressing any opinion on the single market or the customs union, is absolute nonsense. Indeed when I talk to members of the public now—who are all expressing anger about the state of affairs we are in—they are still not lobbying me about the Irish border and the single market and all the rest of it. We are having to be engaged in this because our duty is governance; our duty is the medium and longer term better governance of this country, and we have to address the real world of a globalised economy and today’s systems of regulation and the international order in which we have to earn our living against a background of bewildering technological change.
All the arguments about the damage to business and the threat to Ireland, including its constitutional position, and so on have already been addressed by others and I have agreed with every word that has been said. However, I want briefly to give my reaction to that handful—I think it is no more—of Members who seem to think now that no deal is positively desirable and that it is an objective we should have sought from the first. They make it sound very respectable by describing it as “WTO rules”, but I strongly suspect that many who argue that point had scarcely heard of the WTO at the time of the referendum, and I do not think most of them understand what WTO rules actually comprise. I will not go into too much detail, not least because I have not refreshed my own memory too greatly, but there is no developed country in the world that seeks to trade in today’s globalised economy only on WTO rules. They are a fall-back that cover all that international trade that is not governed by recognised free trade agreements. They are designed to ensure that there is no discrimination among countries with which we do not have an agreement. That is why they require a schedule of tariffs, to be accepted by the WTO, and then those tariffs to be imposed on all those countries with which there is no agreement. That means the EU is obliged by WTO rules, now much loved by Brexiteers, to impose the same tariffs on us that it imposes on other third party countries, and we are obliged to impose the same schedule of tariffs on the EU and all other countries with which we do not have a deal.
There are WTO rules that do not allow countries to abdicate a thing like the Irish border. We cannot say we are not going to put any border posts in, so we are going to have organised smuggling become the major industry of the island because we have no idea how we are going to enforce it all. Not only would the Republic be under great pressure from the rest of the EU, but WTO rules would require us to co-operate with policing our border, collecting tariffs, regulatory checks, customs checks and all the rest.
My main worry, however, is not entirely about these short-term consequences, catastrophic though they would be for some sections of our economy including agriculture and the motor industry. My main worry is that, whatever happens in the global economy, the effect of leaving with no deal in the medium and long term and on the comparative economic strength of this country will be that we and the next generation will be made poorer than we would otherwise be. That will be the result if we cannot move away from this no deal nonsense, and I hope a big majority settles that tonight.
Finally, I just want to be totally clear what the Government’s intentions and motives now are. I hope I have been reassured that, if we pass this motion tonight, the Government will in all circumstances take whatever steps it is eventually necessary to take in 16 days’ time to avoid our leaving with no deal. I do not want them to come back in a fortnight’s time saying to the House, “It’s your fault, because you will not vote for the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement, so sadly we are going to have to leave with no deal.” We are ruling this out. That really means having indicative votes to give us some idea of what the British are going to negotiate over the next two or three years. Failing that, it means revoking article 50. Speaking as someone who is a diehard European—
Mr Grieve
In the spirit of trying to encourage the Government to be clear with the House, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the difficulty with the Government’s motion is that the revocation route is not acknowledged? The Government may not want it, and of course there are different ways of reaching it—one is through a referendum; another is through a revocation by this House alone—but the difficulty with the Government’s motion as tabled is that it pretends that that route does not exist. It seems to emphasise a binary choice. Does he therefore agree that getting clarity on that, and possibly a correction, would be immeasurably helpful? Otherwise, it gives the impression that the Government are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Mr Clarke
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend entirely. I have no idea why the Government thought it necessary to put the second half of the motion on the Order Paper. I have been reassured, however, so let me try to reassure him on this. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened the debate, he referred several times to revocation as the alternative—he is now nodding in the affirmative—and I think that if forced to do so, he would revoke. I take comfort from remembering the Prime Minister occasionally saying—normally to the right-wing nationalist members of my party—that if they were not careful, the alternative to her deal would be no Brexit, which amounts to the same thing. I would prefer the wording on the Order Paper to make it perfectly clear that we are ruling out no deal, but I take it that we have been given a guarantee that if no one can think of any better and more sensible way of resolving things, we are going to revoke article 50 and start all over again, because as I said when I began, we have got absolutely nowhere after three years of effort since the vote was announced.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
It is always a privilege to follow the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). I also join the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) in wishing the Prime Minister a speedy recovery. We entirely understand why she is not here for the debate, and, fair play to her, she came along and did Prime Minister’s questions as well as spending time at the Dispatch Box yesterday. It was good to note that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said so many kind words about her, but then again, the Tories are often kind about those who used to lead them.
What a situation to be in—debating a no-deal exit. Next week, we will be 1,000 days on from the EU referendum. Today, we are 993 days on from it and, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe rightly pointed out, 16 days away from exit day. It is a shame that the International Trade Secretary has left the Chamber, because Vote Leave backers told us that this would be the easiest deal in the world and that we had nothing to worry about. Well, like much else from those who backed leave, those promises were not kept. It is good that the DEFRA Secretary is in his place, because he must take a huge degree of responsibility for the mess that we are in today. Not only has he had the 1,000 days since the referendum; he has had his entire political life to plan for this, yet 16 days out, we are planning for the worst kind of exit—the kind that we were told would never happen because this would be the easiest deal in history.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)
Can the hon. Gentleman think of any circumstance in which a consent form would be valid if it were signed 1,000 days beforehand without the signatories knowing the exact procedure to which they were giving their consent?
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Lady makes a valuable point, as she often does.
Before an election or referendum, we are expected to publish manifestos, White Papers and discussion papers—you name it—so that those who win can be held to account for the promises they made, critically, before any vote was cast. That is a fundamental of our democracy. The mess that we are in just now—and it is a mess—shows why Brexiteers such as the DEFRA Secretary avoided scrutiny during the EU referendum. Then, after being presented with the cold, hard reality in government by civil servants who work hard and present the facts, the promises were denied, often by those who used to be in post, including some of the DEFRA Secretary’s former colleagues.
In the few examples where we have some concrete proposals, the promises were not kept. I am not just talking about the extra £350 million for our NHS that was never forthcoming, because the DEFRA Secretary himself promised that Scotland would get immigration powers. We need those powers, which would be good for our nation and good for the economy. I have raised that matter in the House on several occasions, as have my right hon. and hon. Friends and others, yet we are told that it is not a matter for the Government. The DEFRA Secretary is a senior Minister. If we cannot hold him to account, who do we hold to account for the promises that were made and broken? Who do we hold to account for Vote Leave? That is a basic part of our democracy, and our democracy has been let down badly. This is a situation of his making and he is responsible.
I was late to emojis, but they have come in handy. I do not know where I would be without the unicorn emoji. Any right-thinking politician worth their salt will have found it extraordinarily handy during this debate. It is the must have accessory for a decent-thinking politician in 2019. Here is a lesson: politics is about each and everyone one of us taking responsibility.
Stephen Gethins
I will give way to my hon. Friend, who is good example of that lesson.
Patrick Grady
The DEFRA Secretary has told me from the Dispatch Box on at least a couple of occasions that other European countries will be looking enviously at the United Kingdom’s withdrawal agreement. That can surely no longer be the case, so does my hon. Friend think that that may explain why the Secretary of State was so unwilling to take interventions from me and so many of our SNP colleagues today?
Stephen Gethins
This is the thing: just like that promise, every other promise fails to stand up to scrutiny, which is exactly why the DEFRA Secretary would not take any interventions from SNP Members. We have a clear position and know what we want, and the DEFA Secretary should be ashamed of the role played by Vote Leave and the promises that have not been kept.
The DEFRA Secretary also said that the House has been good at saying no. I want to remind him and other Members about something to do with taking responsibility. After the vote, the Scottish Government took the responsible step and put together a group of experts—the SNP still thinks that it is worth listening to experts from time to time—including diplomats, academics, colleagues from other political parties with something to say and a former European Court of Justice judge, to consider the ways forward, and they came up with a compromise deal two and a half years ago. Did the Government respond to that deal? Nothing of the sort. It was the most thought-out plan for this mess and certainly a lot more than we have had so far. No wonder, then, that we are talking about no deal. The House should reflect on that and think about the economic disaster and the social impact on the future opportunities of our young people. Almost 1,000 days on, we are still discussing a no-deal scenario that should have been taken off the table the day after the referendum.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Does he agree that to be prepared to deliberately and willingly inflict no deal on the people of this country, given all the hardship and chaos that it would cause, is really the action of a rogue state? It is bewildering that some Conservative Members still think that Brussels will be intimated by the sight of us putting a gun to our own head. That strategy is not effective.
Stephen Gethins
As usual, the hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Hers is one of the few sane voices that we have heard throughout the debate, given her interventions and the way in which she stands up for her constituents and others in the United Kingdom.
I noted the other night, with regard to the no-deal situation that we are in, that one Conservative MP—in fact, the longest-serving Conservative MP in the House—described the “headbanger” wing of the Conservative party. I am not sure what the names of the other wings are, but I was taken with that: the party’s members are talking about a headbanger wing, which must be a sizeable proportion of the party. While we are talking about no deal, I note the words of the Dutch Prime Minister, who is alleged to have said that a decision to vote for no deal was
“like the Titanic voting for the iceberg to get out of the way”.
The Chancellor seems to get this, and in his spring statement today, he talked about a smooth and orderly transition that would be threatened by no deal. He knows that it would threaten jobs and wages, yet we still debate it and we still have not ruled it out.
I am not sure which wing the Secretary of State for Scotland belongs to, whether the headbanger wing or some other wing, but he claimed the other week—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber—that the SNP wanted no deal. I do not have his experience, but I remind him that the SNP was the first to come up with a compromise, as I have outlined; we were the first to ask for an extension; and last week, we even tabled a simple parliamentary motion on ruling out no deal. I know that the Tories are trying to turn democracy on its head and claim that defeat is in fact victory, as we have just heard from the DEFRA Secretary, but that is surely a step too far. We wanted to rule out a no deal, and he could easily have voted for our simple motion.
Let me remind the DEFRA Secretary—I hate to break it to him—that Tories lost the last election in Scotland, again. The SNP won the last election in Scotland, again. Guess what? Unlike the Tory party, we kept the majority of our seats, so if he wants to talk about democracy and winning, he is welcome to take some lessons from us. On negotiating tactics, if we are in a situation of no deal and hearing what the Chancellor said today, it as if the Prime Minister has shot herself in one foot, then wants to shoot herself in the other foot, just to show everyone how terribly serious we are.
Today’s trade tariffs will hit our industries, not least the food and drink industry on which jobs in my constituency and others rely and for which the DEFRA Secretary has responsibility. [Interruption.] The Trade Secretary is back. He promised that the UK would
“replicate the 40 EU free trade agreements that exist before we leave the EU so we’ve got no disruption of trade”.
Secretary of State, how is that going? Not going well? No, it is not going well, is it? This is not just a political problem for the Conservative party, as Ministers seem to suggest—it is a problem for public services; it is a problem for jobs; and it is a problem if we want to look forward to the future. It is not just a Tory civil war that is being waged among Tories—it is a problem for us all.
Anna Soubry
Can I take the hon. Gentleman back a few sentences? He discussed the general election. I do not want to delve into the success of the SNP or whatever, because he made an important point. In the 2017 general election, the Government lost their majority. Does he agree that, on that basis, they also lost any mandate for a hard, no-deal Brexit?
Stephen Gethins
I hope that the right hon. Lady does not mind my saying that she and I will clash every now and again. She said the other week that there are times I might regret her sitting behind me, and she may well be right, but she makes a powerful point, one that she made on the night of the election as well. This Government lost a majority and lost support, yet they want to do untold damage. It is no wonder the DEFRA Secretary is walking away now. They want to do untold damage to jobs and the economy, and he cannot even sit here and listen. The Scottish Government have looked into this—
Stephen Gethins
This will be good. Let us hear it then. If you can defend why you lost your majority and still pursue this nonsense hard-deal Brexit—
Mr Speaker
I did not lose my majority. Mine went to a record level of 25,725, albeit with no main party opponent.
Chris Philp
The Conservative party’s share of the vote went up considerably and the Scottish National party lost a third of its seats at the last election. I wanted to raise a more serious point. The hon. Gentleman and the shadow Secretary of State have drawn attention to some of the dangers and risks of a no-deal Brexit. It is not the Government’s desire to see a no-deal Brexit, and it is not mine either. But by ruling out a no-deal exit entirely, people are, by definition, deciding either never to leave or to accept terms no matter how bad. Which of those two is the hon. Gentleman advocating?
Stephen Gethins
I thought that would be good. I wish I had my democracy for dummies book here. In terms of the vote, the SNP won, the Tories lost. Let us just nail that straightaway. In terms of no-deal, the SNP tabled a motion last week that was voted on, and Members across this House voted for it. It sought to take a no-deal exit off the table in any circumstances. The hon. Gentleman could have voted for that, but did he? No chance. So he could have done it and he did not. On no deal, the Scottish Government have had the courage of their convictions and published their analysis. What we have seen from that is the devastation that the Chancellor has warned of. The hit would be the equivalent of more than £1,500 for every man, woman and child in Scotland; a drop in Scottish exports of up to 20%; a hit in migration and a hit to our EU nationals as well; opportunities gone for young people, through the lack of freedom of movement and Erasmus gone; and the UK being pushed into recession again.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Given that nearly 50% of the people across the UK voted to stay in the EU, that most businesses, if we asked them, would prefer to stay in the EU and that the Secretary of State today evoked the prosperity of this country as a member of the European Union, does the hon. Gentleman not believe it is absolutely unacceptable that staying in the EU is seen as an unpalatable option?
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Lady makes a good point. Staying in the EU is the best deal. The best deal is the one we currently have as a member of the European Union.
On public services, this Government are spending £4.2 billion on preparation for a no-deal exit, which we could have taken off the table 1,000 days ago. That is £4.2 billion that is not going into hard-pressed public services. It is £4.2 billion that is going into Government mess-ups—ferry contracts that we do not need. Public services will be further hit by a no-deal Brexit and overall by Brexit. This will hit the most vulnerable people in society. It will hit our public services, which have already been dealt a blow by a decade of austerity from parties of every colour in this House.
Stephen Gethins
Before I conclude, I will give way one final time, to the hon. Gentleman, because I respect him.
Crispin Blunt
Having said that this should have been taken off the table 1,000 days ago, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain why he put his name to a conclusion of the Foreign Affairs Committee report published two years and a day ago, which said:
“Making an equivalent mistake”—
and not preparing for no deal—
“would constitute a serious dereliction of duty by the present Administration.”
Stephen Gethins
Just how much could we have saved had we taken that off the table; the Government had not taken the responsibility of taking no deal off the table as they should have done. If the hon. Gentleman wants to refer to that report, I should point out that it was also the report that said that, yes, a no-deal exit would be bad for our European partners but it would be worse for the UK. That is something he put his name to, as did other Brexiteer colleagues from across the House. This said that they would be prepared to hit the UK economy—they would be prepared for that hit—and he signed up to that very report. I know what was in that report.
It is strange that all we hear about now is not the benefits of Brexit; rather, we are limited to Ministers telling us that it will not be that bad. I heard one of the increasingly poor excuses last night, which was that we are in a Parliament of remainers. I am a remainer whose constituency and nation voted to remain, and it certainly does not feel like a Parliament of remainers to me. The extremists will never be happy.
This is about damage limitation. The Brexiteers, including the Secretary of State for International Trade and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, have blown it. I will not vote to make my constituents poorer and less well off because of their mistakes. Let me remind them that it is through the single market that we are wealthier, through its rules in areas such as workers’ rights and parental rights that we are fairer, through joint action on climate change that we are greener and through work with the European Medicines Agency, sadly departed, and air-quality agreements that we are healthier.
The impact is being felt now. Even yesterday, a report showed that £1.2 trillion—an eye-watering sum—had been relocated from the UK, mainly to areas like Dublin. It is no wonder that similar-sized independent and sovereign states such as Denmark, Ireland and Finland see their futures as part of the European Union.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) will press her amendment to a vote tonight. That is important because we need to have no deal taken off the table, given the untold damage that it will do to public services and to our democracy. We have two different views. One is of a state being like our neighbours, and being joined, pooling our sovereignty and working together as an independent sovereign state. The other is of a UK that is isolationist, poorer, more remote and going backwards. Nothing emphasises that more than the fact that the Government have not taken no deal off the table. Let us push the amendment and take no deal off the table tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have just over an hour and a half and around 35 people want to speak, so there will with immediate effect, I am afraid, be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Last night, I voted in support of the Prime Minister’s deal to deliver Brexit. The deal would mean the UK would leave in an orderly fashion, honouring the result of the referendum. It was described as “good enough” by local businesses and would help us to move forward, so I was really disappointed that not enough colleagues supported it. I am no fan of delay, because time costs business money and that costs jobs. People really expect better of Parliament. Many people will be listening to us this afternoon, and I think of those who will hear us trying to rehash the referendum arguments or start up the blame game. None of it is helpful. They want us to put the national interest first. We must honour the referendum result, but to do so without a deal in place would be, as the Archbishop of Canterbury said, a moral and political failure.
A constituent who lives in Chelmsley Wood, a large council estate in my constituency, wrote to me yesterday. This is what he said:
“Tonight I am in disbelief how 391 MPs have a complete disregard towards the will of the British people and over 17.4 million votes in 2016…I wish you could read this email in parliament. I have some strong points as a citizen of this country, the public ‘17.4 million’ we are nobodies, we do not matter, we are just a tax code number, we do not count, we do not have any rights in our democracy and our democracy in this country is now proven to be dead.”
These are his words.
“There is constant talk of a 2nd referendum…or no Brexit at all…In 2016 I and all my family voted in the referendum. We were promised this was a once in a lifetime opportunity and more importantly our vote mattered. The UK had the biggest turn out in history with over 17.4 million giving the instruction to leave the EU…Mrs Spelman I can tell you this (and wish you could read it to all MPs), I’m done with voting. As are my family and in conversation on social media tonight many of my friends are done with voting too.”
This constituent has never contacted me before. I do not agree with everything that he has said, but, my goodness, those words did resonate. I may not agree with him, but I do believe that if this House cannot back a deal that takes us out of the EU, we will be letting millions of ordinary people down. Quite frankly, we do not deserve their votes if we do that.
The House knows that I do not support the UK leaving without a deal in place. It would be disastrous for the economy, especially in my region. The manufacturing industry employs very many people in the west midlands and has given many young people that start of a well-paid skilled job. We are already losing jobs in my region, in part through Brexit. Now, more so than ever before, we face the real possibility that we might leave without a deal by accident. If that comes to pass, we will all bear some responsibility.
The Secretary of State for the Environment did set out clearly what the consequences are of leaving without a deal and it was good to hear that from him. The stark reality of this is revealed by the Government proposals on temporary tariffs if we leave without a deal. Already the automotive sector is telling me that this regime would thoroughly undermine manufacturing in the UK. It said that the proposed rates are
“damaging, divisive and add extra complexity.”
Of these proposed tariffs, the automotive trade body, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said that the move does not resolve the devastating effect of a no-deal Brexit on the automotive industry. No duty-based measures could come close to compensating for the disruption, the cost and the job losses.
This House has demonstrated clearly that there is a majority against leaving without a deal. The Government accepted that and said that they cannot take us out of the EU without a deal without the explicit consent of Parliament. I am really pleased that the Prime Minister has brought forward a motion to rule out leaving without a deal on 29 March.
Dame Caroline Spelman
I cannot give way because of the time limit.
The opportunity afforded by the Government motion of obtaining a really large majority in this House against a no-deal Brexit is greater than that afforded by my amendment, which was carried on 29 January. I really appreciate the offers of support from other parties, but I will be withdrawing my amendment. We cannot just be against something; we must say what we are in favour of. I hope that the result of tonight’s vote on the Government motion will reassure my constituent that we have heard him and that we are capable of working together to deliver his hopes for our nation.
Mr Speaker
I will come to the right hon. Lady’s point of order in a minute.
May I gently say to the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) that she cannot withdraw her amendment? Her amendment has not yet been moved. Her amendment is, frankly, in the hands of the House of Commons. If she puts forward an amendment and then chooses not to move it, that is for her judgment and people will make their own assessment of that. It is perfectly possible for other signatories to it who do stick with the wish to persist with it to do so.
I come now to the point of order of the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry).
Mr Speaker
No? I have treated of the point that was concerning the right hon. Lady.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Yesterday, the House rejected the Prime Minister’s deal for the second time. Today, we must reject leaving with no deal, and tomorrow, assuming that we vote that way tonight, we will have to ask the European Union for an extension to article 50.
Today is the moment when two and a half years of repetition of that nonsensical slogan “No deal is better than a bad deal” will finally be defeated in its fight against reality. It was always a slogan; it was never a policy. That is why the Prime Minister will have to vote against her own slogan when she comes to the Division Lobby tonight.
The arguments for rejecting no deal are really very simple: it would inflict the greatest damage on our economy; it is strongly opposed by businesses and trade unions; and it would mean a huge step into the unknown, the chaotic and the potentially dangerous.
Crispin Blunt
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain why five of his remainer colleagues serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee signed up to this conclusion two years ago:
“It is possible to envisage scenarios in which ‘no deal’ might be better than a bad deal, as the Government has suggested; such as, for example, if the eventual proposed agreement only involves payment of a large sum to the EU in settlement of UK liabilities, with no provisions for any preferential trade arrangements or transitional arrangements towards a mutually beneficial future relationship.”
Hilary Benn
All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I cannot speak for those colleagues. My view has consistently been clear that no deal cannot be a policy for this country. By the way, no deal is not what those who campaigned for leave in the referendum ever argued for, so I do not quite understand why someone should now be arguing for it when they did not argue for it then. No one who has spoken so far—I am not talking about intervening—has stood up and argued why no deal would be a good idea. It is not surprising why they have not. In responding to the schedules that have been published, Carolyn Fairbairn said this morning:
“This tells us everything that is wrong with a no-deal scenario…This is no way to run a country.”
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said:
“No-deal would be catastrophic for the automotive industry. It would end frictionless trade, add billions to the cost of manufacturing and cost jobs.”
We know why.
Hilary Benn
I will not give way, because time is so short. We know that if there is any disruption to the lorries that keep those car factories going every single day, it will affect the production line. The car industry has had enough bad news in the past two months without it being added to by people standing up saying, “No deal is a jolly good idea.”
A professor from one of our major institutions of higher education, whom I happened to bump into on the underground this morning, said to me that no deal would be “catastrophic” for the institution, its research funding and its ability to recruit staff. The truth is that these conversations are repeated in thousands of workplaces up and down the country, in thousands of sectors of the economy. That is why the twelfth report of the Brexit Select Committee said explicitly that leaving with no deal
“cannot constitute the policy of any responsible Government.”
If Members want to read the argument, they can go and look at that report, but I draw attention to the problem faced by a company that makes signs and exports them to Europe to be fitted by its workers. The company asked me what would happen in the event of a no-deal Brexit. I have referred to that in a previous speech. Since then, I asked a written question, to which I received the answer:
“UK nationals travelling to the EU for the purposes of work may be subject to extra conditions. Businesses will need to check individual Member State immigration rules for whether there are any requirements or conditions around supporting documentation, work permits or visas. Businesses should also check whether there are any restrictions on the provision of services, such as whether a UK professional qualification is recognised in the country in question.”
What use is that reply to a business that has worked hard to create jobs? There are those in this House who will stand up today and argue that that business’s future should be thrown into doubt, but what use is an answer like that? It basically says, “You’re on your own.”
The final point I want to make is this: given what happened yesterday, today’s vote is the next step required before tomorrow’s inevitable decision to apply for an extension to article 50, which the Brexit Select Committee report—it was published this morning with commendable speed after the events of last night—says will be necessary. Given the rather unhelpful coda, if I may put it that way, to the Government’s motion tonight, I think the House will vote to reject a no-deal Brexit on 29 March this evening, but Ministers need to recognise, be aware of and acknowledge that this House will never vote to leave the European Union without a deal, whether at the end of March, the end of June or the end of October. We are not prepared to take that risk with our economy, our jobs and the livelihoods of the people we represent—not today and not ever.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Amendment (f) stands in my name and the names of an eclectic and wide-ranging group of right hon. and hon. Friends from three separate parties. Many of us have perhaps not found ourselves signing amendments together much in the past. The purpose of the amendment is manifold, but one of its purposes is to avoid what may face us at the end of this month—a cliff-edge, no-deal Brexit for which it is clear that the country as a whole and, in particular, many of our major industries are not prepared, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has just repeated.
I am conscious that some who will support this amendment are sanguine about an immediate no-deal Brexit, so I should set out my own position. I think that no deal on 29 March would be a disaster for the economy of the country, a particular threat to manufacturing industry, and, in practical terms, a particular threat to the day-to-day lives of my constituents and everyone else in east Kent. That is why I oppose it.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I have the utmost respect for my right hon. Friend, but I will be opposing his amendment. Is it not somewhat strange that the very people who voted last night to kill Brexit for 29 March this year are now signed up to voting, and will vote this evening, to delay Brexit? This will only be the first delay, of course, because there will potentially be others in future. We are in a very strange place at the moment.
Damian Green
The one point in that intervention I agreed with is that we are in a very strange place at the moment. I think the whole House can agree with that.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Lady Hermon
I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I would like him to explain in some detail whether or not the proposals that he is asking the House to vote on tonight protect the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in all its parts, and particularly the consent principle, which is guaranteed in the withdrawal agreement—the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal—on page 307.
Damian Green
That is an extremely valid point. I believe that they do. I will come on to what is actually in the amendment shortly, if I may.
As I hope I have made clear, I am as keen as anyone to reject an immediate no deal. I will support the Government’s motion this evening. Indeed, this amendment is deliberately designed not to replace the Government’s motion, as many amendments do, but to act in addition to it. But this House should not deceive itself. Voting against no deal does not mean that a deal will magically emerge. This House has to agree a deal, and that deal needs to be acceptable to the EU. We can pass motions ruling out no deal until we are blue in the face, but it will make no difference unless there are options that this House will support. That is a piece of realism that the House has not yet fully addressed. I voted for the deal last night, and indeed in January, and I am happy to assure the Government that I will do so again if they wish to try one more time.
More broadly, I campaigned for remain, but I respect the result of the referendum. I therefore draw the conclusion that I should vote for a deal that delivers Brexit. My principal aim in all this, and the aim of those of us who support this amendment, is to make sure that Brexit is as smooth as possible for the citizens and businesses of this country. This seems to me to be an honourable aim whatever view you took during the referendum. It is a view you can hold if you believe that Brexit is the best opportunity Britain has had for generations, or if you believe that it is a mistake whose damage has to be mitigated. From both those viewpoints, you can arrive at the same practical conclusion.
That practical conclusion is what lies behind amendment (f). It has four separate parts. I was grateful that the Prime Minister accepted at least two of them in full earlier today at Prime Minister’s questions.
The first one that the Prime Minister accepted, and which the Government have already implemented, is the publication of the tariff schedules that we will need. I make no comment on the individual merits of each schedule—those are clearly a matter for legitimate debate—but the need for information as early as possible is paramount, and I am glad that the Government have taken that step, which is urged in the amendment. The second one is unilaterally guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens resident here. That has been a desire of Members on both sides of the House since the referendum, and I am glad that the Government are on board with that.
The third key element of the amendment is that the Government should seek an extension of article 50 until 22 May—the latest date possible to avoid European elections, the prospect of which brings out the Brenda from Bristol in all of us. That would be a useful delay, and it would give business more time to prepare for the new tariff regime.
The fourth and largest part of the proposal is to offer money and standstill agreements in a range of areas to the EU, in return for a period between now and December 2021 in which we could negotiate the future relationship. In other words, it provides a gentle glide path to that new relationship, instead of the cliff edge that might otherwise threaten us. The future relationship is, of course, much more important than the withdrawal agreement, which this House keeps turning down. It will decide our future prosperity and security. This amendment focuses on that long-term goal, given the obvious difficulties of the short-term goal of a withdrawal agreement.
I know the objections; I have heard them. The first is that Monsieur Barnier has already said that he will not have it. It seems to me that if we do not proceed on a path just because Michel Barnier has said he will not have it, we will never get anywhere in these negotiations. The second is that this is a managed no deal. As I say, I would much prefer a deal, but if we cannot sign one, it is better to have a plan B that avoids chaos and gives us years to craft a proper trade deal as part of a future relationship.
I urge colleagues on all sides, whatever their views on wider European issues, to look favourably on this amendment. We live in a free vote world these days, so if necessary, they should ignore their Whips—they can be nice to them tomorrow. We need ways out of this impasse. This is one.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
We have only two weeks to go, and businesses do not know whether they need to pay tariffs. We do not know whether public services will face shortages, and families do not know whether their food bills are about to go up. Nobody can plan. As the British Retail Consortium said today, there are ships already on their way to our great trading nation that do not know what kind of customs paperwork they will face by the time they arrive on our shores.
Police officers who are midway through important investigations to stop serious criminals and organised gangs operating across borders have no idea whether the European arrest warrants they have out on those criminals are about to ripped up, which would mean they had to start again. Border officials who rely on European criminal databases to screen, with the flick of a passport, for sex offenders, child traffickers or organised criminals do not know whether those databases will be denied to them.
We should be standing up for British manufacturing and ensuring that it has a level playing field to compete in the world. Instead, no deal would be a hammer blow to the heart of our manufacturing base. In my constituency, we have manufacturers such as Haribo, which depends on ingredients from abroad and does not know what delays it will face; and Burberry, which does not know whether its goods will face tariffs as a result of no deal. Are we really going to say to small businesses that depend on imports that their livelihoods could be at stake because this House is prepared to accept no deal in just two weeks’ time? Think of the florist who gets up early in the morning to collect a delivery, before any of us are even awake, who does not know whether they will be able to get their supplies and whether they will be able to trade. That is why we have a responsibility to say that we will not accept no deal on 29 March.
The Government have tried repeatedly to get their deal through, and they have failed, so we have to face up to what the default position should now be. The Environment Secretary said very clearly in his answer to me that, if we do not have a deal in place, the vote tonight will mean that the default position is no longer leaving the European Union with no deal on 29 March. I would really appreciate it if the International Trade Secretary could confirm that when he speaks tonight, because there have been different and confused interpretations, and it is really important to be clear.
The reason why we asked for and sought these debates was to be clear. We have a responsibility now—two weeks before Brexit day—to be clear about the default position. The Government have maintained for all this time that the default position is no deal, but that is not on any more. We have to decide now and vote tonight to change the default position: to say that we will no longer have no deal as the default position because it is too irresponsible. Tomorrow, we will take decisions on the way forward.
Heidi Allen
For clarification and for the benefit of many of us in the House who want to support amendment (a)—the right hon. Lady is one of the lead names on that amendment—will she be pushing it to a vote this evening?
Yvette Cooper
I have listened to the hon. Lady, and I have to say that I still support that amendment, which I think is the right amendment. I think we should hear the views of the House and the view of the International Trade Secretary, but my personal view is that, if that amendment is pushed to a vote, I will certainly vote for it. The International Trade Secretary needs to make this clear. We do not want any fudging about this, because it is really important. We are today ruling out no deal on 29 March. That has to be the purpose of our vote, with support for it from all parts of this House.
We will then need to move to the issue of what happens tomorrow on the extension of article 50. That has to be an extension for a purpose. It cannot simply be for more of the same, with the Prime Minister going back to Brussels, saying the same things about changing the backstop and having the same discussions we have already had many times before. We cannot just have the same meaningful vote on the same things when they have been rejected, so it has to be for something different. I would say to the Government that I think they should now put forward a timetable and a process to make some proper decisions on what the future partnership will look like. We still have no idea whether this is going to be Norway or Canada, or nearly Norway or close to Canada. We have no idea, and the Government have never come forward with that so that we can have proper debates and proper clarification.
Two big failings underlie what the Government have done: they have never sought consensus—the Prime Minister has never sought consensus and never sought to build agreement—and the Prime Minister has never sought clarity. She has deliberately sought a political declaration which simply fudges the future and gives us no clarity. We need clarity and we need consensus. That is why we should have a series of indicative votes. The Government should themselves put forward their own negotiating mandate for the future partnership and the future relationship, which we can then again have votes on and amend. That would actually give this House the chance to make some decisions about how we get clarity on the way forward, and also about how we get consensus on the way forward.
Whatever our different views about what the right position should be, I hope that this whole House can come together to rule out no deal. The Government’s basic responsibility is to keep this country safe, to make sure people can afford their food bills and to make sure that those who are sick can get their medicines. All of those are put at risk if there is no deal, and we should reject it tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. On account of the level of interest in the debate and my desire to accommodate it as best I can, the time limit on Back-Bench speeches will have to be reduced to four minutes with immediate effect.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I resigned from the Government two weeks ago over the issues that we will be debating in the days ahead. Since Parliament has now taken direct control of events and decisions in this negotiation, I wanted to be free to participate in that debate and to make the case publicly on the Back Benches that I have made privately within the Government over the past year.
I fear that Parliament has set us on a dangerous course. We are in real danger, today, of signalling to the European Union and others that we are too scared to leave without a deal and, tomorrow, of ordering the Prime Minister to go on her hands and knees, and cap in hand, to Brussels—
George Eustice
No, I will not give way.
We may be ordering the Prime Minister to go cap in hand to the European Union to beg for an extension to article 50, and we do not know what counter-offer it may make. It may demand that that extension must be for two years, and it may demand a large financial charge for that extension. It may even say that it will not give an extension, but that it is open to us to revoke article 50. Members in this House may face a very difficult, very uncomfortable decision in just a couple of weeks’ time.
I believe that we must be willing, if necessary, to take our freedom first and talk afterwards. We know that the European Union—I worked closely in a lot of the preparations for no deal—is already seeking what is, in effect, an informal nine-month understanding.
There have been a number of points over the past two years when I think the Government could have reappraised their approach to the negotiations. Personally, it became clear to me a year ago, at the point at which the implementation period was agreed, that our negotiations were getting into a little bit of trouble, and that we were in danger of drifting along a path of least resistance, only to find that we had an agreement that Parliament would not accept. At about that time, something else interesting happened.
Lady Hermon
I am extremely and sincerely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can I take it that he has made a point of speaking to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who has warned consistently about the dangers of no deal, of a hard Brexit and of a hard border on the island of Ireland?
George Eustice
I have not spoken to the Chief Constable, but I have been involved in a lot of other negotiations on the DEFRA front.
On 22 March last year, when I was visiting Oslo for some fisheries negotiations, our then ambassador to Norway told me that she had had a busy week, because she had been placed on standby by the Foreign Office to deliver a letter by hand to the Norwegian Government giving 12 months’ notice of our intention to quit the EEA. In the end she was stood down, because of the transition agreement, and this country took a conscious decision not to give notice of an intention to quit the EEA.
That made me curious, because up until that point, and indeed since, the Government have always maintained that when we leave the EU our agreement under the EEA will automatically fall away. If that were true, and if it were the only possible interpretation of the EEA treaty, why was our ambassador armed with that letter to deliver to the Norwegian Government? After much probing, I established that there is indeed more than one interpretation that could be adopted, and the Foreign Office was concerned that, in the absence of giving that notice, we could be subject to challenge under the Vienna convention.
For me, that opened the prospect of a different approach: relying on our existing EEA membership, asserting our rights under that treaty, and simply applying to join the EFTA pillar of the EEA agreement. That arrangement means we would have had no customs union; control of our fisheries and agriculture policy; an independent trade policy; no need for an implementation period; no need for a backstop; and no need to worry about whether we have a codicil or a protocol, since we would be able to quit at any time, with 12 months’ notice in writing.
I have tremendous respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and was initially very encouraged when he picked up that idea and ran with it. However, as hon. Members who know him will know, he also has a tendency to overcomplicate things, so a simple and clean EEA model that could have given us an easy pathway out of this became Norway-plus, then the customs union 2.0, and then a backstop was added as well. The result is that it has alienated many Members on the Government side of the House who might otherwise have supported it.
In conclusion, my view is that, first, we need to unhitch the customs union and the backstop from any proposal based on our existing EEA membership. That might require us to be ready to leave without an agreement. Secondly, we can dynamically align our regulations over the next nine months. Finally, we can have the dynamic alignment as a bridge to a new arrangement in which we apply to join the EFTA pillar.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
As we are moving dangerously closer to Brexit day, but with no deal yet agreed, it is finally time to bust the myth of “the will of the people.” Opinion polls tell us that there is now a majority in the country in favour of staying in the EU. However, the Prime Minister and her Government insist on Brexit because they say it is the will of the people. I recently asked the Prime Minister how many of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave in 2016 voted for her deal and how many voted for no deal. She could not answer the question.
Yesterday only 242 Members voted for the Prime Minister’s deal. Today a different and probably rather smaller number will vote to leave the European Union without a deal. According to the Prime Minister’s use of language, both votes deliver the will of the people. The Brexit camp cannot agree what the will of the people is.
It is alarming that Members on the Conservative Benches have given up the argument that leaving the EU is good for the country. The only reason they put forward is that we have to respect the will of the people. Surely that means that they should support every Brexit vote, but they do not do so, and the reason for that is that they are reading into the referendum result their own opinion about Brexit, which has nothing to do with the will of the people. The will of the people is a fig leaf for Members in this House to pursue their own Brexit agenda. We need to see the mantra of the will of the people for what it is: a false argument. It is fake.
There is now a majority in the country for staying in the EU. I am on their side, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Green party and the Independent Group. We are united in our view that our future is in the European Union. We stand for peace, collaboration and solving problems together, including the big issue of climate change. Although we represent at least 50% of the people of this country, our side of the argument has been completely sidelined in the past two and a half years. It is now time for Parliament seriously to consider the possibility of staying in the European Union.
In January the Prime Minister’s deal was voted down by 230 votes. Yesterday almost the same deal was voted down by 149 votes. At least 40 Members have changed their minds within two months, not because the deal has essentially changed but because it has been clarified, amplified and explained in more detail. The 2016 referendum took place more than two and a half years ago. Many things about the EU and our membership have been clarified, amplified and explained. The people’s vote coalition on our Benches understands that in a democracy people can change their minds and have a right to do so, just like MPs in this House.
On the false pretence that it is the will of the people, let the Conservative party and the Labour party stand for Brexit. We are standing up for the UK remaining a member of the European Union and for the right of people in this country to have a final say and to change their mind if they so wish.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Clearly time is short, so I do not plan to take any interventions unless someone objects to anything important I have to say.
May I start by telling my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) how much I appreciate the time and service he gave? It is a great pity that he is no longer in post, for reasons he has made clear.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade, who is sitting on the Front Bench, that I clearly cannot support the idea of taking no deal off the table, because I have always believed that ultimately that is not up to us, unless, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has said, we are prepared somehow to revoke. If we are not prepared to revoke, we will put ourselves in the hands of the EU, which may decide that it does not want us to extend. Where would that leave us? It would leave us having to leave without the withdrawal agreement. The idea of no deal is a bit of a misnomer, because in actual fact a whole series of things are taking place right now in the EU and even here that amount to deals, arrangements and agreements. I will not go through the list, because time is very short.
Mr Duncan Smith
I was not planning to give way, because others want to speak, but I will give way briefly to my hon. Friend.
Mr Baker
During the course of the debate I have received a message from David Campbell Bannerman MEP, who says that the European Parliament in Strasbourg has today voted through no-deal measures on social security, road freight connectivity, basic air connectivity, the fishing fund, fishing vessels authorisation, railway safety and connectivity, and, on road haulage cabotage, the right for UK hauliers to operate within certain territory—and on it goes. Is it not the case that the Malthouse compromise—plan B—is emerging through the fact that both sides are taking sensible contingencies in their mutual interests?
Mr Duncan Smith
I agree completely with my hon. Friend. That is my point on the concept of no deal versus managed exit. That is how I would refer to the process: we do it either by a completely upfront withdrawal agreement, or by a series of agreements. My point is that it is about managing the process of leaving.
That is why I put my name to amendment (f), which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). I fully agree that it is not perfect but it seeks to find a way in which hon. Members with completely different views can come together, recognising that the people voted to leave and that our job is to deliver that. Is there a way to deliver it if there is not the chance of an agreement?
Mr Duncan Smith
Forgive me, but I will not give way. I am sure the hon. Lady will ask the same question. The answer is that I have not spoken to the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, but I take very serious consideration of that issue.
I do not believe that the Government’s deal is dead. What made it almost impossible for some of us to vote for was the Attorney General’s paragraph 19, which seemed to contradict the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments the night before. That is why the Malthouse compromise has gone forward. It covers both categories—making the deal, or being unable to make the deal—and that will allow us to reach an agreement.
The key is finding a way to replace the backstop as it exists now with alternative arrangements, which are listed in amendment (f)—I will not go through them now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford is correct to say that we have essentially asked for four elements, behind which lie a great deal more detail that has been discussed in a series of meetings with my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. We reached what I thought was a pretty good agreement. I credit the Prime Minister and others for having bound in those alternative arrangements. They were not bound in absolutely but they did make big progress in the deal she laid on the table, which will help enormously, because if we replace the backstop with the Malthouse alternatives, we get rid of the risk of the backstop being an imprisonment or an entrapment. It would become customs arrangements that allow all sides, including Dover and Calais, to trade successfully without too many problems. That is really the point.
I know that some of my colleagues are concerned—rightly—about extending for the sake of it. I am not in favour of that. In any case, I believe that will be rejected by the European Union because there needs to be a purpose. The point of the extension we propose is to meet the practicalities of getting the arrangements in place ready for the process of managed withdrawal without a withdrawal agreement. I would not vote for an extension with no purpose because all we will do is kick the can do the road, as the Prime Minister has said, ending up with exactly the same decisions to make only a few months later.
I recommend the Malthouse process because it allows us to manage the process of leaving carefully with practical solutions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford laid out. It allows us a period of time in which to create that. I recommend it to my hon. and right hon. Friends and Opposition Members. If we come together and vote for amendment (f), we offer two things: the opportunity to get an arrangement that allows us to leave with a withdrawal agreement or, in the event of not having such an agreement, we can manage the process of leaving in a way that takes away the fear of having no deal.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
This is the first time I have spoken in any of the Brexit debates, although I have a way of making my opinion well known to the public elsewhere. I am really sick of the way the Government have gone about this. They are now saying, “It is my way or the highway.” The highway is rocky and bad. They are asking hon. Members to walk down a road that has no surface, and we cannot see the end of it. They use the cover-all of saying, “We care about the national interest because we have got this really bad plan and you are not walking down it.”—as if we do not all care about the national interest.
Conservative Members do not own the national interest. It is not the same as nationalism. We all care about the national interest very deeply. I do not know how the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs could stand in front of us today and tell us how our food prices would go up, and how it would be awful for agriculture, and then not move every fibre of his being to end it.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) talked about revoking, but let us be serious. If we cared less about being elected and more about the national interest, we would be having a deeply serious conversation about making this stop and talking about the things that people where I live talk about. Others have touched on the will of the people. We in this House are terrified of the people in this country. Why are we so terrified of them? People in this place say: “17.4 million think this because I think this and I am going to lay my opinion on to them”. We have nothing to be scared of because we have a responsibility to inspire people out there and to lead them somewhere. What has been missing from the very beginning of this horrid and torrid affair in British politics has been any semblance of the leadership and courage needed to take the country somewhere.
The reasons people voted leave are plentiful, and I will not pretend they all agree with me, but I am not scared of the people who voted leave in my area. I believe in parliamentary democracy, and if they do not like what I say, they can get rid of me. I am not frightened of that prospect. I only wish the Prime Minister had not been frightened of the people sitting behind her. She is certainly terrified of the people in the country. In the event of a no deal, people where I live will face not only the same levels of poverty and the same unstable jobs market, but much, much worse; they will be unable to afford food, which they can precious little afford now, and they will look up and say, “I thought there was going to be a golden era”, and then they will be angry. That is what people in here should be scared of. We should not be scared of the country.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, but, having studied this matter carefully, like she has, I take the view that the Prime Minister is respectful of those people, not frightened of them.
Jess Phillips
The right hon. Gentleman knows the Prime Minister considerably better than I do. If she had ever tried to talk to me about any of this, or anyone else with a seat like mine, perhaps we could have had a much better conversation in here. I do not know her, but to me she looks like a rabbit in the headlights. She looks unwilling to state the real facts and to say that this is really bad for the country. We hear it in briefings and in bars in Brussels instead of directly from a woman who should have the courage to say that she is terrified of all the things outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). She should have the courage to say, “I’m terrified of the implications for security, for food prices and for trade, and you know what? You might not like it, and I might lose my role as the Prime Minister, but I am going to do what is best for you”. That is what courage and leadership are.
I respect deeply the people where I live, but I notice how selective the ERG are when it comes to caring about their needs: they want them when they back up their idea of northern town leave voters, but not so much when they need to give them welfare.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Some 17.4 million people voted to leave. They were told by both the Government and the remain campaign that that meant leaving the customs union and the single market. They were told that many things would be damaging or wrong if we left. There was a series of very bad short-term forecasts for the first year after the vote, and the public said to the experts, “We don’t believe you”, and they were right about the short-term forecasts: jobs figures went up, not down; growth went up—there was no recession; and house prices performed reasonably well. This was a specific forecast for the year after the vote and before we could conceivably have left.
Mr Speaker
Order. Any interventions from now on are perfectly legitimate, but if Members intervene, they will be preventing others from speaking. I just want them to know that.
Patricia Gibson
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how anyone can trust this Government? We were long told it was the Prime Minister’s deal or no deal, but that is clearly not the case because the House could revoke article 50 if it so chose.
John Redwood
I do not agree. I think that that is exactly where we are: either we leave with the withdrawal agreement, or we leave without the withdrawal agreement. That is what the House voted for when it voted to send the article 50 letter, and that is what the House voted for when it enacted the withdrawal Act.
I am not here to recreate the arguments of the referendum. The public are heartily sick of Parliament’s going over and over the same arguments in which we have engaged for three or four years now, in the run-up to the referendum and subsequently. They expect us to be purposeful, serious and sensible, and to sort out the issues and problems arising from the decision to leave the European Union. That is exactly what we should be doing, and I come here in that spirit. I understand that remain voters have real concerns, although I think that some of them are exaggerated. It is up to us, working with the Government, to show that all of them can be managed and that there are many upsides, to which we are looking forward and which leave voters clearly had in their minds.
I want to reassure the House. Calling certain views certain names is not helpful to a grown-up debate. It is not a no-deal exit that we are talking about; it is a many-deals exit. As we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), a series of measures have been enacted recently in the European Parliament. On both sides of the channel, serious work is being done to ensure that lorries can move and planes can fly. Goods will move across borders, and there will be an understanding about what happens in relation to customs and other checks. The drugs will come in, and the food will come in.
I think it is quite wrong to scaremonger and frighten people by pretending that none of that work has taken place—that German pharmaceutical companies will refuse to send their goods any more, or that the workers at Dover will get in the way and block them from coming in. It is not going to happen. We have heard very good news from Calais and Dover about all the work that has been done at both ports to make things work.
So let us come together and be practical, and let us understand that certainly all Conservative and Labour MPs were elected to this 2017 Parliament to get Brexit through. We all stood on national manifestos that said we would do that. The public cannot believe that so many Labour Members in particular are now saying, “We did not really mean it; we do not care about that; we want to stop it; we want to delay it; we want to redefine it in a way that means it is no longer Brexit.”
Brexit means taking control of our own money and then being able to spend it on our priorities, and the sooner we do that, the sooner we will have the boost to our economy which taking that measure would bring about. It means having tariffs that make sense for British industry, and for importers who might like some tariffs to be removed. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has slashed tariffs from a load of imported goods that do not involve our competing actively in the United Kingdom. That will be better news for all the consumers who will not have to pay those tariffs any more once we have our own tariff schedule.
I have a big idea for the Government. I entirely understand that very many people in this Parliament want a bigger deal, or more deals, than what is currently on the table. My idea is that, even at this late stage, the Government should offer the European Union a comprehensive free trade agreement based on the best of EU-Canada and EU-Japan, perhaps involving more services, because we already have alignment with services. If the EU would agree just to talk about that—as I suspect it would—we could leave on 29 March without having to impose any new tariffs or non-tariff barriers on each other, and proceed, under GATT 24, to negotiate a free trade agreement. That, I should have thought, would unite a lot of moderate remain voters with most leave voters, and I strongly recommend it to the Government. Parliament must allow us to leave on 29 March, otherwise it will be the people against the Parliament.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I think that I have heard only one Member utter that profoundly silly slogan, “No deal, no problem”, although I did notice some rather prosperous-looking people outside the Palace this afternoon brandishing posters to that effect. The rest of us, even the most sanguine adherents to no deal, concede that there would be some economic pain—“in the short term”, some say. I would say that there would be no pain for the comfortably set up. It is the squeezed majority who would feel the pain, and no deal would be particularly damaging to Wales. My party will vote tonight to take no deal off the table, and, in our opinion, it would be best to do so permanently.
Amendment (c), which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, seeks to extend article 50, and it seeks a referendum.
I want to refer to some of the problems we foresee for my country if we follow the no-deal course. It would of course endanger public services and put people’s health at risk. According to Welsh Government analysis a no-deal Brexit would wipe £5 billion off the Welsh economy, meaning fewer jobs and lower wages. Some 60% of Wales’s exports go to the EU; in that respect, we stand out among the countries of these islands in that we have an exporting economy.
With the economy in decline under no deal, public services would be endangered in Wales. The number of EEA nationals in the social care workforce in Wales has grown by over 50% since 2011; without a deal, EU citizens’ rights to work here will be in question, at best, putting further unwarranted pressure on the NHS and the social care sector.
On health, people in the UK rely heavily on medicines imported from the EU; for instance 99% of the insulin used in the UK is imported, largely from the EU. The British Medical Association has estimated that no deal could lead to delays of between 12 and 24 months for life-saving drugs.
One concern that I have raised in the House—I did so last week—is the effect on agriculture. NFU Cymru president John Davies said this afternoon:
“There can be no doubt that a ‘no deal Brexit’ would be incredibly damaging to the Welsh agricultural sector and that eventuality should be avoided at all costs.”
In that respect, he agrees entirely with Glyn Roberts, president of the Farmers Union of Wales. We have two farming unions in Wales, and on this they agree.
The Secretary of State for Wales puts great store by saying he is the voice of Wales in Westminster, and he has the opportunity tonight, given that there is apparently a free vote, to stop playing games and come out strongly against the calamity of no deal.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) that a no-deal Brexit is somehow eminently liveable with; it plainly is not. From looking at my own constituency, talking to the pharmaceutical companies that are there and looking at the costs already incurred by them to try to face up to the prospect of no deal and the risks they run if no deal goes ahead, it seems plain to me that no deal would be very damaging to this country indeed: damaging in the short term because of the chaos that will accompany it, and damaging in the medium to long term because I believe we will be seriously economically disadvantaged by it.
I find it genuinely very troubling that as we come closer to the crunch there seem to be more and more people who may previously have advocated a deal but, not seeing that there is a deal around, suddenly decide that no deal is the option because they cannot get what they want or the form of deal they might desire. It is an extraordinary form of frenzy: they smash up the china first, and when they are not satisfied with the china they have smashed, they decide to smash some more. That is what we are facing, and it is my duty to do everything I possibly can to prevent it, and I will continue to do that for as long as the opportunities for doing it present themselves.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend talks about smashing up the law; does he not accept that section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 makes it abundantly and expressly clear that we will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on exit day?
Mr Grieve
It may do, but it lies within our capacity to change it, and we will have to change it; indeed, it is inherent that it will be changed in the next fortnight, and I will move on to that in a moment.
I do not want to dwell on the risks of no deal in practice because I do not wish to repeat what others have said perfectly eloquently. So then we turn to this process, and I simply point out that it is very unfortunate that instead of what I understood yesterday would be a clear opportunity for this House to express itself against the principle of no deal and make clear that we do not want it before moving on tomorrow to discuss what we might do to prevent it, which is a real issue, the Government have tabled a motion that gives the distinct impression that, like children, we will be offered the same pudding, if not eaten at lunchtime, at tea time, supper time and now for breakfast, when it is perfectly clear that this House has rejected this pudding in its totality.
As a consequence, something that might bring us together in reasoned debate has started to be undermined by a suspicion that the Government are interested only in forcing a binary choice between no deal and accepting their agreement. Listening to the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box earlier, I began to realise that perhaps that was not the case, but then why was the motion ever tabled in this fashion? I cannot understand that. In fact, the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) was correct in trying to identify and deal with that mischief.
The Government have a point, however. I agreed with a lot of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) said, and there is an issue here. This House has lived under the protection of our party system for a long time. I am now beginning to see a distinction on my Benches, and actually on the other Benches, between those of us who have in a sense exposed ourselves and as a consequence get a huge amount of threats, flak and invective, and those of my colleagues—I do not include the Prime Minister in this, because she has many a burden—who are hiding behind the party system to avoid making the difficult choices. We cannot go on doing this. The party system might restore itself—I rather hope that it does—but as things stand at the moment, it is blown to pieces.
We have to make the decisions. Are we going to find a motion to accept the Prime Minister’s deal being offered up again? I do not want that, because I think that it is a poor deal, despite her best efforts. Are we going to find some other deal? Or are we going to revoke? Revocation is not something that I would wish to do without going back to the public, because in the light of the referendum, that would be a rather draconian and dangerous step. However, we will have to address that question because, otherwise, we will go round in circles and the Minister is right to say that we will eventually run out of time. We will simply have pushed back the cliff edge. We will have to resolve this, but at the moment, the Government are not helping by tabling motions of this tendentious character. I really urge my colleagues on the Front Bench to face up to their responsibility and to ensure, first, that we get some clarity from them tonight, and secondly, that we can take this debate forward.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is always a great pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who speaks with such wisdom on this issue. If the social and economic catastrophe that is no deal were being caused by some kind of natural disaster, there would be a collective outpouring of grief and concern. They would be a huge amounts of Government action to try to mitigate it, and there would no doubt be offers of international aid as well. The fact that this catastrophe is being so actively, willingly and even, by some, enthusiastically chosen is the height of masochistic self-indulgence. Doubtless psychologists will spend many years analysing exactly why this psychosis came to infect so many members of our ruling class at this time and exactly how we ended up with this concept of masochism as revolt.
The desire to create such chaos, and the exhilaration that comes from it, is perhaps understandable in those who will not be affected by the results—those who can move the investments they might be lucky enough to have to Ireland, to take a random example—but this is certainly going to hurt our constituents, who are in many cases already struggling to get by. It is even more shocking that this is being deliberately embraced at a time when we know of the illegalities associated with the leave campaign and the evidence of Russian interference. I was looking at Twitter a few moments ago. As we are here debating no deal, people like Aaron Banks—the biggest donor to the leave campaign; the biggest donor ever in British history—is busy going round the European Governments and lobbying them to block any UK request for an extension of article 50. So let us be clear that we are being played for fools here and that we will be responsible for this if we do not wake up and notice it. And the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has some gall to stand at the Dispatch Box as though he is completely independent of all this and as though he is not complicit in it and was not an architect of it. That is the height of absolute shamelessness.
We have heard so much about the economic costs of a no-deal Brexit, and the effect on constituents in Brighton will be no exception. I have been lobbied by so many individuals, families, businesses and universities. The University of Sussex, where one in four staff is an EU citizen, is already having problems with recruitment and retention, research grants and so on, and the same goes for both big and small companies.
This is about much more than the economy, however. I worry that a no-deal Brexit would make it harder even to begin to address some of many reasons why people voted to leave in the first place. Of course, people chose to vote to leave for many different reasons, but a good many of them were voting to say that the status quo is intolerable, that the inequality in this country is grotesque and that they want their communities to have a say in the future. The idea that any or all that will be easier to address if we leave with no deal is fanciful and irresponsible.
We need an honest conversation with the people of this country. We need to level with them. We need a new social contract, better jobs, higher-quality public services and investment in the green economy. We need people of all backgrounds and communities to be treated with respect and given the opportunity and the power to thrive. We need genuinely to give back control to people. We need to put young people at the heart of all this. We need that kind of future. We need a green new deal, not the Prime Minister’s failed deal or, worse still, no deal.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
When this House voted overwhelmingly to invoke article 50, we knew that the default position was that we would the leave European Union on 29 March with no deal. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs opened this debate with his usual enthusiastic and energetic manner, but his words will have struck horror into the hearts of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave and Conservative activists and members across the country. Our manifesto said that no deal is better than a bad deal, and the Prime Minister has said at the Dispatch Box on over 100 occasions that we are leaving the European Union on 29 March with or without a deal. Where does that leave our democracy or belief in politics?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) spoke at length, as he is wont to do as Father of the House, and I respect him for his consistent opinion on the European Union. He mentioned that the referendum was three years ago, which seems a long time, but he led the remain campaign in the east midlands while I led the leave campaign. I remember well that we debated, we were on television, we were on the radio and we went out to hustings, but when the votes came in at the end of the day the result was 59% to 41% in favour of leaving the European Union. He is right that his seat voted to remain, but it was one of few in the east midlands to do so, and I am disappointed, as will be the people of the east midlands, that he is treating that democratic decision so badly that he would invite us to revoke article 50 and go against the will of the British people, to whom this House decided we would give the decision in a referendum.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
As my hon. Friend knows, I never said that I would change my lifelong opinions on the strength of one opinion poll. If I fight an election and urge the case for a Conservative Government, but the Labour party wins and takes office, does my hon. Friend think that I should then attend this House as an Opposition Member supporting the Government’s policies because they had just won a democratic mandate for them? That is not how we do politics in this country. It would be an absurd way to proceed.
Andrew Bridgen
My right hon. and learned Friend makes his points in favour of the European Union, as he has done consistently throughout his career, but the answer is that the people of the east midlands voted to leave the European Union, and I would have hoped that he respected that.
We have heard nothing about the Government’s preparations for no deal, which have been played down. Some 9,000 civil servants are working on no-deal preparations, and the Treasury has allocated £4.2 billion of taxpayers’ money to prepare for no deal. The preparations are moving forward. Business has been told that we are leaving and to prepare for no deal on 29 March. We have seen on the news that the Government have reserved warehouse space for extra stock. All that cost has been incurred by our country.
If we leave on 29 March—business does not like uncertainty, we know that—we end the uncertainty if we leave with no deal. We have already heard that is not no deal—it is a managed no deal. We have a huge trade deficit with the European Union—£67 billion. We can offer it GATT 24, with tariff-free and quota-free trade the moment we leave, which it would be advised to accept, given that it trades with us so much.
The European Union is on the verge of a recession. Germany has no growth and has only stopped quantitative easing for three months, since November, and it has slipped into recession. The European Union has started printing money again to support the euro. Now is the time, when we still have economic growth—it needs our markets—to push for more concessions. It is not the time to take no deal off the table; it is the time to keep it there as a threat to bring the European Union to heel. When we get to the compression point, it cannot be this Parliament or this country that blinks first. I urge all colleagues to keep no deal on the table. It is our only insurance for getting out of the European Union.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)
I have to say that it is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). With every word he says, I remind myself exactly why I took the decision to leave the Conservative party. The state of the Conservative party is best embodied by the hon. Gentleman. If you do not sign in blood in favour of Brexit there will be no place for you in that party any longer. That is the reality of the Conservative party now that we have had the referendum, and we have a Government who are taking us through, and forcing on this country, Brexit. The hon. Gentleman is making a positive case, as a member of the Conservative party, which has always prided itself on being the party of business, for no deal in the face of the Brexit Government’s impartial impact assessments, which show conclusively that it would, in the words of the Business Secretary, who might know what he is talking about, be ruinous for this country.
I know whom I would rather listen to—the Business Secretary, not the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire, who has probably not even seen those impact assessments. Even if he has, and has read them—perhaps even understood them—he would reject them as some remain conspiracy, because they do not fit his perfect ideology. I gently say to him that the day may yet dawn when the good people of North West Leicestershire face the reality of Brexit—God help us if they ever face the reality of a hard Brexit—and lose their jobs and see the future of their children and grandchildren reduced because of his words and his actions. I hope that they will seek to put the blame where it absolutely lies—with him and all those who have led this country to make the biggest mistake we have ever made in our history, by voting to leave the European Union. I will not be part of that.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips)—unfortunately, she is no longer in the Chamber—spoke wisely. I do not fear my electorate. Good Lord, I was elected with a majority of 389, so I can look fear in the face—I understand these things. I also know that people respect you if you are honest with them, if you fight for them, and if you tell it to them as it is. They do not thank you for spin, and they do not thank you for false promises that you cannot deliver.
Mr Speaker, in case you do not know what is going on, it is fascinating. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) identified the fact that the motion is flawed. It does not do what the Government promised, and does not enable us to vote to take no deal off the table—that awful irresponsibility. The right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) tabled an amendment, very wisely, that does the job and gives the House that opportunity. The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and promised a free vote. That is not occurring. There will be no free vote, and now the right hon. Member for Meriden has been persuaded not to press her amendment. I hope it will be pushed and I hope people will show the courage that so many right hon. and hon. Members have done—Members such as the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), who had the courage to resign on a point of principle in order to do the right thing by his constituents and by his country. There is, however, a free vote on another Mickey Mouse amendment which undermines everything the Government stand for.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who rightly points out that when you are honest with your constituents and tell them how it is, they respect you for it. My constituents have seen that we have discussed the economic consequences of a no-deal Brexit time and again. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that some of my colleagues have chosen the irresponsible course. Given a choice between compromise and chaos, they chose chaos.
We all know the facts. No deal could tip us back into recession, and will cost the north-west jobs and cripple our exports. It would undermine the difficult decisions this Government have had to make to strengthen the economy over the past decade. It is time for this House to state clearly that no deal is not in the interest of our country or our constituents, and that we will not countenance it. The negotiation is over. The deal is over. No deal is no longer just a threat to drive a hard bargain; it is a threat to our economy, and a sign to any future trade partners of how unwilling we are to compromise.
Dr Wollaston
Does the hon. Lady also feel that hon. Members should read the letter that they have all received today from Professor Andrew Goddard, the president of the Royal College of Physicians, setting out his stark warning for the health of our patients and the NHS in the event of a no-deal Brexit?
Antoinette Sandbach
I do. I also think that constituents ought to remember that a no deal is a threat to the promises made during the referendum. Vote Leave said:
“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”.
Well, we know how far that has got. No deal is the most sudden stop anyone can envisage. However, it is not just the letter of the promises that will be broken, but the spirit of them, too. For months, you could not watch TV or listen to the radio without hearing the refrain “Vote Leave, Take Back Control”. Let us look at how no deal would take back control. It would mean our farmers would be reliant on the EU to list UK products of animal origin as meeting its import requirements for its countries. It would mean our pleading with the EU to issue an adequacy decision regarding our data protection rules. It would mean years and years of negotiations and trade-offs in order to rebuild a trading relationship that would be a mere shadow of what the Prime Minister’s deal offered. And all because a few of my colleagues failed to realise that simply walking away does not cause the EU to cease to exist, nor does it mean that its influence will cease. None of this is the control that was promised.
No deal cuts off the control we had within the EU, where we had a say in the making of laws. It cuts off the control the deal gave us by destroying any good will and willingness to negotiate that the EU had left in its negotiations with us. No deal condemns us to economic turmoil and, what is more, it does so by betraying the promise of the leave campaign. I have often been told to “respect the referendum result”. I did that: I voted for that deal twice. Today, I lay that same challenge at the feet of those on my side of the House who think no deal is worth it. It is not what you promised, it is not what 17.4 million people voted for and it is not what is best for the country.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The responsibility of any Government is to protect its citizens against threats to society, whether they concern national security, the health of the economy or community cohesion. In 2008, the then Government were quick to respond to the global financial crisis that sadly plunged so many into despair. A decade on, many on the Government Benches actually advocate a no-deal Brexit that I believe would make people even more despairing—a destination that, according to the Bank of England, could plunge us into a situation far worse than the 2008 crash.
It is unusual for the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress to speak with one voice, but they are both against a no-deal Brexit. This time it is far worse than 2008, because the Government would be consciously and deliberately inflicting the outcome on the UK economy and, by extension, on our communities. It is truly shocking that the Chancellor claimed merely a few hours ago that the Government’s approach to Brexit was pro-business. So many of their statements appear to be the opposite.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has detailed the devastating impact that a no-deal scenario would have across sectors, from transport to medicines to public finances. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) made clear the impact that no deal would have on the manufacturing sector in both the excellent meetings they held in the House.
I wish briefly to mention small businesses, because they are affected too. A woman in my constituency runs a fashion business. Let us not forget that fashion accounts for £35 billion, while fishing accounts for £1.8 billion—just a small comparison. She wrote to me:
“Dear Catherine…I thought I would share with you another email that I received…from a client in Denmark – who no longer wishes to trade with us... it’s self explanatory.”
The email she shared reads:
“Dear Sandra
Thanks for your email.
With England leaving eu we have decided to focus on distributors from eu to avoid issues at the border.”
It was from Martin in Denmark. Up and down the country, small businesses are coping with this, day in, day out.
We have seen companies, trade unions, charities, the NHS and watchdogs all coalesce around the view that a no-deal Brexit will inflict chronic economic hardship on us all. Not only that, but it will fray even further the delicate fabric that holds us all together. The tone of the national debate has plummeted since Brexit became the national conversation around dinner tables. That is why I am proud to have co-signed amendment (a), and I am still keen to move it unless others can persuade me otherwise. I recognise that many Members on the Government Benches are not actively advocating a no-deal outcome, but with days to go before we crash out, we must all recognise that declining to vote for amendment (a), or at least to take it seriously, will make us complicit should such an outcome occur.
We have 373 hours left until the UK leaves the EU. I hope all Members will reflect on the specific ways in which a no-deal scenario will impact on households, businesses, schools and workplaces, and recognise that damage. I hope that with that knowledge they will vote to avert this chaos.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
This is one of the most important debates in the Brexit process, because we will decide whether, in just over two weeks, we will leave the EU with some deal, do something else, or rupture a 45-year relationship that permeates every aspect of life in this country. In that context, we clearly have a responsibility to the 17.4 million people who voted leave, but we—by which I mean not only Parliament but the Government—also have a duty to the 66 million citizens in this country and their safety and livelihoods. Every decision we take in the context of leaving with no deal has to take that into account.
Some people have talked about leaving with no deal as if it would be some kind of inconvenience—as if there would be a little bit of disruption like when your BT internet goes down for a few hours. Others have gone to the other extreme and said that it would not be unlike Dunkirk. Well, nobody said during the referendum campaign, “Vote leave and you’ll have to invoke the spirit of Dunkirk.” That is an incredibly low bar to set for the success of this project.
Andrew Bridgen
When we joined the European Union, food prices went up 10% and we severed trading links with historical allies such as Australia and New Zealand. Did anyone ever say that we crashed into the European Union?
Mr Gyimah
What I am talking about is a rupture after 45 years. Many people cite our manifesto, which says that we will leave the single market, the customs union and be outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice as a justification for such a move, but that same manifesto also says that we will leave with “clarity” and “certainty”. There is no way in the world that leaving without a deal provides clarity and certainty over our future relations. All the challenges that we have with the Prime Minister’s deal—the fact that there is no vision, that there is no clarity, that our bargaining position is weakened, and that we would have to go cap in hand to the EU—will apply even more in the case of a no deal, because we will be a distressed negotiator.
There are those who say that leaving means that we do not need any deals. That is not true at all. What happens is that on day one after we leave, we will not have a deal but we will rapidly have to negotiate a whole set of deals. We will have to rely on the kindness of strangers in order to be able to do so.
Should we have no deal on the table just for negotiating purposes? The EU knows that for a country that has been able to sign on to the PM’s deal where we leave our voice, our vote and our veto in return for best endeavours, we are not serious about no deal. It is not a credible negotiating position.
When we say that the WTO is better for us, we also then say that we want to negotiate other trade deals. Why leave the preferential position to go out and try to negotiate something better in terms of no deal? It just does not make sense, and it is not credible either. This idea keeps rearing its head in different ways—a managed no deal or a WTO Brexit. These are all rebrands of the same idea, and they mean that we are leaving without any arrangements—we are setting sail without knowing where we are going. I am willing to entertain the prospect that it could work—perhaps 20, 30 or 50 years down the line, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) has suggested. In the meantime, what would we have done to people’s lives in this country? What about manufacturing, or the farmers in my constituency who came to me and said, “If no deal goes ahead, we are completely wiped out”?
So much of this is about trade, about tariffs and about borders, but it is easy to forget about the people we are here to represent. If we leave on 29 March without a deal, we will be on a war footing when there is no external threat. We will have a massive civil contingency. The Prime Minister will stand in front of Downing Street on Independence Day having to say to the country, “Do not worry, we will manage all the traffic jams. Do not worry, we will make sure you get your medicine. I have now sent the Trade Minister to go and negotiate all those many deals. Do not worry, everything will be alright.” She will have to do that because, of all the negotiable options available, the Government have chosen the one that causes the most disruption to people’s lives. In what sense and in what world will that be a victory for this country? In what sense and in what world can we say to those who voted leave, “This is the vision that was given to you during the referendum campaign”? There is no way in the world that that is right.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) who spoke just as eloquently as his fellow Surrey MP on the Front Bench but rather more truthfully about the perils that Brexit—a no-deal Brexit or any other sort of Brexit—poses to our country
In the 10 years since I have been an MP, we have lived through some extraordinary political moments—things that have seemed entirely impossible have come to pass. But even in this surreal age, it does seem to me that today’s debate, low key though it has been in many measures, is a particularly extraordinary surreal moment. We are debating here in the British Parliament the prospect of voting, or not voting, for a policy that the British Government have declared will cut 10% out of our GDP—out of our economy—over the next 15 years. It will reduce the size of our economy by £200 billion over the next 15 years. It is utterly inconceivable that, in this era or in any other era, anybody sensible could possibly vote for a policy that will cut more than twice what we spend on the NHS each year out of our economy.
In an era where we have schools closing on Friday afternoons because they cannot afford to stay open, where it feels like teenagers are being stabbed almost weekly on our streets because of a dearth of police officers, and where the head of the NHS is telling the Government they need to de-privatise the NHS and invest in it, it is entirely inconceivable that this Parliament or any Parliament could vote to do such damage to our public services and our people. I do not think there is any prospect of this House, save for a few on the Government Benches, voting for that outcome. I do not think there was ever any prospect of no deal really being pursued by the Government. It has been a blackmail negotiating tactic by Government Front Benchers to hold all our feet to the flames to try to ram through a Brexit deal.
We all know that any version of Brexit will diminish our economy. Any version of Brexit is a jobs-eating Brexit. Even the version advocated by the Government Front Benchers will by their own admission cut not £200 billion, but between £40 billion and £60 billion from our GDP. That is why we must obviously vote against no deal tonight and obviously vote in favour of an extension to article 50 tomorrow, but we must be honest with the people of this country. I say this to those on my Front Bench as much I do to those on the Government Front Bench: we must be honest that Brexit in any regard will damage the livelihoods and opportunities of our constituents. We in the Labour party should be opposing it for that reason, if for no other.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) spoke courageously and eloquently this evening. She is absolutely right: we should not be frightened of speaking truth not only to power, but to our constituents. If that means my party wishes to deselect me or my constituents wish not to vote for me in the next election, then so be it, but I will know that my conscience is clear—I did not vote for triggering article 50, I will not vote for a Tory Brexit and I will not vote for a Labour jobs-first Brexit. I will vote tonight to do the country a service and stop a no-deal Brexit at all costs.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I refer Members to my business interests as listed in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Very briefly, I encourage a note of moderation when talking about no deal. Many of us, if not all of us, prefer a good deal to no deal—that is one of the key logics of leaving the European Union—but I suggest that WTO rules are not the so-called disaster that everyone is suggesting. We have to look at economic reality. We trade profitably with the rest of the world outside the EU on largely WTO, no-deal terms. What people can forget is that investment is about comparative advantage and the extent that a country’s corporation tax rates are lower and its labour markets are flexible, how good its top universities are and its financial expertise. In aggregate, those things are more important than WTO tariffs. If proof were needed, we have only to look at how well the country is doing economically in the face of so-called concern that we could be leaving the EU on no-deal terms. Investment decisions over recent years have been made in the full knowledge that we could be leaving on no-deal terms.
Andrew Bridgen
Does my hon. Friend agree that the truth is that many of those in this Chamber who wish to take no deal off the table want to stop Brexit, but have not got the guts to admit it to the electorate, because they know that two thirds of our constituencies voted to leave the European Union?
Mr Baron
Unfortunately, there is an element of truth to that, but I would not want to label everyone as being in that camp. Many Members have quoted predictions about the future, but I suggest that we have to keep the argument and the debate grounded in reality.
People need to remember that there were many predictions of economic woe and gloom should we vote to leave the EU in 2016. They came from the Bank of England, the IMF, businesses, and the various sector organisations and public organisations. Some of the predictions suggested 500,000 or 700,000 extra unemployed by December 2016. What happened? Actually, we created jobs, and economic growth did well. We now, today, have a record low unemployment rate that is half the EU average, record manufacturing output, and record inward investment. So we need to be careful of predictions, as Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, recognised. The Bank of England had to apologise publicly for getting it so wrong, as did so many others.
We have been told by our own Government that the preparations for no deal are in full swing. On 12 February, I asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are ready, saying:
“can she reassure the House that should we leave on 29 March on no-deal WTO terms, we are sufficiently prepared?”—[Official Report, 12 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 752.]
Her response was just three words: “We are indeed.” So the preparations have been made, and I think we should take some comfort from that.
Ruling out no deal makes a bad deal more likely. There needs to be an element of moderation across the House when describing no deal. The economic reality is at variance with the various doomster forecasts that were proved so wrong back in 2016, and we should take note of that fact.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to wind up this debate for the Opposition. It has been a good debate. It was opened by the Environment Secretary, who made a powerful case for why a no-deal Brexit should be opposed, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who, as always, rose to the occasion with his usual rigour and honesty. We have had passionate contributions from, among others, my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the right hon. and learned Members for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), and the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), all of whom spoke with great force.
What I have taken from today’s debate is that exiting the EU without an agreement is not simply one among several equivalent Brexit options—it is in a category of its own. Everyone will have their own views on the balance of strengths and weaknesses of other options, whether it be a Canadian-style free trade agreement or a Norway-style arrangement, and the appropriateness of the trade-offs and compromises involved in each. But those options can at least be contemplated rationally on the basis of their likely consequences for our economy and our security, their implications for the Irish border, and their chances of successfully emerging from the detailed negotiations on the future relationship.
In contrast, it is hard to overstate how damaging a no-deal exit from the EU in just over a fortnight would be, and speech after speech today has brought that home. A no-deal Brexit is simply not a viable option. Indeed, an exit from the EU on 29 March, or indeed any date thereafter, without agreement would be nothing short of a national disaster—a point that Labour Members have endlessly repeated over the past two years. A no-deal Brexit would affect every facet of our national life, and every region and nation of the UK. It would bring to an end, at a stroke, the whole body of legal arrangements that exist between the UK and the EU, plunging us into a legal and regulatory vacuum.
The focus of much of today’s debate has rightly been on the impact of a no-deal Brexit on the economy—and for good reason, given the implications for businesses and individuals across the UK. The implications of crashing out without a deal on 29 March would be significant both in terms of lost growth over the long term and the grievous dislocation that we face in the short term. The proposals for tariffs under a no-deal exit that the Government published this morning, without any consultation with business, merely serve to underline what a disastrous outcome a no-deal exit would be.
However, the impact of a no-deal departure is about much more than just tariffs. It would mean a sudden and drastic change in the entire body of rules that currently govern how we trade in a range of crucial areas. It would threaten the complex law enforcement and judicial co-operation arrangements that keep Britain safe. It would almost inevitably result in infrastructure being placed on the Irish border, place untold strain on the Good Friday agreement and Anglo-Irish relations more generally, and exacerbate the current political instability in Northern Ireland, raising the spectre, as the Secretary of State for the Environment said at the outset, of direct rule from Westminster.
In short, such an exit is the hardest and most chaotic of departures. It provides no certainty, and no one can say with any real certainty just how extensive the damage would be. Of course we would survive, but why would any Government force the British people to cope with an entirely avoidable act of self-harm that opinion polling suggests only a minority of the public support? No responsible Government in their right mind should countenance a no-deal exit from the EU, especially when, as the hon. Member for East Surrey brought home in his contribution, the other side knows full well that it has always been a hollow threat.
The tragedy is that instead of simply announcing that under no circumstances will the UK leave the EU without a deal, this Government adopted such an outcome as their official plan B, endlessly repeating over months the nonsensical mantra that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, in a way that has de-sensitised many people in our country to the risks involved. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) said, the Government have spent a significant sum of public money trying to ensure that they are prepared for no deal—and trying is the operative word, because we know from the Government’s own impact assessment summary that the UK is simply not prepared to leave the EU on 29 March.
If we leave aside the legislative burden that still needs to be faced, the impact assessment makes clear that Departments are on track for just over two thirds of the most critical projects. It is honest about the fact that, in the event of a no-deal exit, the UK would be at the mercy of the actions of the European Commission, EU member states and EU businesses. That brings me to my next point, which is that there is no such thing as a managed no deal—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a lot of background noise. I am not sure that the acoustics are as helpful as they might be, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for that, but I urge him to project. Speak up, man—we want to hear you.
Matthew Pennycook
I shall do my best, Mr Speaker.
There is no such thing as a managed no deal, despite the protestations of the more cavalier Members on the Government Benches. It is a myth, and that is why the idea of no deal as an act of national liberation is so misleading. Not only would the Government in all likelihood lose control of events in a no-deal scenario, but they would inevitably end up supplicating before the EU. The Government’s own technical notices make clear that in a no-deal scenario, agreement is required from Brussels in a swathe of areas.
If anyone thinks that, amid the acrimony that would exist following a no-deal exit, the EU would ride to the rescue and agree to a raft of reciprocal mini-deals in all the essential areas required, a waiver of the Union’s rules or a standstill transition period without a withdrawal agreement, as amendment (f) suggests, they should remind themselves of the Commission’s plans for a no-deal exit. Those plans make it absolutely clear that the EU will agree to co-operative measures only where strictly necessary and where it is in their own interests. The plans make clear that those measures could not replicate the benefits of membership of the Union and state plainly that they could be revoked at any time.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not give way, because I want to ensure that the Secretary of State for International Trade has sufficient time.
It is yet another example of the misplaced confidence that has defined the approach of hard-liners on the Government Benches. Just like the notion of a cost-free, no-deal exit, it is a fantasy. That is why so many Government Members, including many members of the Cabinet, whether they said so publicly or not, know that a no-deal exit is not a viable option and that it must be ruled out.
This House has already made its intentions clear in relation to a no-deal exit on two separate occasions. I agree with the comments made in all quarters today that the way the Government have framed their motion is disappointing. At worst, it is contradictory. At best, it is ambiguous, and as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said, it certainly raises suspicions.
It is of course a statement of fact that the current legal default remains that the UK leaves the EU on 29 March, and if we rule out a no-deal exit tonight, we will of course have to amend the European Union (Withdrawal) Act accordingly, just as we would have had to amend it if the Government’s deal had passed yesterday. We will have to agree to an extension of the article 50 process so that an alternative way forward can be found. Both are a given.
However, the only question before us this evening is: does this House, in principle, definitively rule out a no-deal exit under any circumstances? No other question needs to be determined today, and that is why our preference is to support amendment (a).
There are only 16 days left now until 29 March. The possibility of a no-deal exit, whether by accident or design, is still very real, as the Father of the House made clear in his contribution. It is time we made a no-deal Brexit an impossibility, and this could be our last chance to do so. That is why I urge right hon. and hon. Members from across the House to decisively rule out a no-deal Brexit this evening, so that tomorrow we can turn our attention as a House to shaping what happens next.
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
This has been a useful debate, if not unpredictable in its contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) made one of the key points in her contribution earlier when she said that we in this House were not given a request by the British public to leave the European Union; we were given an instruction by the British public to leave the European Union. This House triggered article 50, this House set the date for leaving as 29 March and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) pointed out, 80% of the Members of this House were elected on a manifesto commitment to honour the result of the referendum, which is not something we should take lightly.
I accept that many of those who seek a delay to Brexit have a range of motives, and I think an ounce of civility would sometimes do well in some of our proceedings. I accept that some seek a delay out of a genuine fear of what no deal might produce and want more preparations to be undertaken. However, there are also some in this House—we know it to be true—who seek to defy and reverse the result of the referendum itself. We in this House need to understand the democratic disaster that would await us if we took that course.
Many of us have made a number of compromises to be able to support the Prime Minister’s agreement—I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for her tenacity and simple good manners in the way in which she has dealt with the House—but if we are to leave the European Union in line with the instruction, it is a menu with limited options. We either leave with a deal, and the only deal available is the Prime Minister’s deal at the present time, or we leave with no deal, with unavoidable consequences.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Dr Fox
I am not giving way.
The alternative is to revoke article 50 and have no Brexit at all, with unavoidable and unforeseeable consequences.
This motion focuses on the date of 29 March. At that point, we either have to leave with a deal, in line with article 50, or leave with no deal, for which the risks have been set out. If we choose neither of these, then we have to have an extension of article 50 either to make administrative changes for a deal that may already have been negotiated, or simply to have an extension when we do not know what the point of it will necessarily be. Let me say, on this extension, first, it is not in our gift unilaterally to grant such an extension; secondly, it requires unanimity among all 27 other European countries; and, thirdly, we cannot know what price might be extracted from the United Kingdom for that extension. It is not an easy option for the House or the country to take.
What are the alternatives to the Government’s policy? We were told at the outset of the debate by the shadow Brexit Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), that Labour had repeatedly warned us about x, y and z. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have had nothing but inconsistency from the Labour Front Bench. The Labour leader did not want another referendum; now he does want another referendum, despite the fact that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), says it is telling Labour voters they are stupid. The shadow Brexit Secretary wants a referendum, but will not put down an amendment to say that it can happen. Labour said that it wanted to end free movement of people; now it wants to be part of the single market all over again. It said it wanted an independent trade policy, but what it has is simply legally impossible, because the European Union rules do not allow a third country to have an influence on EU trade policy. [Interruption.]
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Fox
Mr Speaker, I have made it clear that in the nine minutes available to me, which I accepted in order to allow more Members time to speak, I will not be giving way.
For much of this debate I did not recognise the country being described as the country I live in—a country that many seem to be describing as isolated, inept and intimidated by its own future. I believe in the future of this country. We are not passengers in our own destiny; we are able to control our own future. This is a country with exports at record levels; a country where last year, when global foreign direct investment fell by 40%, foreign direct investment went up by 20%; a country with employment at an all-time high; a country that has had more consecutive quarters of growth than any other G7 country; and a country that is producing these results under good Conservative management.
Neither did I understand the picture painted of the preparations already made for no deal, because we and the civil service have spent a great deal of time on the mitigations.
Dr Fox
Pharmaceutical companies are ensuring—[Interruption.] I am not taking interventions. Pharmaceutical companies are ensuring adequate stocks and increased air freight capacity. We have set out our new tariff policies for day one, liberalising our economy so that 87% of imports will be tariff-free, and setting up a trade remedies authority to protect our steel and ceramics industries. The EU has also made its own preparations.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is much gesticulation. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) is seeking to intervene, but it is for the Secretary of State to decide whether to take the intervention. As I understand it, he is aware of the intended intervener but does not wish to take the intervention.
Dr Fox
The Father of the House already had more time to make his contribution than I have had today.
I want to answer the very direct question I was asked by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper): is the result of this vote that the default position is that we will not leave the EU on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement? That is the result of the motion we are debating tonight. But I have to say to the right hon. Lady that the only way to take no deal off the table in the longer term is to have a negotiated deal, unless we were to revoke article 50 and have no Brexit. There would be no worse outcome for this House, for this country and for our democracy than to have no Brexit. We have been given a clear instruction by the people of Britain. In the days ahead, we in this House must decide who in our democracy are the masters and who are the servants.
We heard from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) what can only be described as a diatribe about the will of the people, which she derided. I happen to believe that when this House contracts out its sovereignty on an issue, which we did on the European Union, and we tell the people of Britain that we will accept what decision they take, we are honour-bound and duty-bound to take that decision. When she says that the will of the people does not matter, it might not matter to the Liberal Democrats, but it matters to the Conservative party. For me, this is ultimately a decision about our democratic values.
Mr Speaker
Order. I fear that it is more a point of frustration. No impropriety—[Interruption.] Order. I accept that the hon. Lady might be irritated, but the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way and now is not a time for points of order. If she wants to make a point of order later, I will take it.
Mr Speaker
Under the Order of the House of today, I must now put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion. We begin with amendment (a), in the name of the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), who has since advised me and, equally—or more importantly—the House that she does not wish to move her amendment. I thank her for her courtesy in telling me and the House. However, I am advised that her co-signatory—it is in the ownership of the House—the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) does wish to move the amendment.
Mr Speaker
Order. The amendment must be moved formally. [Interruption.] Order. Do not tell me it is not moved. I know perfectly well what I am doing. The amendment is in the ownership of the House. The right hon. Member for Meriden has decided, perfectly properly, that she does not wish to move it; another Member who signed it does. It really is a very simple point for an experienced parliamentarian.
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has today provided a clear majority against leaving without a deal. However, I will repeat what I have said before. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The House must calm itself. We have a long time to go—both today and on subsequent days. Keep calm.
The Prime Minister
This is about the choices that this House faces. The legal default in UK and EU law remains that the UK will leave the EU without a deal unless something else is agreed. The onus is now on every one of us in this House to find out what that is. The options before us are the same as they always have been: we could leave with the deal that this Government have negotiated over the past two years; we could leave with the deal that we have negotiated but subject to a second referendum, but that would risk no Brexit at all—[Interruption]—damaging the fragile trust between the British public and the Members of this House; we could seek to negotiate a different deal, but the EU has been clear that the deal on the table is indeed the only deal available. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The great likelihood—I await further comment, but I think that I can say this without fear of contradiction—is that there will be further opportunities for these matters to be debated, but in the immediate term, please, let us have some courtesy. There will be further debate on these matters, of that I think we can be sure.
The Prime Minister
I confirmed last night that if the House declined to approve leaving without a deal on 29 March 2019, the Government would bring forward a motion on whether the House supports seeking to agree an extension to article 50 with the EU, which is the logical consequence of the votes over the past two days in this House. The Leader of the House will shortly make an emergency business statement confirming the change to tomorrow’s business. The motion we will table will set out the fundamental choice facing this House. If the House finds a way in the coming days to support a deal, it would allow the Government to seek a short, limited technical extension to article 50 to provide time to pass the necessary legislation and to ratify the agreement we have reached with the EU.
Let me be clear: such a short technical extension is likely to be on offer only if we have a deal in place. Therefore, the House must understand and accept that if it is not willing to support a deal in the coming days and as it is not willing to support leaving without a deal on 29 March, it is suggesting that there will need to be a much longer extension to article 50. Such an extension would undoubtedly require the United Kingdom to hold European Parliament elections in May 2019. I do not think that that would be the right outcome, but the House needs to face up to the consequences of the decisions that it has taken.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tonight this House has once again definitely ruled out no deal. The Prime Minister said that the choice was between her deal and no deal. In the past 24 hours, Parliament has decisively rejected both her deal and no deal. While an extension of article 50 is now inevitable, responsibility for that extension lies solely and squarely at the Prime Minister’s door. However, extending article 50 without a clear objective is not a solution. Parliament must now take back control of the situation.
In the days that follow, myself, the shadow Brexit Secretary and others will have meetings with Members across the House to find a compromise solution that can command support in the House. That means doing what the Prime Minister failed to do two years ago: searching for a consensus on the way forward. Labour has set out a credible alternative plan. Members across the House are coming forward with proposals. Whether that is a permanent customs union, a public vote, Norway-plus or other ideas, let us as a House of Commons work to find a solution to deal with the crisis facing this country and the deep concerns that many people have for their livelihoods, their lives, their future, their jobs, their communities and their factories. It is up to us as the House of Commons to look for and find a solution to their concerns. That is what we were elected to do.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Let us be in no doubt that we are in a constitutional crisis of the making of the Prime Minister, who has run down the Brexit clock. What we see from the Prime Minister is a denial of the facts. She has faced two enormous defeats on her meaningful vote. Her deal is dead, and I am delighted that we have tonight given a very clear expression that under no circumstances and no time limit does this House want no deal.
The Prime Minister should have come to the Dispatch Box this evening with a degree of humility, accepting that she has failed and immediately putting in place the legislation to withdraw from legislation the threat of us leaving the European Union on 29 March. Why has she not done that? What this House needs to do tomorrow is take control of the process. We do not need a time-limited extension to article 50; it must be open-ended. I for one welcome elections to the European Parliament, if they are to take place.
We now must move on and have a meaningful debate about a people’s vote. If necessary, we have to look at the revocation of article 50. I say once again to the Prime Minister that Scotland will not be dragged out of the European Union against its will. Everything that has gone on in this House is a determination that the best interests of the people of Scotland will be met as an independent European nation.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Now that the House has given effect to its will so clearly on separate occasions, can you give us the benefit of your help and advice as to how to translate these declaratory motions into practical action?
Mr Speaker
If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me—to be honest, even if he will not—I prefer to hear the remaining points of order and then to invite the Leader of the House to deliver the supplementary or emergency business statement. We will see what is intended to take place tomorrow. We may well learn tomorrow of what is intended to take place in subsequent days. There has been a clear expression of will by the House. I rather imagine there will be conversations among colleagues.
Ultimately, the House can debate what the House wants to debate. We will see what it wants to debate and what shape events take in the days to come. I do not want to express myself more forcefully than that—I do not think that would be right—but the right hon. Gentleman need be in no doubt that the matters will be fully debated. Members will have the opportunity to put their point of view. In all likelihood, many propositions will come to be tested.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you might be in a position to confirm that, as a matter of constitutional fact, a motion of this House, though important, cannot override statute law.
Mr Speaker
A motion of the House does not override statute law—that is true. If Members who have supported a motion want to ensure its ultimate success, further steps are required. I think that Members who have keenly attended to these matters in recent weeks are aware of that, and they know that there are opportunities available to them if they wish to take those opportunities.
Hilary Benn
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding what the Prime Minister has just told the House, the time has come for two things to take place. The first is for the Government to respect the democratic instruction of the House of Commons. The second, since the Prime Minister says we have to be in favour of something—and I agree with her—is for the Government to facilitate the House of Commons having the chance to vote on a series of indicative propositions so that we can attempt to see whether we can find a way forward. If I may say so, Mr Speaker, I very much welcome what you said a moment ago about your willingness to ensure that the House of Commons gets the opportunity to debate that which it wishes to debate.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I stand by that: I think it is what any self-respecting Speaker should say and mean.
Caroline Lucas
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do wonder how the Prime Minister has the brass neck to come to this Chamber and to say that we should be worried about losing fragile trust when she herself is responsible for losing the trust both of this Parliament and of the country. She has just whipped her Members to vote against the deal that yesterday she stood at that Dispatch Box and promised would be a free vote. We urgently need an extension of article 50, and it needs not to be time-limited, because we need the time that is necessary in order to resolve this by going back to the country. If the last few weeks have proved anything, it is that MPs in this House are incapable of finding something they agree on, and it needs to go back to the people as soon as possible in a people’s vote.
Mr Speaker
Let me say to the hon. Lady, who was attempting, I thought, to raise a point of order, that we will have to wait for the business statement by the Leader of the House. But unless I have a problem with my short-term memory—and I do not think I do—my clear recollection is that the Government indicated that if the House voted to demonstrate its opposition to exit from the European Union without a deal in the vote, or votes, today, there would be an opportunity on Thursday for there to be a vote, or possibly a number of votes, on an idea, or ideas, of article 50 extension. So I keenly anticipate that the hon. Lady will be in her place not just for the business statement but tomorrow for such important proceedings as we can expect to take place.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When the arrangements for this week were announced, my understanding was that the Government were saying that if they lost the vote on their preferred deal, there would then be two days in which the House would be given the opportunity to express its clear opinion on no deal, and if that was clear, another day to say whether an extension was desired by the House, with the plain implication that the Government were going to accept the decision of the House and act on it. Indeed, we understand that a free vote was extended to Ministers so that the proper expression of opinion could be given.
As soon as the House expressed its opinion on no deal, the Government attempted to quash it and voted against it, putting a three-line Whip on the people they had previously given a free vote to, with a complete lack of success—the majority soared. If this evening the Prime Minister or another Minister will not accept that this is not just another motion, as if it was a women’s institute debate that expressed an opinion—[Interruption.] I have higher regard for women’s institutes’ opinions than the Government have for the opinions of this House.
Can we have an assurance from somebody that tomorrow’s debate is actually intended to set policy and is not a mere expression of opinion? That is my serious point, but no doubt I will be deluged with protests from women’s institutes around the country about the unfortunate example I chose. I repeat my complete respect for the opinion of all women’s institutes.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. My understanding, for what it is worth, is the same as his. That was the clear commitment. I am sure that that is what was intended. That was what was promised. That was what was understood. I have every expectation that the Leader of the House will reiterate today what has been said in recent days. It would be very strange if that were not the case. I have no reason to believe that the Government have suddenly shifted from the position they have taken in recent days. We will have to wait to see, but I have no reason to believe that at all.
Ms Angela Eagle
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has spoken, and the will of the House is clear, but the Government have given no indication so far that they are going to facilitate the will of the House becoming a reality by amending statute. If anything, the Prime Minister gave the opposite impression in her rather churlish response to tonight’s events. If the Government decide not to facilitate our changing the statute to prevent us from leaving without a deal on 29 March, in clear contravention of the expressed will of the House, what can you do to facilitate this Parliament in ensuring that the Government do not get their way?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. My understanding is that the Government have tabled their motion for tomorrow, and it might help colleagues if they obtained copies of it. I do not think it is for me now to read out the Government’s motion for tomorrow. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] Very well. As I understand it, the Government—I thank them for this—have tabled a motion in the name of the Prime Minister which reads:
“That this House:
1. notes the resolutions of the House of 12 and 13 March, and accordingly agrees the Government will seek to agree with the European Union an extension of the period specified in Article 50(3);
2. agrees that if the House has passed a resolution approving the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by 20 March 2019 then the Government will seek to agree with the European Union a one-off extension of the period specified in Article 50(3) for a period ending on 30 June 2019 for the purpose of passing the necessary EU exit legislation; and
3. notes that if the House has not passed a resolution approving the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by 20 March 2019 then it is highly likely that the European Council at its meeting the following day would require a clear purpose for any extension, not least to determine its length, and any extension beyond 30 June 2019 would require the United Kingdom to hold European Parliament elections in May 2019.”
That is the Government’s motion for tomorrow. That motion, of course, is amendable. If colleagues on either side of the House wish to submit amendments to that motion, they will have an opportunity to do so. I am speaking off the top of my head, but the same logic will apply in respect of that motion as has applied over the previous two days—namely, that any amendments to it tabled before the rise of the House tonight will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow. However, if manuscript amendments are tabled after the rise of the House, but before 10.30 am tomorrow, they will be accepted for consideration by the Chair—by me.
I would very politely suggest to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) that, although I will take one further point of order, if necessary—[Interruption.] Well, I would very politely suggest that, very soon, we ought at least to hear the business statement by the Leader of the House. I will take one or two very brief—
Mr Speaker
Oh, very well—very briefly. [Interruption.] May I politely suggest that it might be advisable—
Mr Speaker
I will take one who has signalled to me, the hon. Member for Wakefield, and then let us hear the statement by the Leader of the House. If there are then further points of order, I can take them afterwards.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful, but the motion you have read out at speed indicates that the Government are clearly making this House a prisoner of their deal. It is saying that we have to agree the deal by 20 March, and if we do that we will get the extension that this House is clearly going to be voting for tomorrow. When will the Government allow this House to express any alternatives to the deal that the Prime Minister, despite having been defeated twice, is still trying to railroad through this place?
Mr Speaker
That would be one of the merits of hearing about the business for next week, and there is also merit in colleagues conferring with each other, as—not surprisingly, and with frequency—they do.
Anna Soubry
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a constitutional crisis—[Interruption.] I am sorry if it bores people on that side of the House who have just voted as Conservatives for a no-deal Brexit. In any event, there is a real concern that time and again this House speaks and we vote, as you have seen this evening, and the response at the Dispatch Box is, in effect, for what we pass to be utterly dismissed. As a House, we seek your guidance as to how we can actually have a genuine impact on the way this Brexit is now conducted and how this Government respond. We hear tonight that four Cabinet Ministers abstained, and we hear of other Ministers who have resigned. It is a crisis of unprecedented levels, and I am afraid that yet again the Government Front Bench has many pairs of tin ears, and it has got to stop. Do we need now to enact statute in some way so that the will of this House can prevail?
Mr Speaker
I maintain that we should hear, before very long, the Leader of the House.
Mr Speaker
I will take the right hon. Gentleman.
I would say to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) that, as I think she is well aware, a number of Members across the House in recent weeks have had a concern about this particular policy issue. If significant numbers of Members across the House have a concern and a desire to act in common on this matter, it is open to them to explore the potential for doing so. They will find that they get professional advice on that matter, as any Member of the House is entitled to seek and obtain professional advice. It is not for me, here and now, to say exactly what should happen, but what I will say is that Members can work together and be heard.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Yes, all right. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) does not need to put up his hand as though he is in a classroom. It is not necessary.
Mr Speaker
That is a very interesting philosophical question, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has focused on it. This House operates in accordance with its own procedures, including, importantly, with its Standing Orders. It is not for me to seek to interpret the will of the people. The hon. Gentleman is a most dedicated public servant who has now been in the House for a little over 18 months, and he may well feel that he is very close to his people—I do not say that in any pejorative spirit, but he may well feel he is—and that he is deeply attuned to the will of the people. I do not claim that I am, and it is not for the Speaker to be. It is for the Speaker to seek to facilitate the will of the legislature.
Mr McFadden
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When the Prime Minister spoke at the Dispatch Box a couple of weeks ago to set out the arrangements for this week, she said that if the House voted down her proposed deal there would then be a vote on no deal. That has happened today. She said that if the House voted against leaving on a no-deal basis, we would then have an opportunity to vote to ask the Government to seek an extension to article 50. She did not say that was conditional on passing her deal between this week and the application for the extension. The motion that the Government have now tabled is a breach of the letter and the spirit of the assurances that were given at that Dispatch Box a couple of weeks ago. This is an attempt to stitch up the decision tomorrow, and the House should not stand for it. We should have a clean vote on instructing the Government to apply for an extension to article 50 without having to approve her deal beforehand.
Mr Speaker
I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but the Government’s position is not a matter for me. I say as a matter of pride that I have never been a member of a Government; that has never been part of my ambition. I must say that it is a lot easier to be Speaker than to be a Minister. My responsibility is to consider amendments if they are tabled. If Members want to table amendments to the Government’s motion, they may do so. I rather imagine, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that he will want to do so.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) has just said. Members across the House heard the Prime Minister say unconditionally that these days would be about a vote on whether we would accept no deal and then a vote on an extension, not a conditional vote. She is sitting on the Front Bench shaking her head. Perhaps she could now, through you, Mr Speaker, explain why what you have just read out is not a conditional vote, because it sure sounds like one to us.
Mr Speaker
Okay. No, the Prime Minister is not seeking to raise a point of order at this stage.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker—and I think this might actually be a point of order. I am seeking some clarification, because you said that manuscript amendments could be tabled until 10.30 tomorrow morning. Well, the business begins at 9.30, so there might be some disparity there.
Mr Speaker
Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that he was listening attentively. There is no contradiction or tension whatever. He correctly surmises that tomorrow the House, as on every sitting Thursday, will meet at 9.30. However—I say this as much for the benefit of people listening to our proceedings as for the benefit of Members—Question Time is at 9.30, and at 10.30 we would ordinarily either have urgent questions or move straight to the business statement from the Leader of the House. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern not just for colleagues but for me, but I am perfectly sanguine about a deadline of 10.30 for the submission of manuscript amendments, and I am comfortable that I will be able to make judgments in time for the start of the debate, and for the debate to take place on an informed basis. There is no problem there.
Neil Gray
On a point of order, Mr Speaker—and thank you for your forbearance. The House has spoken, and it has spoken very clearly. It has asked to rule out no deal at any time. You said in response to the hon. Members for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) that opportunities would be open for Opposition Members to ensure that the will of the House was followed through. However, given that the Government are in charge of the Order Paper, would you not expect them to be coming forward with the necessary legislation to ensure that no deal is ruled out at any time?
Mr Speaker
I am not sure that it is really for me to say that I expect one particular course of action or another. I feel, now that I have been around a little while, sometimes predictable things have happened and sometimes some very unpredictable and even, in some cases, rather curious things have happened, so I have got used to a range of possibilities and I do not think I would say that I expect this or expect that. What I do expect, not specifically of the Government, is that if Members feel strongly dissatisfied with what is on offer to them, they will communicate with each other and they will come forward, seek professional advice, seek my own and attempt to ensure that what they wish to be debated as elected Members of the legislature is indeed debated and, of course, by definition not just debated but voted upon by the House.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following on from what you have just said, is it not a fact that if the moaning Minnies attacking the Government really had any guts they would table a motion of no confidence in the Government? That is how it is done traditionally, not through back-door means.
Mr Speaker
That is perfectly legitimate. The hon. Gentleman expresses his point of view with his characteristic force. It is open to people to table motions of no confidence—of course it is. That is a perfectly proper course of action and it can happen, and does, from time to time.
If there are no further points of order, we come to the emergency business statement by the Leader of the House.
Business of the House
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
Mr Speaker, in the light of tonight’s decision, I should like to inform the House that tomorrow’s business will now be a debate on a motion relating to an extension of article 50. On Friday 15 March, the House will consider private Members’ Bills.
I shall announce next week’s business tomorrow in the usual way.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Yet again the House has been given an emergency motion, and yet again we have only just had sight of it—a colleague has managed to get us copies of it. This is no way to run a Government and no way to run a country. We now have a situation where the Government are voting against their own motions, which is a terrible state of affairs. The Government are staggering from week to week, day to day, and motion to motion. The country deserves better.
Mr Speaker
The Leader of the House does not wish to comment. Fair enough. It is a business statement, so she can respond if she wishes but she does not wish to do so.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is no wonder that the Leader of the House chose not to respond, because that was a pathetic statement, given tonight’s events and the chaotic cluelessness at the heart of Government. The public must be watching this place and wondering what on earth is going on. The Prime Minister gave a petulant and unsatisfactory response to the preceding events. This Government are still determined to flog a dead deal, but at some point they are going to have to accept that the game is over.
We have just got sight of tomorrow’s motion and it seems to me that it is readily amendable. All we need to get rid of is the first two parts and we will get to what this House really wants and requires, which is an indefinite extension of article 50 until we get the issue resolved. The will of the House has to be respected in these matters.
I have seen the provisional business for next week and there is nothing in it—nothing at all—so the Government could table a motion that reflects the wish of this House to legislate to take no deal off the table. Is that in the thinking of the Leader of the House, and does she intend to do it? That is what this House expects, and it is now what this country expects.
Andrea Leadsom
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Prime Minister set out some time ago that should the House reject the withdrawal agreement and future declaration, there would be a discussion for the House to decide whether it wished to take leaving the EU without a deal off the table, and then, should the House make that decision, there would be a further discussion on whether the House wishes to seek an extension to article 50. That is the motion we will discuss tomorrow.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just said, tomorrow’s motion will set out the fundamental choices facing the House. If the House finds a way in the coming days to support a deal, that will allow the Government to seek a short, limited, technical extension to article 50 till 30 June 2019, to provide time to pass the necessary legislation and ratify the agreement we have reached with the EU. If the House does not find the way to support a deal in the coming days, and is not willing to support leaving without a deal on 29 March, it is highly likely that the EU will require a clear purpose for any extension, not least to determine its length, and that any extension beyond 30 June 2019 would require the United Kingdom to hold European Parliament elections in May. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The motion, which we now know will be debated tomorrow—doubtless it will be subject to amendments—says that the House has to agree a motion
“approving the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework”
by
“20 March”.
Does that mean that the Government intend to bring forward the same motion that we have dismissed in this Session on Monday or Tuesday next week? If so, I gently suggest to the Leader of the House that that flouts all the conventions that have operated in this House since the 16th century. It has always been held that, if a motion has been dismissed in one Session of Parliament, it cannot be brought again. Clerks regularly refuse to accept ten-minute rule Bills and private Members’ Bills that have been disposed of in the Session. Will we have that motion on Monday or Tuesday? If so, does the Leader of the House confidently expect Mr Speaker to refuse to allow it?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the House has just voted twice on the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) among others. That vote was on the same amendment.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
It appears to me that the Leader of the House is merely organising meaningful vote No. 3 on exactly the same deal in complete contravention of the will of the House expressed in two defeats of the Government motion. Instead of attempting to play this ridiculous game of chicken with the future of our country, and attempting to tear up all the conventions of this House, showing nothing but contempt for how it has made its decisions, should she not facilitate the decisions of the House by moving an amendment—a statutory instrument—that will take the date of our leaving the European Union of 29 March 2019 out of the statute? Is that not her job?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady will be aware that tomorrow’s motion is amendable. It is for the House to decide whether it wants to put forward amendments and vote on them. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, if the House votes for an extension, she will seek to agree it with the EU and will bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date commensurate with that extension.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Does the programme motion tomorrow mean that the votes will be at the moment of interruption, or will they be at some other time?
Andrea Leadsom
The programme motion sets out that the vote will be at the moment of interruption, but it is subject to the agreement of the House.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House undertake this evening to use her best endeavours to ensure that, at the end of this process, the Government facilitate and enact the will of the House by bringing forward and making time for statutory changes, instead of simply offering more motions that do not have the operative Executive impact for which this House has voted?
Andrea Leadsom
The Prime Minister and I have both said that if the House votes for an extension, we will seek to agree that extension approved by the House with the EU and bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date commensurate with that extension. As has been said several times, it is not within the Government’s gift to insist on an extension. That will be a matter for agreement with the EU and will potentially be subject to conditions imposed by it, and the hon. Lady will be aware that it will require unanimous agreement by all 27 members of the EU. I can reassure her, however, that the decision would come back to the House finally and would need to be approved by Parliament.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It was only a little while ago that the Government were attacking the Leader of the Opposition for not agreeing to meet the Prime Minister. If were are trying to fulfil the will of the House, surely the Government should be reaching out to all sections of the House to find a way through. Where in this timetable is there a facility for those sorts of discussions to take place?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Prime Minister has sought to reach out to Members across the House. The Leader of the Opposition was willing to meet once only and that was very late on in the discussions, but the Prime Minister and Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, have sought the views of Members across the House and will continue to do so.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
As the right hon. Lady knows, the Leader of the House has a hugely important constitutional role—to be the voice of Parliament to Government. The Government seem to be ignoring vote after vote in this Chamber, as we heard from the Prime Minister earlier this evening. The Leader of the House has announced that tomorrow we are to have an amendable motion on extending article 50. If the House passes those amendments, takes out the conditionality that the Government have put into it, it appears from the last two or three votes that they will just ignore that. How can we have confidence in the motions we discuss and pass and confidence in the Leader of the House, who has demonstrated in other areas that she can speak up for Parliament? She should be roaring to the Executive that the expressed will of Parliament is being ignored. What is she going to do about that?
Andrea Leadsom
I take very seriously my role as Parliament’s voice in Government and at all times I seek to ensure that the views across the House are heard in the Government very clearly. I will always stand up for Parliament in that way. As I have always said, the Government take very seriously views expressed by this House. The Prime Minister has been clear that if the House votes for an extension, the Government will seek to agree that extension with the EU and will bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date commensurate with that extension.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
This need not be the Schleswig-Holstein question all over again, but it does risk driving us all a bit mad. Now that the House has ruled out no deal, is not the only thing now entirely within the House’s gift—as opposed to relying on members state of the EU—the revocation of article 50?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that the revocation of article 50 would mean not leaving the EU and so would put us in direct contravention of the will of the people expressed in the referendum, and the Government will not be doing that.
Mr Speaker
Order. I simply say to colleagues that I think it is clear that whatever the House decides, it will not be a state secret. It will become public. It will be known. The message will be communicated. In fairness, I think the Leader of the House has acknowledged that whatever the House decides, it will be communicated to the European Union. That will happen, and the wording of what has been decided will be absolutely crystal clear. The will of the House will be forwarded to the European Union, whatever that will is.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Given that we have seen plenty of briefings indicating that meaningful vote No. 3 will take place at some point next week, and given that the pound appears to be going tonto just about every day, can the Leader of the House tell us when meaningful vote No. 3 will be, so that the markets can be prepared for the same nonsense again next week?
Andrea Leadsom
What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I will announce next week’s business tomorrow. Obviously, however, he will be aware that we are currently focusing on trying to identify the will of the House, which is why we have tabled a motion enabling it to discuss tomorrow its desire, or otherwise, for an extension of article 50.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I will not rehearse the sequence of events that we were promised this week in the context of why we have reached this point tonight, but I am utterly astonished that the Leader of the House has produced a motion for us to debate tomorrow which is essentially a forerunner to meaningful vote No. 3. The entirety of the motion is dependent on the expression by the House of its view again, by 20 March, on not what she described to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) as “a deal”, but “the” negotiated withdrawal agreement and “the” framework for the future relationship, namely the current EU withdrawal agreement and the current framework for the future relationship that the House has already rejected twice. If the Government are listening to the will of the House, the motion should clearly say, “We have listened to the will of the House, and we will go back to the European Union to seek an extension”, should it not?
Andrea Leadsom
As I have said to a number of Members, the Government are listening very carefully to the views of the House. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that if the meaningful vote was not passed, we would come back to the House today with a vote on rejecting a no-deal Brexit, and in the event that that was passed, we would come back to the House tomorrow to seek its views on an extension of article 50. That is exactly what we are doing. The Prime Minister has further said—as have I, just now—that if the House wants an extension of article 50, we will seek to agree that with the European Union, but what Members must understand is that it is not in the Government’s gift to insist on an extension. That will be a matter for agreement with the European Union.
Mr Speaker
I think everyone is aware of that. I do not wish to be unkind to the Leader of the House, but I do not think she is telling us anything that we do not know. We all know that.
Mr Speaker
Well, repetition is not an unknown phenomenon in the House of Commons. I understand what the Leader of the House is saying, but I think everyone is perfectly well aware that an extension request is just that: a request.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
In claiming that the Government are listening, the Leader of the House really is stretching the boundaries of credibility. The Prime Minister was told after Chequers that the Chequers proposals did not command a majority of the House. She ignored that, and went off to Brussels. She then came back with something worse, and feigned surprise when, funnily enough, the House did not vote for it.
The Prime Minister and the Government have now been told twice—not by small numbers, but by unprecedented, historic numbers—that this deal does not command the support of the House of Commons. What the Leader of the House is trying to stand up this evening is, as has already been said, meaningful vote No. 3, and that will not succeed either. All that she is doing—or facilitating, as Leader of the House—is running down the clock, limiting our options and harming our country. I think that that is reckless and irresponsible, and it is not how she should be behaving as Leader of the House. Can she tell us when she plans to bring us meaningful vote No. 3? Why not do it tomorrow, so that we can inflict the defeat sooner rather than later?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. The Prime Minister set out, in response to the strong desire of this House, a trajectory towards a second meaningful vote, and if that was not passed towards giving the House the opportunity to take leaving without a withdrawal agreement off the table, and if that was passed giving the House an opportunity to ask for an extension to article 50. The Prime Minister has been clear that she will comply with the House’s request, and all I am pointing out is two things. One is that it will be a request—the Government cannot insist on it—and, secondly, the motion tomorrow will be amendable. So if the hon. Gentleman wants to put forward an alternative proposal that he believes will carry the House then of course, by definition in an amendable motion, he is able to do so.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Since the last vote I have taken the opportunity to canvass the external Brexit campaign groups to find out their opinion as to whether, in the light of all this, we were right to vote down the deal, and I can tell the Government that unanimously so far the opinion is that the deal was so rotten that we were absolutely right to vote it down and that come what may we should continue to do so. And I tell the Government now that when meaningful vote No. 3 comes back I will see to it that we honour—honour—what we owe to them: to keep voting this down however many times it is brought back, whatever pressure we are put under, and come what may. Please don’t do it: go back to the EU and say, “It won’t pass.”
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend and I clearly have a different perspective on this. In my opinion the Prime Minister’s proposal delivers on the will of the people as expressed in the referendum. It means we are leaving the single market and the customs union; we are taking back control of our money, our laws and our borders; we are getting out of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy; and, importantly, we will have the opportunity to write free trade deals with other nations around the world. But important too is the fact that the Prime Minister’s deal respects the views of so many who did not want to leave the European Union, because it ensures that we will continue to have a close and collaborative relationship with our EU friends and neighbours. So in my opinion it is the best combination to deliver on the will of the referendum.
Mr Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind—and I am always interested to hear his views—I would prefer to conclude the exchanges on the emergency business statement and if he is still keen to raise his point of order then I shall be happy to hear him.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
When we were in talks with the Prime Minister before—probably a month or six weeks ago—she was absolutely adamant that it was no deal, her deal or revocation. Now the Government have pivoted to extension. So why is there this change of position? Why did they not stick to no deal, her deal or revocation? Her deal is dead so it is now between no deal or revocation.
Andrea Leadsom
Actually what the Prime Minister was saying was that she was concerned that the House was not giving due consideration to her negotiated proposal, and what she was pointing out to the House is that the Government are determined to fulfil on the will of the people expressed at the referendum and that the alternative to either a negotiated deal such as her deal or not fulfilling on the will of the people was to leave the EU without a deal, which nobody believes would be in the best interests of the country.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has said that we would need to have a clear purpose in order to extend article 50, particularly if that was for a short period of time. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether she believes that a change of chief negotiator will amount to such a clear purpose?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work of the civil service, who have spent the last two and a half years above and beyond the call of duty—so many of them focused on delivering on the referendum. That is something to be proud of.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Does the Leader of the House not recognise that the Prime Minister will not be able to pass a deal simply with the support of the Members sitting behind her—and if she had not fully recognised that until this evening surely she does now? If there is to be any deal that we can take to the European Parliament, European Commission and European Council in order to try to secure any sort of deal other than a no-deal Brexit, she is going to have to negotiate a deal with Members on the Opposition side of the House—not just to talk to Members on the Opposition Benches, but negotiate a deal with them.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend has indeed reached out to Members across the House, and the hon. Gentleman knows that full well.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Once again the Government are happy to use the most arcane and incomprehensible procedures when it suits them in order to frustrate the will of the House, and also to ignore them when it suits them to do so. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is no longer in his place, has pointed out that the Government seem determined to cast aside the time-honoured tradition that if you put forward a motion and lose it once, it is gone. Also, if the Government have already decided, as they clearly have, when the crucial third vote will be held, surely it is another time-honoured tradition to have the courtesy to give the House such information now, rather than keep it for some other time. Will the Leader of the House give a commitment that when the meaningful vote is brought back and the discredited deal is rejected yet again, every member of the Government will honour the time-honoured tradition of three strikes and they are out?
Andrea Leadsom
I find it a bit odd that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we are using arcane procedures when we are actually using business motions and motions of the House that are by no means arcane. We are merely fulfilling the commitment that the Prime Minister gave to ensure that the House could vote on whether it wished to take no deal off the table and then vote on whether it wished to request an extension to article 50 from the European Union.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Can the Leader of the House tell us whether there will be time to debate one quite interesting aspect of the withdrawal agreement? It really is an encapsulation of much of what is wrong with the Government’s attitude to the House. It involves the backstop proposals for how the technicalities of customs will work at the border. They are silent on VAT and they will require the EU’s permission to be workable and compliant with the EU customs code. They will also require the EU to agree on what the law on our borders will be. This goes against the statement that the Government keep making that we will have control of our money, borders and laws through the withdrawal agreement. How can we identify this and explain it more fully than the Government have done to date?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sure that there will be Ministers from the Department for Exiting the European Union on the Front Bench tomorrow. That might be an appropriate time for my hon. Friend to raise his specific questions.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I am a new MP and I have lost my circus programme, so can the Leader of the house tell me what time close of play will be tomorrow? Or will there be an extension?
Andrea Leadsom
The motion that has been laid suggests that the House will carry on its debate until 5 pm, but that is a matter for the House to agree.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether it is still a convention that if a Government Minister breaks a three-line Whip, they are expected to resign.
Andrea Leadsom
Whipping is a matter for each Chief Whip. I am pleased to say that it is not a matter for me.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Given that Parliament has rejected leaving the EU in a no-deal scenario, the Leader of the House has outlined that tomorrow we will debate extending article 50. She has also told us tonight that the Government cannot go back to the EU to ask for that extension of article 50 unless a proper deal has been agreed in Parliament. What is she doing to bring forward the mechanisms for Parliament to decide what they want to take back to the EU for the purposes of extending article 50, instead of this nonsense of another meaningful vote on a deal that we have already rejected twice?
Andrea Leadsom
I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. What I said was that if the House should vote to extend article 50, the Prime Minister has said that she will indeed go to the EU to seek its agreement to that. However, the fact is that that would only be a request. The Government are not able to insist upon it because it requires the agreement of all 27 EU members. So we can request the extension on behalf the House, and will certainly do so, and if the EU agrees to such an extension, the Government will bring forward legislation. The point that the Prime Minister was making is that we cannot insist on that extension.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
After Aberdeen’s brilliant result against Rangers last night, it was probably only right to give Kilmarnock a wee win.
Last night, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House both gave a commitment that if this House backed no deal as a way forward, that would become Government policy. The extension of that principle and that logic, which is important after what the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) said, means that the Government should now adopt no “no deal” as their policy, so why is the first item of business tomorrow not a statutory instrument removing from legislation the exit day of 29 March?
Andrea Leadsom
The Prime Minister committed to allowing the House to decide whether it wanted to decline to leave the European Union without a deal, and the House made that decision. The Prime Minister also said that she would give the House the opportunity to decide to extend article 50, with a clear commitment to making that request should the House decide to agree to it. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the only way to avoid the legal default, which is still that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union on 29 March with or without a deal, is to put in place an alternative deal or, indeed, to extend article 50. I have merely stated the fact that that in itself requires the agreement of the all other 27 EU member states.
Business Without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 8 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)
That the draft Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 14 February, be approved.
That the draft Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 14 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services)
That the draft Uncertificated Securities (Amendment and EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 17 January, be approved.—(Andrew Griffiths.)
Question agreed to.
Closure of Middleton Crown Post Office
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition signed by 1,183 residents of Heywood and Middleton. The Post Office recently announced a plan to close 74 Crown post offices, including the Middleton post office in my constituency, and to franchise the services to branches of WHSmith. That will put jobs at risk, affect quality of service and accessibility, and have a negative effect on Middleton town centre. In addition, there is uncertainty about the future of WHSmith itself, which has recently announced the closure of some of its high street stores. It is a huge risk to relocate post office services into a business that is closing stores and may lose more.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government and Post Office Ltd to keep Middleton Crown Post Office open at its current location.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of Heywood and Middleton,
Declares that Crown Post Offices provide a vital service to their communities; further that the Post Office propose to close the Middleton Crown Post Office and to franchise the service to a local branch of WH Smith; further that there is concern that this will adversely affect jobs, quality of service, and accessibility, and have a negative impact on Middleton town centre; and further that a local paper petition and online petition on this matter has received signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government and Post Office Ltd to keep Middleton Crown Post Office open at its current location.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002438]
War Pensions: Appeals Process
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
We have had another momentous debate and series of votes affecting the nation’s future, but our role can also involve raising individual cases of injustice, so I am grateful for the opportunity to recall an issue that has affected one of my constituents. His experiences may well have affected others, which is why I want to bring it to the attention of the House. I hope that by debating it we can not only find a solution for my constituent by giving the Government an opportunity to do the right thing but also ensure that this situation does not happen again. I hope that by setting out the history of my constituent’s complaint lessons will be learned.
Those who serve our country make many sacrifices defending our interests, and they rightly deserve our respect, support and fair treatment both during and after their service. I want to take this opportunity to thank all our armed forces personnel, past and present, who represent our country across the world and stand ready to defend our country day and night. It saddens me that I have to bring this debate today to highlight a case in which a former serviceman has not, I believe, been treated fairly or with the respect that he deserves.
My constituent, David Cottrell, who lives in Neston, served in the Army, in the Cheshire, then Mercian, Regiment, for a period of 22 years, from 1987 until 2009, during which time he saw active service in both Northern Ireland and Iraq. As a result of his service, he was left with a number of serious and long-term medical conditions and was awarded a war pension at 50% and a lower standard of occupation allowance in 2012. He suffers from a number of conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, which causes him to suffer disturbed sleep, anxiety and flashbacks. He also suffers from polyarthralgia—aches and pains in his joints—and a number of medical conditions affecting his back that cause him severe difficulty in standing, walking, using the stairs, sitting and bending. It also causes him difficulty in using his wrists to lift and carry everyday objects.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have sought the hon. Gentleman’s permission to intervene. Does he not agree that there must be a simplified appeals process for war pensions, when we take into account the fact that the stress of that process for those suffering from PTSD, to which he referred, can be the straw that breaks the camel’s back? This is another example of how our veterans are being let down by a system that must be reviewed urgently.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In these times of uncertainty, we can rely on the certainty that he will intervene in the Adjournment debate. The point that he made is absolutely pertinent to my constituent’s experiences. As the debate develops, I will show that he has experienced a convoluted appeals process, which only exacerbated his general condition.
As Members will know, the war pension scheme is run by Veterans UK to provide benefits for people with disablement caused or made worse by service in the armed forces. There is no list of prescribed diseases; claims can be made for any medical condition that is suffered provided that there is a causal link between the condition and military service. Rates for a war disablement pension depend on the degree of disability suffered, which is assessed on a percentage basis akin to the industrial injuries scheme.
A range of allowances and supplements may be granted depending on an individual’s circumstances, including for employability, mobility, constant attendance or severe disablement. As of 31 March 2018, there were 101,630 disablement pensioners and 15,854 war widows in receipt of a war pension, and in the year 2017-18, £517 million was paid out. With that amount of money at stake, it goes without saying that the process for assessment must be robust.
War pension claims are made to Veterans UK. If individuals are unhappy with the outcome they can request a review of their war pension decision, and they can also make an appeal to an independent tribunal.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend may be aware of the ongoing issue affecting those who allege that because of taking Lariam when they were in the forces, they have been completely disabled in later life. The way in which that has been dealt with is Kafkaesque. That affects many veterans, so does he agree that that needs to be sorted out as a matter of urgency?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many scandals that are not going to go away and will not be resolved until truth and justice are delivered, so I support his call entirely.
I would like to discuss the review and appeals process, because it has utterly failed to assist my constituent to receive the war pension to which he is entitled.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
This soldier was in my regiment and I suspect in my battalion. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether his constituent has consulted regimental headquarters, either in Chester or in Lichfield?
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not know the answer to that. My constituent has sought numerous sources of assistance throughout the years, some of which I will go into. This has proved to be an extremely time-consuming and convoluted process, which has caused him unnecessary stress—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to that—and has undoubtedly exacerbated his ill health and affected his quality of life. Opportunities to act and put things right were repeatedly missed throughout the handling of his case. I hope that his experience has not been repeated in the other 588 war pension appeals cases that, at 11 November 2018, were still in train.
As I have stated, my constituent was awarded a war pension at 50% and a lower standard of occupation allowance in 2012, following as assessment that noted that Mr Cottrell
“cannot walk more than 200m without stopping or severe discomfort”.
Upon leaving the Army, he worked as a tutor for Manchester College for a number of years, delivering training to professional drivers, which included on-the-road training as well as classroom-based training. In 2013, he applied for his pension from the college to be released early on health grounds. He was referred to Dr Nightingale in December 2013, via the occupational health team, for an assessment to be made. Dr Nightingale concluded that he was unable to work as she did not
“envisage significant recovery to facilitate return to work in due course to enable ‘gainful employment’ at 30 hours per week, every week, on a sustained basis for a 12 month period”.
As Mr Cottrell was unable to work, he submitted a deterioration claim to request a formal review of his war pension assessment in January 2014 and was sent for an assessment with Atos Healthcare in April of that year. The report from this assessment is scattered with errors, which is not surprising, given that Mr Cottrell informs me that he was not asked all the questions that appeared in the report. We have all heard about the errors and indignities our constituents have suffered during these assessments, and earlier today I took part in a Westminster Hall debate on disability assessment services, where Member after Member brought up harrowing examples of flaws with the assessment procedure. Now is not the time to rehearse those massive flaws in the way those assessments are carried out, because, flawed though that assessment was, I am here today because of opportunities that were not taken afterwards to put the situation right.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the pension age has been increased to 67 and we have WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women who must also have served in the Army, perhaps in this regiment, and they are entitled to a pension as well, along with others?
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and he is right; the injustices the WASPI women have suffered have been repeatedly mentioned in the Chamber. When they see how we are incapable of finding a way through our current predicament, they will be disheartened to see that this Government cannot deal with such a major injustice.
Let me return to Mr Cottrell’s assessment. It contained many errors, including saying that Mr Cottrell drinks alcohol occasionally when he was not asked about alcohol during his assessment. It exaggerated his ability to walk, saying that he was able to walk further than 800 metres, despite only being observed walking 10 metres to the examination room during the assessment. Let us not forget the earlier assessment in 2012 said he could not walk more than 200 metres, and clearly his condition had not improved in the meantime. Perhaps the most incredulous part of the assessment was the conclusion that his PTSD was ‘likely to improve”, an assumption that was not based on any medical evidence whatsoever. In fact, it was direct contradiction to what Dr Nightingale said in her report, which was that this would not happen. Clearly, her views were not given anything like the same weight as the views of the Atos assessor, who saw Mr Cottrell for only a short amount of time.
As a result of the incorrect report, Mr Cottrell received a decision letter in July 2014 stating his war pension rate would not change. He disputed the findings of the assessment, as he did not believe that the medical evidence had been adequately taken into consideration. His complaint was referred to the independent complaints executive, which informed Mr Cottrell that his complaint was not in its remit and so he requested that Veterans UK investigate his complaint. Mr Cottrell informs me that the chief medical officer of Veterans UK reviewed the complaint and concluded that Dr Nightingale’s assessment was incorrect as it only referred to him being unable to work for the next 12 months. Rather incredulously, he also said that the report should not be trusted due to the close relationship Mr Cottrell would have with Dr Nightingale as his GP. Given that Dr Nightingale assessed Mr Cottrell via the occupational health department of his employer and was not his GP, this demonstrates clearly that her report was not properly considered, understood or possibly even read at all.
In fact, the contents of Dr Nightingale’s report are really the nub of the issue, as it has since transpired that the paperwork shows that the decision on Mr Cottrell’s claim was made three days before the medical report from Dr Nightingale was received by the assessors. The report was recorded as being received by the department on 14 July, although for some reason the recorded date is 15 July, but, crucially, the decision on Mr Cottrell’s claim was made on 11 July. This is a basic error—it is factually indisputable—but since that point, the whole process has been characterised by a total failure to acknowledge that mistake and act accordingly.
An example of that failure is that the records reveal that when the assessing doctor was informed that Dr Nightingale’s report had been received late and was asked whether that would have altered his decision, the assessing doctor did not actually look at it again, because the response was in fact from a different colleague, who said that the assessing doctor was not available, but that in the new doctor’s opinion the original decision remained appropriate. It seems to me to be wholly inadequate to have one professional trying in effect to second-guess what another professional might have said. It should have been sent back to the original doctor to do the whole thing again. Had that happened, I very much doubt that we would be here today.
Following that decision, Mr Cottrell proceeded with the internal complaints procedure of Veterans UK, while also appealing the decision at tribunal. His case was eventually heard in February 2015, and the tribunal was unsuccessful. Worryingly, papers from the tribunal demonstrate that half Dr Nightingale’s report was omitted from the appeal pack. So, for a second time, the full evidence was not considered. Following that, Mr Cottrell was told that only procedural issues could be dealt with via the remaining complaints procedure.
Mr Cottrell informs me that because of the controversy over Dr Nightingale’s report, he decided to write to her in September 2015 about the interpretation that the department had made of her report regarding the period for which he was unfit for work. Dr Nightingale responded by stating that in her professional opinion, as had been detailed in the report previously, Mr Cottrell was permanently unable to work. That letter was then sent to the MOD.
In the meantime, Mr Cottrell made a new deterioration claim for extra allowances for his war pension, and Dr Nightingale’s letter was added to the new claim file, rather than being considered as part of the ongoing dispute regarding the 2014 Atos assessment. This review resulted in an increase in Mr Cottrell’s war pension from 50% to 70% in August 2015, and he got unemployability supplement in November 2015. Indeed, on 26 November 2016, Mr Cottrell received a letter from Veterans UK saying that he was entitled to unemployability supplement
“because we think you are unable to work”.
Curiously, this decision did not require a medical assessment, and instead used both the letter submitted by his GP and the report made by Dr Nightingale. So, 18 months on, we finally got the right decision, even though the medical opinion had not changed during that time. Given that both the information from his GP and Dr Nightingale had been discounted by Veterans UK previously, Mr Cottrell feels that demonstrates that the objection to his appeal was unfounded and that his award should be backdated to January 2014, when the deterioration was originally reported and the application made.
In the meantime, with regards to his complaint, Mr Cottrell was informed by Veterans UK that it would no longer respond to his or his solicitor’s correspondence, so he referred the complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Following this, Mr Cottrell received a visit at home from the customer services manager of Veterans UK. He tells me that during this visit he felt he was being encouraged to drop his complaint because his new claim had been approved. I find that a rather curious approach to take, if not an improper one. Frankly, the implication that he should be satisfied with his lot is simply not good enough.
My constituent deserves to receive the war pension to which he was fully entitled from the beginning. He should not be expected to write off several years of underpayment just because the MOD got it right in the end. I am deeply concerned that because the appeals process open to him was not sufficient to deal with his complaint and instead resulted in a drawn-out affair, he had to use a solicitor, running up a bill of nearly £5,000. It was only because of the financial costs that he could not pursue his legal case any further.
I have been trying to resolve this unfair situation since June 2015, just after I was first elected. That is nearly four years. In that time, I have written to the Minister responsible on nine occasions and twice to the independent complaints panel, which subsequently took up Mr Cottrell’s complaint. At this point, I pay tribute to my caseworker Eve, who has done a great job in keeping the issue going all the way through. We should all acknowledge the great work that our staff do. I think that every Member would agree that without them we would not be anywhere near as effective as our constituents would like us to be.
As the House can tell, the details of this case are long and complicated, but at the heart of it lie two simple truths: first, a mistake was made in assessing Mr Cottrell’s deterioration claim in 2014; and secondly, since then, no one has been prepared to admit that mistake and put it right. That is not how justice is supposed to work in this country. If a wrong has occurred—I hope that it is patently obvious from what I have said that the original decision was wrong—then nobody, and certainly not someone who has suffered as a result of service to their country, should be faced with such a begrudging attitude, which is essentially, “Well we got there in the end, albeit a few years late, so be satisfied with your lot.”
That brings me back to where I started. Our servicemen and women deserve respect, support and fair treatment both during and after their service. I do not believe that we have seen that in this appeals process. I am concerned that the bodies and processes are not sufficient to deal with complaints in general.
Eventually, the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees found in Mr Cottrell’s favour and strongly recommended that his war pension was backdated, yet Veterans UK ignored this recommendation. I appreciate that it is an “advisory” committee, but what is the point of making recommendations if no one listens to them and they cannot be enforced? Mr Cottrell was also concerned that he was not able to present his case in person to the VAPC, which meant that he could not, for example, make the case for repayment of his legal fees. Mr Cottrell does not know what evidence was considered by the panel, and his communications with VAPC were via Facebook Messenger. I think there is now an acceptance that that was not an appropriate channel for communication, but it does bring into question the resources available to the VAPC to deal with the administration of hearings, which seemed to take an age to happen.
It has also been brought to my attention that the Independent Complaints Panel is made up of members of the VAPC, so how, in those circumstances, can it really be independent? In my correspondence with the Minister, and his predecessor, I have asked for a review of the way that this case has been handled, so that mistakes are learned from and no one else has to suffer in the way that my constituent has. I believe that my constituent deserves an apology from the Ministry of Defence, compensation to cover his solicitor’s fees and the backdating of his award to the original application date.
As the Minister himself confirmed in his letter of March 2017, the backdating of awards can be considered when there has been an error in the handling of a case, and I believe that that is the only reasonable outcome. It is manifest that there was an error in the original assessment, and after four years there was a recognition by the VAPC that the original decision was wrong, but why my constituent feels so strongly about this, as do I, is that it should not have taken four years to go through this process, which at the end of it turns out to be something that cannot be legally enforced.
Although there is obviously the individual injustice that my constituent has suffered, questions need to be asked about how such an obvious error was allowed to continue for so long. The Government also need to review the powers of the VAPC. If its decisions cannot be enforced then it is a toothless body, which gives people false hope and wastes people’s time. Frankly, our veterans deserve better.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing this evening’s debate on this very important subject. At the outset, I should pay tribute to all members of our armed forces, in whichever service they serve in, for their bravery and commitment to protecting the values and freedoms that we are so fortunate to enjoy in this country. I am sure that the House will agree that both they, and those who served before them, are deserving of an enduring debt of gratitude by the nation. That is precisely why debates such as this are so important and why, as I said, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for his persistence in this case.
The Government’s concern for servicemen and women does not end when they leave Her Majesty’s armed forces. In the context of this debate, we are determined to ensure that, where they have been injured, they have speedy, fair and transparent access to pension and compensation rights. The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the case of his constituent, Mr Cottrell. He also rightly highlights that this has been the subject of extensive ministerial correspondence now over some four years, Indeed, I was the Minister’s predecessor, so some of the correspondence has been with me. Therefore, I am only too well aware of that case.
The hon. Gentleman goes into enormous detail of the case, and much of that has been dealt with in the detailed correspondence that we have had. For the purpose of the debate this evening, it would not be in the House’s interest for me to go through all of that detail, not least because I do not have time. There is a wider point here about how this process works. What I would like to do—I will come back in some detail later—is to touch on some misunderstandings about how this process works, or is seen to work. Crucially, I hope also to touch on how we are looking at improving this process so that, hopefully, cases such as this will be more transparent and will not go through the long-winded process that we have seen.
The tribunal was created in 2008 as part of the unified tribunal system, which was established at that time under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Formerly, it was dealt with by the pensions appeal tribunal. There are separate tribunals for veterans in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but United Kingdom law applies throughout. I will come back to the separation of process, because that is one area where we can improve.
As the tribunal service is part of the Ministry of Justice, I stress that any decisions reached at appeal are wholly independent of any decisions that may have been reached by the Ministry of Defence. The first-tier tribunal has jurisdiction to hear appeals from veterans who are unhappy with a decision reached by Veterans UK, the organisation that receives claims from service personnel under the compensation schemes that it administers. Veterans UK administers two schemes: the war pension scheme, which deals with injuries sustained or aggravated by service in Her Majesty’s armed forces prior to 6 April 2005; and the armed forces compensation scheme, which deals with injuries sustained in service on or after 6 April 2005.
The tribunal appeals process is determined by the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber) Rules 2008. I will explain how the process works. A claim is made by the claimant to my officials within Veterans UK. We have heard about that. They assess the merits of the claim and reach a decision based on service and medical records and external medical evidence from the claimant’s general practitioner and hospital consultants, as appropriate. A claim may typically be for a disabling injury or battle stress psychological disorders. If Veterans UK does not allow the claim, the claimant can seek a review of that decision. In the case of a claim under the armed forces compensation scheme, that is called a reconsideration. If the decision remains the same on review, the claimant may appeal to the first-tier tribunal, but they must do that within one year of receiving written notice of the Veterans UK decision. In the case of claims under the armed forces compensation scheme where a reconsideration has not been requested, that will none the less be carried out as part of the appeals process.
Following an appeal against a decision being made to my officials within Veterans UK, it prepares what is known as a response document. That document includes all the evidence upon which the decision under appeal was based, along with any relevant medical and legislative information. A copy of that is sent to the tribunal service, the appellant and their representative at the tribunal. Once that has been received by the tribunal service, it begins the process of listing the hearing at a venue as close to the appellant’s home as possible.
The appeal to the tribunal is a full-merits hearing, which means that it is a complete reappraisal of the case. The appellant can bring evidence and witnesses to the tribunal and the panel is made up of a judge, a medical member and a service member. The panel ensures that proceedings are balanced and inquisitorial in their approach. Tribunals are less formal than court environments and every effort is made by the panel to assist appellants in putting their case. Sometimes appellants are helped by members of various support groups and charities such as the Royal British Legion, the Royal Air Forces Association, Combat Stress, Blesma: the Limbless Veterans, the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association and UK armed forces charities.
Bob Stewart
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for securing this debate. I make the point to the House that one of the things that Mr Cottrell might or might not have done is lean on his friends in the Ellesmere Port company. There is a Cheshire Regiment old boy network there, and that is very important. If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me more details—I seem to remember a Cottrell serving with me in Bosnia—I will make sure that there is a connection.
Mark Lancaster
My hon. Friend makes an important point: while there is very much a process—this goes very much to the heart of our armed forces and how we operate—the wider support mechanism through the regimental associations that he describes can also offer significant assistance to our veterans, particularly when they have to go through what can be a fairly challenging and difficult process. I hope the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will follow my hon. Friend’s advice and do that.
Let me return briefly to the tribunal process. A decision of the first-tier tribunal can be appealed to the administrative appeals chamber, or the upper tribunal, if it appears that there may have been an error of law. England, Wales and Northern Ireland are the only parts of the United Kingdom where appellants in these cases must lodge their appeal with Veterans UK rather than the tribunal itself. Indeed, it is unique in this regard in the unified tribunals system. I appreciate the concerns of many stakeholders in this area of law, expressed over several years, that this inconsistency is undesirable. Indeed, the complexity of the process seems to have made a contribution to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent’s case. It has been suggested that the fact that Veterans UK is part of the MOD means that there is a lack of independent assessment of claims. However, the Government are satisfied that Veterans UK is scrupulous in assessing veterans’ claims. While it is accepted that there can sometimes be a delay in the sending of appeals documentation from Veterans UK to the first-tier tribunal, this is an inherent risk in any system in which there are separate tiers of administration.
The process in Scotland is quite different. There, appeals are sent by veterans directly to the tribunal. This is known as direct lodgement. The Government agree that direct lodgement should also apply in England and Wales, although for this to happen there would first need to be changes to the tribunal’s procedure rules, which are made by the independent Tribunal Procedure Committee. Subject to the necessary changes being put in place by the committee, the Ministry of Justice intends to introduce direct lodgement as part of an ambitious programme of court and tribunal reform in which it is investing about £1 billion, and which is already under way. The aim is to introduce direct lodgement for veterans’ pension and compensation appeals in England and Wales next year—in 2020—if we can, but because of other work ahead of it in the reform programme, I cannot give the House the firm assurance that that will happen.
I would like to draw the House’s attention to the vital role played by my officials within the Veterans Welfare Service. They can and do assist our veterans in submitting compensation claims, and provide advice about how to submit an appeal should they be unhappy with a decision reached about their compensation entitlement. In addition to this, the welfare service can provide help and advice on a much wider range of issues, including access to charitable assistance, housing and entitlements to benefits from the Department for Work and Pensions.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to the challenges that his constituent has met while going through this process. While the principal substance of his appeal was dismissed, there has been an apology for some of the handling of his case. I hope that I have taken this opportunity to outline to the House how we are looking at ways of making this process better and more fit for purpose in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
That the draft Waste (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 18 February, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 235 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 314 / Noes: 276 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Draft Criminal Justice (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The draft regulations for m part of the Government’s continuing work to ensure that there are functioning domestic laws in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. The regulations relate solely to the Government’s no-deal exit preparations in respect of five measures dealing with criminal justice.
First, the victims of crime compensation directive established that each EU member state should have a national scheme to provide compensation to victims of violent intentional crime. It also provided for liaison between the relevant authorities in each member state to facilitate the compensation of victims. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority manages the compensation scheme for England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland has a separate scheme, but the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is the assisting authority for the whole UK, and it liaises with other member states to help victims to apply for compensation from them. The regulations will revoke the implementing legislation, because the system relies on mutual co-operation between member states, and we will no longer be a member state. However, our national schemes will continue.
Secondly, the directive on European protection orders provides a framework to allow certain kinds of protection order made in criminal proceedings in one member state to be transferred to another member state, where they can be recognised and enforced. This measure too operates only between EU member states. To protect people who are currently using the system, we will make a transitional provision to ensure that any order made prior to exit will continue to be enforceable until its conclusion, whenever that may be. I should mention that the system is seldom used: the courts of England and Wales received only four orders from EU member states in the three years of its operation.
Thirdly, European supervision orders make it possible to transfer certain supervision measures between EU member states: for example, bail granted subject to conditions issued in criminal proceedings in one member state can be transferred to another EU member state to be recognised and supervised there. Like the previous two measures, the system can operate only between EU member states. The scheme is seldom used, as noted in the explanatory memorandum and provisional impact assessment. I can update the figures today as some more requests for recognition were received recently. The latest figures show that the courts of England and Wales have issued three requests and received nine in the four years since the framework decision was implemented. As the numbers remain small, we expect the impact of the changes made under the SI to be minimal.
The fourth measure concerns mutual recognition of financial penalties. Under the framework provided, certain financial penalties imposed in criminal proceedings in one member state may be forwarded to another EU member state for enforcement. Again, the provision allows for mutual recognition and enforcement between member states, so a transitional provision is being made, to allow domestic enforcement to continue finalising any request received prior to exit.
Finally, there is a measure that relates to taking account of convictions in EU member states in the course of new criminal proceedings in the UK. It requires known prior convictions in another EU member state to be taken into account—for example, when sentence is passed—to the extent that national law requires national convictions to be taken into account. That means that, on sentencing, the courts in any given member state treat convictions from another member state exactly as they would prior domestic convictions. After EU exit in a no-deal scenario, the SI will revoke the regulations to amend the implementing legislation to provide that, for proceedings that commence post-exit, individuals with prior convictions from EU member states will be treated in the same way as individuals with any other non-UK prior conviction. There are transitional provisions in place, which provide that for cases that are going on at the time of exit, the current rules will apply.
I will not go into the detail of what the SI does in respect of each EU measure or tool—I hope the regulations, the explanatory memorandum and the provisional impact assessment are clear about that—but I will deal briefly with several main points. If we leave without a deal for victims of crime, we will revoke the legislation relating to mutual assistance as it provides a system of intra-EU member state co-operation that will not be present in a no-deal scenario. As I mentioned, the regulations do not have an impact on our national compensation schemes, which will continue. Several of the other measures also rely on member state co-operation, so we will revoke them. The impact of the changes on citizens, businesses, public and voluntary sectors will be minimal. A provisional impact assessment was placed in the Libraries of both Houses before the debate.
We are taking these steps because we will no longer be a member state and will therefore not benefit from any reciprocity. Four of the five measures addressed by the regulations require reciprocity between the UK as a member state and another member state to operate. We cannot compel remaining EU member states to co-operate with us. The purpose of the regulations is to promote as orderly a withdrawal as possible in the circumstances. They aim to provide certainty for those who need to navigate the criminal justice landscape in a no-deal scenario. Importantly, they also provide clarity for those who are involved in action related to some of the EU measures covered by the regulations at the point of a no-deal exit, where that action is ongoing.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. We will not divide the Committee on the regulations. We understand the purpose behind them and the need for them. I will not go into the detail of what is being proposed—the Minister has adequately dealt with that—but I will draw the attention of the Minister and perhaps the Ministry of Justice to the fact that so far we have had no information regarding what the Government’s proposal is in relation to the European arrest warrant, Europol and Eurojust. What will the agreements be in relation to them? They are important to ensure that our criminal justice system works efficiently and smoothly.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is little late in the day not to have clarity about those matters?
Yasmin Qureshi
I absolutely agree, which is why I am taking the opportunity to raise these important issues. The outline of the political declaration is vague on security and justice co-operation, which almost suggests that the Government have given up on trying to deal with key European Union security arrangements, such as the European arrest warrant.
The declaration talks about negotiating “swift and effective arrangements” on extradition, but not about remaining within the European arrest warrant. As everybody knows, that facilitates the extradition of wanted people across European Union borders and stops us having to go through the long and detailed extradition process that applies to countries that are not part of the EU. Hon. Members familiar with the workings of extradition know that, when it is applied to non-EU state members, our Government can be stuck for years trying to get people brought to this country or get people from this country extradited back for serious criminal offences.
Having access to Europol assists massively, in the sense that Europol police officers co-operate on many issues across the criminal justice system, as does having access to the European criminal records information system. I am told that at the last estimate, we used the information on that system about 500 million times in one year. That extensive database system exists across the European Union and has been of enormous help to police and security agencies throughout the European Union and in our country. It would be helpful if the Minister or the Ministry were able to tell us what their proposals are in relation to those matters, whether any discussions have taken place, and whether any statutory instrument is in process. Essentially, we do not know what is happening.
Ironically, those issues have been raised in at least two Westminster Hall debates, to which I responded on behalf of the Opposition. We have raised those issues time and again. We are now two weeks away from 29 March, and we are no further forward in dealing with those important issues, which will ensure that the criminal justice system and the security and safety of our citizens are being dealt with properly and efficiently.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful for the constructive approach that the hon. Member for Bolton South East has taken in not dividing the Committee on these important regulations. To deal with her points regarding the European arrest warrant and Europol, as she will be aware, the criminal justice measures before the Committee today are within the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, so we lead on them. As I hope she is aware, the EAW and Europol are matters that the Home Office leads on, and therefore not within the primary responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. A separate SI has been laid before the House and debated in relation to no-deal arrangements, including the EAW. However, we would have had more certainty about these matters if a deal had been approved yesterday. That deal would have allowed for an implementation period and for continued arrangements regarding these important security matters, and would have continued to respect the importance of co-operation on those matters.
This SI deals, as I mentioned, with five matters relating to the criminal justice system. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin.
The draft statutory instrument forms part of the Government’s ongoing work to ensure functioning domestic laws on civil judicial co-operation in the event that the UK leaves the European Union without a deal. The instrument relates to EU rules that determine which country’s laws apply when citizens have cross-border obligations, such as when they are buying or selling goods.
The rules apply to contractual and non-contractual matters. An example of a cross-border contractual matter is a contract for the sale of goods by a company in France to a company in England. An example of a non-contractual matter is a duty of care owed by an accountant practising in Germany to a client company based in Scotland not to give negligent advice that causes financial loss. The rules—the Rome conventions—are to do with what country’s laws apply in any particular case.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I ask the Minister this because I hope to learn, but is she saying that the rules are “who sues who for what”? If there is a contractual obligation and something goes wrong, who sues who and under whose law—is that what they are about?
Lucy Frazer
I am always happy to help Members learn about such very technical legal matters. The rules cover which country’s laws apply to a case, so not who sues who, but if people sue each other, whether they will be sued under English law, French law and so on. Countries all have different laws that apply in different circumstances. The question is which law applies.
Mr Sheerman
Pushing the Minister a little further, what will be different from now? We are in the European Union, so under whose law do we sue now? Is it European law? Will that be replaced by two different domestic ones?
Lucy Frazer
May I develop my submission? I am explaining what we are dealing with—the question of whose laws apply—and am coming to what happens at the moment. I will then let the Committee know how the system will apply in future—in essence, it will be very similar.
The rules that determine the question of whose laws apply are an important part of the EU’s civil judicial co-operative framework. They ensure legal certainty, which underpins trade and commerce between member states and the rest of the world.
As I said, I will set out the existing laws, what they do and what will happen in future. The EU applicable laws are set out in two main instruments, Rome I and Rome II. Rome I regulates contractual obligations and applies to contracts formed on or after 17 December 2009. It is the current law in all EU member states other than Denmark, which has opted out of the regulation. Rome I was preceded by the 1980 Rome convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations. That is a treaty to which the UK and a number of now EU member states are still contracting parties. It will continue to apply to any contracts entered into between April 1991 and 16 December 2009 that might still be in force today. It still applies to all contracts entered into by Denmark.
The Rome II regulation applies to non-contractual obligations. It commenced on 11 January 2009 and, like Rome I, it is the law in all EU member states other than Denmark. I will refer to all those together as the Rome rules.
In each case, the Rome rules start from the premise that the parties, subject to certain limitations, are entitled to choose the law that will apply to their contractual and non-contractual obligations. They operate so that, provided the requirements of the rules are complied with, that choice of law is valid, will be respected by the courts of a participating EU member state and will be applied to determine any dispute.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister is being very generous. I have a big exporting constituency, especially of textiles and fashion. Businesses in my constituency do a lot of work across Europe. When a contract is made in future between, say, an Italian firm and a British firm, will that contract say: “If anything goes wrong, we agree to abide by Italian law,” or, “by British law”? Will that be decided at the contractual stage?
Lucy Frazer
Yes. Parties enter into written contracts, which can be standard contracts or, if the companies are quite knowledgeable, they often have terms and conditions. As part of that agreement, the companies will often decide which law will apply in the event of a dispute. The Rome conventions determine that courts across the EU will respect that determination. Even if, for example, the case is heard in France, they might respect the contract law chosen by the parties.
Sometimes parties do not choose a law. In those instances, the Rome rules lay down a set of default rules to enable parties and courts to determine which country’s laws will apply—so there are both general and specific default rules. For contractual matters, the general default rule in Rome I is that the applicable law should be the law of the country with which the contract is most closely connected. For non-contractual matters under Rome II, it is the law of the country in which the damage occurred. Special rules apply to particular types of contractual and non-contractual matters.
Mr Sheerman
As Mr Austin knows, I am not very bright. I am trying to find out for my exporting firms in Huddersfield what the real difference will be. What will they notice in terms of their ability to trade and to have legal agreements? What is the difference between now and what is coming?
Lucy Frazer
I will come on to that. I am just trying to set out the existing framework. At the moment, the Rome regulations apply to contracts where parties have or have not determined. I will come on to what we will do when—if—we leave on 29 March. I dispute that the hon. Gentleman is not very intelligent, because he is showing a significant amount of intelligence—and interest, which is most important.
The Chair
That is not what I think at all. You were a distinguished academic before you came here—a professor, I think.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Just get on with it. I have been here ages.
Lucy Frazer
With bated breath. The answer is that we are retaining the regulations as a matter of UK law, so very little will change for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents as a result.
There are some specific rules that relate to insurance contracts, consumer contracts and employment contracts. Rome rules do not, for the most part, rely on reciprocity. Any Members who have sat on previous Committees regarding justice matters will have seen that we have taken the approach that where we rely on reciprocity, we are revoking those instruments, but the Rome rules do not rely on reciprocity. Participating EU member state courts must apply the applicable laws determined by the rules, irrespective of whether that law is the law of an EU member state or of a non-EU country.
The statutory instrument implements the Government’s no-deal policy on the Rome rules, which is to retain them as domestic law post exit. That will ensure that UK citizens, businesses and consumers continue to have clear and workable rules regarding which laws apply to cross-border situations in which they may find themselves. When the UK leaves the EU, Rome I and Rome II will be retained as domestic law under the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. However, amendments are required to ensure that they, and the relevant domestic legislation that originally implemented them, will work effectively once the UK ceases to be a member state.
The amendments will not, for the most part, lead to any differences between how the Rome rules are applied by courts in the UK and courts in EU member states post exit. However, due to the way the EU rules are constructed, the EU may treat UK cases slightly differently in some instances; that is, where Rome I and Rome II refer specifically to member states or the European Community. We have had to amend those references in the retained version of the rules so that they continue to include the UK, which will not be the case for the rules as applied by national courts in the EU after exit day.
Mr Sheerman
I know that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole is impatient to get away, but these are important issues. I come to these Committees to exercise parliamentary scrutiny over these SIs. Perhaps no one in Brigg and Goole is an exporter, and the people there are not worried about the very complex area that we are discussing, but I am trying to press the Minister and give this SI proper scrutiny so that I can go back to my constituency and say, “The Minister said to me that this is a nice little change through the SI. It will not change your life at all, and you can be happy that there will be no barriers to exporting to Italy or any other part of the European Union.”
Lucy Frazer
To clarify, we are retaining the rules. The only question we are asking today is what law will be applied to various contracts, and the answer is that there will be very limited change in that area. Other matters might affect the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who export goods, but the specific matter that we are discussing is what law will be applied if they have a dispute about the purchase or sale of their goods. In that case, our laws will be similar going forward.
As I have mentioned, our position in relation to the Rome convention, which predates Rome I and Rome II, is different. The UK’s status as a contracting party to that convention will terminate as a matter of international law once the UK has left the EU, and it will no longer be binding on the UK. The approach taken in this statutory instrument is that the substantive rules of the convention, which continue to apply only to contracts entered into between 1 April 1991 and 16 December 2009, are retained. However, the statutory instrument also removes the provisions dealing with the ability of the UK courts under the 1980 Rome convention to refer questions of interpretation to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
We have done an impact assessment, which I am sorry to say is not yet published. That assessment has concluded that the impact on businesses, charities, voluntary bodies and the public sector will be negligible. The amendments to retained EU law and domestic legislation in this instrument merely correct EU-related deficiencies, so that Rome I, Rome II, and—for the purposes of certain old contracts—the Rome convention rules will continue to apply in the UK as domestic law post exit, largely as they do now.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Can the Minister tell us why the impact assessment has not yet been published?
Lucy Frazer
I apologise; it was intended to have been published, and we thought that it was going to be. It was news to me this morning that it had not yet been published, and I apologise for that, but it will be published. As I mentioned, the effects are minimal.
Jo Stevens
Does the Minister know when that impact assessment will be published?
Lucy Frazer
We think it will be published today. If the hon. Lady or any other Members have any questions after that impact assessment is published, we will be happy to answer them.
Turning to consultation in respect of this measure, the Government’s policy approach has a large measure of support from both the Law Society and the Bar Council, as well as Committees in this place and in the other place.
Mr Sheerman
What the Minister just said is reassuring, but has she consulted the people who really are responsible for international trade, such as the Confederation of British Industry or the Engineering Employers’ Federation? The raison d’être of those organisations is to have good, frictionless trade across Europe.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We at the Ministry of Justice recognise that we deal with laws, which are there to serve consumers, private individuals, members of the public and businesses. We have set up a Brexit Law Committee, which includes members of the Law Society, the Bar Council and the judiciary. There are also representatives of the City and a number of other members who represent businesses. They are part of the committee, and we have consulted them and discussed all the statutory instruments that we are putting forward to the House. My officials engage heavily with members of the committee. I have met them and discussed a number of matters, and the Lord Chancellor has met them as well.
These are matters to which we have not determined our approach single-handedly; we have discussed them broadly. We have also discussed them with the devolved Administrations. We published our approach to this SI very early on in the process—in March 2018—and we had very positive feedback. We might have tweaked a few things following the feedback we received, but the SI and our approach to it have been around for some time and have received favourable comments.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I am grateful for the answer that the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield. Could she just enlighten me? Paragraph 10.1 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“This instrument has not been the subject of consultation.”
Could the Minister explain what that means?
Lucy Frazer
Yes, I am very happy to explain that. Like all our SIs, it has not been subject to formal consultation; we have informally consulted widely. As I said, this SI has been around for some time. We at the Ministry of Justice have taken the approach that we must be guided by experts. I have held a number of roundtable discussions on various matters, and my officials have engaged widely with the sector.
Clive Efford
I am sorry to pursue the point, but the draft instrument was published only on 8 March 2018. Is the Minister sure that there has been sufficient time for a response to that? There does not seem to be much detail on what has come back from the consultation or the period that was allowed for comments on this instrument.
Lucy Frazer
I beg to differ. The SI was published a year ago. We have engaged actively with the sector and we have had comments back. The instrument has been in the Library, so hon. Members could have seen it. We deposited a draft in the Library on 8 March 2018. If hon. Members had any concerns, we have had a year in which to hear them. A small number of comments were received in response to the SI’s publication, focusing on those areas where the retained version of the rules in the UK will diverge from the rules applied in EU member states. The comments we received, and the follow-up conversations that were held with relevant stakeholders, have been taken into account in the drafting of this instrument.
Our basic approach to retaining the Rome rules was also discussed with members of the legal profession in the context of the overall approach to a no-deal exit from the EU, as outlined in the civil judicial co-operation technical notice that we published on 13 September 2018. No concerns about the Government’s approach were raised at that stage.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister, as ever, is charming and helpful, but I get suspicious when a Minister says, “Well, this has been around for a long time.” It might have been gathering dust in the Library or somewhere in her Department. The people who will be affected by these changes should have been consulted proactively, which is why I asked whether we could have a list of people whom she has talked to—the chambers of commerce, the Institute of Directors and particularly small business organisations. How much has the Minister talked to them? We are discovering from Minister after Minister—on SI after SI—that crucial people such as chief executives of airlines, or the chairmen and chief executives of shipping companies, were not consulted. It is about proactive, proper consultation with the people who will be affected. I am always suspicious when the Minister says, “We have had an awful lot of lawyers around the table.” I am not ashamed to say that I have a daughter who is a lawyer; we all have skeletons in our cupboards. The fact of the matter is that I do not trust things that have been consulted on but only on a lawyer-to-lawyer basis.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking this process seriously, and I welcome the scrutiny. First, as I mentioned, this statutory instrument offers very little change. He may have sat in a number of Committees where significant changes are made and it is appropriate to take on board criticism and feedback. We must do that for this statutory instrument, but it will not have the consequences that he fears. As I highlighted, the impact of this SI is extremely limited.
Secondly, I dispute the position that lawyers are not of any worth to the consultation. I say that not because I am a lawyer or because the hon. Member for Bolton South East is a lawyer. I have spoken to lawyers who practise in Brussels, and I have held roundtables with lawyers in this country and those representing the industry. The interest of the lawyers is to serve their clients, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, in those discussions, they feed back to us what their clients want. I assure him that on the Brexit Law Committee we have various representatives from law firms, the Law Society and the City.
I hope I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question. I will bring the matter to a close, although I am happy to take any further interventions from anyone else if they would like to participate in the debate.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister is very kind. Could we have a list, not of lawyers representing real people but of the hard-working, wealth-creating large, small and medium companies in this country that she has consulted on the impact? It is not good enough for her to say, “It might not be important.” This legislation looks pretty damned important to me.
Lucy Frazer
If I have suggested at any stage in the debate that the statutory instrument is not important, I retract that suggestion, but I do not believe I have said that. This is an extremely important matter. As someone who has practised law, I think it is incredibly important to determine and have clarity about which laws govern our contracts, as well which courts determine them. I would like certainty for business; after all, it is business that lawyers serve. At the Ministry of Justice we serve consumers and professionals. I am happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s request away with me.
If no other Member would like to raise any further points, I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, in the light of his questions to the Minister, that I have had the chance to go through this statutory instrument as a barrister and shadow Justice Minister, and that we have consulted the Law Society and the Bar Council. My hon. Friend has put his views about lawyers on the record, but I take no offence.
I do not wish my hon. Friend to think that somehow we are succumbing to what the Government want us to do. We have been doing our homework and have scrutinised this statutory instrument. My hon. Friend may be aware of the legal concepts of public international law, which is treaty based, and private international law, which is also known as conflicts of law. Conflicts of law are general provisions that set out the laws to be applied in the event of a dispute, such as a dispute over a transaction that has taken place, a custody dispute or any kind of dispute between people from two different jurisdictions.
Let me give an example of countries outside the EU, because these regulations will apply after we have left the European Union. The current position is that if the matter is a private, personal or family law issue, such as custody or divorce, the accepted norm is that the domestic domicile laws of the individuals will apply. If the issue is to do with business, the laws that apply could be to do with where the business took place or where the companies are based. There are already set rules determining different types of conflicts of law that arise outside the European Union.
The benefit of being part of the European Union was that we did not have to have any of these arguments about which law applied to which situation, or about how to get a judgment given in one country executed in another; these arguments do happen when countries are outside the European Union. Just as with goods and services, the European Union gave a seamless transfer of rights and contracts.
All the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield outlined are clear. When we are part of the European Union, the process is seamless. However, if and when we come out—depending on what happens —we will need to deal with such problems. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to address that lacuna—the gap that will be left if we leave without a deal.
As the Minister said, Rome I and Rome II regulations are the two basic treaties that currently cover this statutory instrument. If we leave the EU, Rome I and Rome II will not operate and that would cause all sorts of chaos.
Mr Sheerman
My hon. Friend is confusing me a bit. I am having an Alice in Wonderland moment. As far as I can see, the Minister and the shadow Minister are saying that this is such a little change that it does not really matter. Why are we here? Why are the Government producing this SI and why, once again, does the person representing the Opposition seem to be agreeing? A very small number of these Committees ever divide. I do not know what the purpose of having an Opposition is, if we are always going to agree with the ministerial position. The Back Benchers have to pick up the cudgels. I do not want this to be described as discrimination; to get the balance right, I do not like lawyers or accountants.
Yasmin Qureshi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but what I am saying—and what the Minister was also saying—is that there are issues that need to be addressed. The statutory instrument will address the gaps that will be left if we leave without a deal. Let me provide some examples, which I hope will reassure my hon. Friend that this statutory instrument is needed. If we Brexit without a deal, we need to have these provisions in place.
The Rome I and Rome II regulations set out the rules by which the law is to be applied to a case with a cross-border dimension. For example, the parties to a contract can choose to apply English law to the dispute, even though the case would be heard in France, and the French court must apply the English law to the dispute. Under Rome I, if the parties agree on English and Welsh law—or any other—as the governing law of the contract, this has to be respected by the courts of the EU member states. Given that it applies to third countries and there is no need for reciprocity, recognition of the choice of English laws should not be affected, as long as Rome I remains unchanged.
Rome I states that consumer contracts will be governed by the law of the country where the consumer lives if the business operates or undertakes marketing in the consumer’s country. As many consumers undertake cross-border transactions, Rome I will ensure that any dispute undertaken can be dealt with using the laws with which they are familiar. That is why it is important to keep Rome I, which is one of the things that this statutory instrument will do.
Rome II outlines rules for determining which law governs non-contractual obligations, for example in relation to a tort, where the general rule is that the national court must apply the law of the country in which damage was done. There is no need to secure reciprocity or mutuality of the arrangements, because the Rome II rules apply automatically to third countries, and the courts of European Union member states will continue to apply English and Welsh law when the rules dictate so.
In essence, the draft regulations are giving effect to the two Rome convention treaties. They are needed, so the Labour party will not press the Committee to a Division or oppose the introduction of the statutory instrument. It is required.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Austin. I start by declaring my pride in not being a lawyer, lest I draw the ire of the hon. Member for Huddersfield. This is another no-deal Committee to allow for the Government’s catastrophic Brexit but, given that we are so far behind in the number of statutory instruments that we need to pass before Brexit, I suspect that the civil servants will be making a small prayer tomorrow for at least a small extension to article 50, to allow for some of those SIs.
The Justice Secretary in the Scottish Government and the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament have both indicated their assent to the draft regulations, so I will not break concord by seeking to divide the Committee. I will detain it no longer.
Lucy Frazer
I will make just two short points. First, I thank Opposition Members for their constructive approach. If we do leave the EU without a deal, it is helpful to ensure that our statutes work, and I am grateful for their efforts to ensure that. Secondly, by way of clarification, I reiterate what I think I said during the thrust and course of my submission—
Lucy Frazer
I will finish my point, if I may. It is important to ensure that we have statutes that work and that businesses have certainty. The draft regulations are part of that package. They are an important SI and I am pleased to commend them to the Committee.
Question put.
Draft Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Once again, it is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. The regulations group elements of six policy regimes for natural mineral waters, spirit drinks, food labelling, wines, genetically modified organisms and animal imports. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs sought agreement to group the regulations on a thematic basis to ensure that each policy regime would be subject to the required scrutiny. That is particularly valuable when regulations are inter-related, as in this instrument, where each regime includes a transfer of functions, which is the key element to all these regulations. The purpose of the statutory instrument is to make purely technical or operability corrections to ensure that the regimes continue to function as intended. The corrections remove or amend references to EU directives, remove or amend EU references, convert EU procedures to UK procedures, and transfer EU functions to the UK.
The instrument also allows existing recognition of natural mineral waters from the EU, Iceland and Norway to continue on a transitional provision for at least six months, thereby maintaining the status quo immediately before exit day. It provides the Secretary of State with the power to withdraw recognition of EU natural mineral waters after a period of notice if certain conditions are not met. That relates to EU directive 2009/54 on the marketing of natural mineral waters.
With the exception of the Secretary of State’s powers over the recognition of natural mineral waters, the instrument makes no further substantive changes. Although it represents a change of policy with respect to natural mineral waters, that change is only to retain the status quo, so that EU natural mineral waters are recognised in England. Without that provision, the natural mineral waters that obtained recognition in or by a member state in the European economic area would not have the right to be legally sold in England, irrespective of the Secretary of State’s power to regulate the field. That would lead both to restricted consumer choice in the UK, where one in three bottles of natural mineral water are of EU origin, and to changes in the price of the products because of market forces.
The SI will also ensure that we have a fully functioning scheme for the geographical indications of spirit drinks that allows us to register and amend indications. That is particularly important for Scotch whisky, which in 2018, accounted for a record £4.7 billion in exports. Although those exports would not be directly threatened without the SI, the industry would lose the ability to amend the Scotch whisky technical file to better reflect industry practice. That document provides the technical specifications for products that use the Scotch whisky GI name—production process, geographical area, specific labelling rules and so on. In that respect, the SI amends EU regulation 110/2008 to transfer functions from the European Commission to the Secretary of State.
On food labelling, the SI will transfer a series of legislative functions that are currently conferred on the European Commission so that they will instead be exercisable by public authorities in the UK. Those functions will allow the appropriate authorities to make important changes relating to how certain pieces of information can be presented to the consumer. Currently, those powers sit with the EU Commission and their transfer will ensure that we would not require new primary legislation to update, for example, the list of allergens that must be labelled on pre-packed food, or to change the way that nutritional values are presented.
On wine and aromatised wine, the SI will transfer the power to make rules on the production processes used to make aromatised wines, as well as rules on methods of analysis and administrative and physical checks, and transfer powers on wine relating to GI applications from the EU to the Secretary of State. That will enable us to consider applications for new wine GIs and deal with applications to amend and cancel wine GIs on the UK wines GI register. Without doing that, key aspects of our wine quality policy would become inoperable, which would put us in breach of World Trade Organisation provisions. The SI will roll over the framework for producers to protect geographical indications for aromatised wines, as well as the mechanisms to control their production and use.
In respect of the regime for genetically modified organisms, the SI will make operability changes to transfer existing powers from the EU to the Secretary of State, allowing the Secretary of State to develop technical statutory guidance on sampling and testing for the presence of GMOs, amend the threshold above which products must comply with traceability and labelling requirements, and apply unique identifying codes to GMOs. That will ensure that we can continue to enforce the rules on releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment, although it is important to state that no GM crops are grown in the UK, nor is it anticipated that any will be.
Finally, the SI includes animal health provisions to make operable European decisions on the import of cattle semen, pig semen, horse semen, ova and embryos. They also retain an historic health certificate and inspection report that remains in use when certain disease restrictions are in place.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has consulted with the devolved Administrations on the amendments that the SI will make, and they have consented to its coming into force. Its territorial extent is the United Kingdom, except as regards natural mineral waters and decisions to release GMOs. As the natural mineral waters amendments apply only to England, each devolved Administration would have to make equivalent amendments to its own natural mineral waters regulations to mirror that policy position; the devolved Administrations are currently deciding whether to follow England in that policy option. The amendments made to EC regulation 1830/2003 on the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms will apply to the UK, but the amendments to reflect and respect decisions on their release and marketing are a devolved matter in Scotland and Wales and a transferred matter in Northern Ireland.
We have consulted extensively, listened to stakeholders and reflected their views in the SI. Policy decisions on natural mineral waters were subject to a public consultation, which ran from 16 October to 13 November last year. DEFRA engaged all major stakeholders in the process throughout 2018, from individual companies to industry bodies. We have also written to the main stakeholders to explain the instrument’s implications.
With respect to spirit drinks, DEFRA maintains ongoing engagement with key stakeholders such as the Scotch Whisky Association and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association. A four-week public consultation on geographical indications, including for spirit drinks, ran from 4 October to 1 November last year. DEFRA has raised stakeholder awareness of the food labelling technical notice published on 24 September 2018 and has undertaken a consultation on amending food labelling laws. We have also consulted on new GI scheme rules, including for wine.
In January, DEFRA engaged with parties with an interest in genetically modified organisms on the amendments contained in the instrument. We have carried out extensive engagement on animal trade and pet travel. To date, the Department has engaged with more than 300 importers, covering 50 events; it will continue that engagement in the coming weeks.
These measures are essential to ensuring that the six policy regimes I have set out remain able to operate once the UK leaves the EU. For all regimes except natural mineral waters, the instrument will make technical or operability corrections to ensure that those regimes continue to function as intended. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. It is a pity that you have to be here rather than in Cheltenham, but we all have to make our sacrifices. It might be a bit wild and windy there anyway.
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Macclesfield. I thought we might get the new farming Minister, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill); I have not yet had the opportunity for any exchanges with him, but I am sure that that will save for another day. I have just a few points to make—the Minister will be relieved to hear that the Opposition will not vote against the draft regulations.
I know that we are bundling up statutory instruments. Because of the time constraints we are under, that is something that we have to face, for good or bad, but we are now bundling up SIs within an SI. With the best will in the world, I do not understand what natural mineral water, spirit drinks, food labelling, aromatised wine, GMOs and animal health have got to do with each other. It is quite interesting how the civil service has come up with these portmanteau SIs, where we try to look at a range of different issues, which may not in themselves appear to be very important but are in totality.
I will dwell for a minute on animal health, looking at the explanatory memorandum. The bits on animal health are largely about the transference or transmission of equidae—I hope everyone knows what they are—and their semen, ova and embryos. As for animal health, at the end of the memorandum it says that no consultation was undertaken
“given that no change to policy is being made”.
My ears pricked up when the Minister said there were three weeks of consultation overall. That is not a great deal of time for some of the changes that are implied here. Does that matter? Those of us who were around at the time of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy outbreak will remember that we had to ban the export of semen because that was one of the products that was caught up in the beef on the bone ban. It matters when it matters. That did matter because it cost us billions of pounds in lost exports.
We have to be very wary about what we put through here today. We put down our usual caveat that we are doing this at an enormous rush. No one really knows the implications of what we are doing because none of us—certainly in the Opposition—has had the opportunity to delve in depth into some of the changes. I know the Government say that there are no changes, that this is a cut and paste job, but we have to rely on the cut and paste being right and work on the presumption that, as time moves on, we are going to vary from the EU, enhance the process or, dare I say, do less. That is a concern.
I have a number of questions to put to the Minister. The one we usually start with is that there is no costing in the SI, so we do not know the implications or the impact, not just on Government, which must oversee this, but on the industry. With regard to changes to labelling, we are going to be faced by variability in the labelling regime. I am interested to know how the Government intend to approach that with regard to information for consumers. We know that labels differ at the moment but there is some commonality through our membership of the EU. If we leave on 29 March, that will have to change.
We could spend the whole hour and a half on GMOs, although colleagues will be pleased to hear that I will not. This is a very controversial area. My starting point is that we have four constituent parts of the UK. It is a pity there is no Scottish representative here but I think Scotland has gone as far as a GM ban for the nation. Will that happen again in future or will we have to accept that the UK Government are now sovereign on that matter?
That will make a difference because the French in particular will never allow any genetically modified product into their country. We are more lax—we have allowed animal feed to come in, particularly from north America. That does not mean we can feel satisfied that that will be accepted, because the French will ban our exports or re-exports if we are not careful.
The regulations will almost certainly demand additional bureaucratic observance, scrutiny and investigation. It would be interesting to know what additional work the Government have done on the GM issue. That matters, because any attempt to sign a free trade deal with the United States will bring it to the fore in the public’s perception. Those of us who were around at the time know that, whatever one’s views on the science, the public had a very clear view on GM. They did not want it and they made that very clear through their representatives. Our policy, which we have kept to, is that we do not grow GM crops in this country.
It would be interesting to know what environmental impacts the Government think these changes will have. The Minister rightly said that nothing will change at the moment, but it would be interesting to know what “at the moment” means, because clearly there can be changes in the future. That will be very important, in terms of reporting procedures and our capacity to assess.
Several issues were raised by the bodies that are most concerned about this statutory instrument. I declare my usual interest: I am one of the British Veterinary Association’s advocates. It is a non-paying role, but I welcome that relationship. The BVA is looking at the wider issues relating to the e-petition on pre-slaughter stunning that is doing the rounds at the moment. That is a very controversial issue. The BVA asked me, “How does this relate to some of the changes we are making?” Not very much, it could be argued, but we will have a new regime. That is important, because one of the things that we are looking at today is clarity of labelling. Whether there was stunning will have to be spelled out very clearly. Is that something that the British Government are ready for? Will they condone it and encourage it in what will be brought forward? How does that relate to our export markets, which depend on commonalities between regimes? It may be that we are very different.
The BVA’s final point is that the UK Government should legislate to ensure that imported goods have the same clarity of labelling as home-produced goods. What resources are the British Government putting in place to ensure that is the case? That relates to the matter of border inspection posts. It is not clear from the SI or the explanatory memorandum what additional checks the Government intend to put in place to ensure that what they are told is coming into the country is actually what comes into the country. For animal products, that is the biggest threat we face. Anyone who has been to New Zealand will know that they basically strip-search people to make sure they do not bring in anything that could have any kind of pathogenic impact, because they know that that could wipe out their livestock industry. They are incredibly careful about who comes in and what they bring, and if people do things they should not do, they deal with them pretty savagely. What additional resources are the Government putting into border inspection posts to ensure those things do not happen? At the very least, we must do everything we can to prevent them from happening.
The biggest problem of the lot, of course, is the Northern Ireland border—not just the backstop, but the mechanism by which we ensure the movement of food back and forth. I have used the example of Baileys many times before, for which milk goes back and forth seven times. At least some additional checking will be involved.
Finally, let me look a bit more intensively at the GM issue. It would be helpful if the Government stated today that they will not alter their policy on GM. Regardless of the position after 29 March, it would be helpful if we had a clear statement that we do not grow GMOs in this country and that we do not import GMOs, other than because they happen to be in animal feed—for all sorts of reasons, there is not a lot we can do about that.
I have touched already on the fact that the drafting of the SI could allow for considerable differences between the four nations of the UK. The Minister said he had consulted the other Administrations, bar Northern Ireland, with which interaction is at official level. It would be interesting to know whether there is any divergence on GMO policy. As I said, from memory, Scotland had a very clearly negative position on GM. Is that the message that came back from the Minister’s discussions?
Let me make a final couple of points on standards and regulations. Somebody has to ensure not only that we have a clear statement of official controls between us and any single market we may work through, but that we are very clear about the relationship between the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom. It would be interesting to know what additional regime will have to be put in place to ensure that border inspection posts take cognisance of what is happening in the different parts of the United Kingdom. That will be crucial, because the last thing we want is a disease outbreak shortly after 29 March. If that happened, the finger would be pointed very clearly at its being Brexit related. It may be completely unrelated, but that accusation would be made.
I accept that the Minister may have to write to me about one or two of those points, but this is a quite important piece of secondary legislation. It is a hotch-potch of different things, and some parts of it will have an ongoing impact. I hope the Minister realises that, although we will not vote against the instrument, issues such as the environmental liability directive, which I have mentioned before, will come back in one form or another. We need to look not just at individual SIs but at the totality of the way we protect the country from disease outbreaks. Obviously, if we get that wrong, we will not just be the poorer but face repercussions in the wider world, because other countries will take action against us, as they did over BSE.
David Rutley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stroud for his characteristically thoughtful contribution. I mentioned that the SI is purely technical and operability correction oriented, and it is important to recognise that. Although he raised concerns about bundling, I think he appreciates the sheer weight of SIs we need to get through. Certainly, both Opposition and Government Members have very kindly helped to facilitate that. The good news is that we are making good progress.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Minister says we have to get through these SIs. We had some time to get through them. They were all utterly predictable, but the Government have left them all until the very last minute. We are trying to get through 27 in the next 14 days, which in my view is utterly reprehensible.
David Rutley
I thank the hon. Lady for setting out her views so clearly. I just wish she would speak a bit more clearly so we could understand her views completely. Her concerns are understood, but we are in challenging circumstances. All I can do is commend, as I have before, the incredibly hard work of officials in the devolved Administrations and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I know she does not suggest this is not the case, but they have been working at pace. I have been working with them—sometimes trying to encourage greater speed and sometimes trying to keep up with them. The good news is that we are definitely through the vast majority of the SIs. There are several more to do, as she says, over the next few weeks, but when you are having this much fun, you just want to carry on, surely?
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Given the concern that we could see statutory instruments referring to, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, issues as broad as the production of wine and of horse semen, and the import and export of both, does the Minister not recognise that sometimes “more haste, less speed” is a worthwhile principle in making good legislation, even on something as difficult as this, and therefore that the problem with trying to push through so many statutory instruments at short notice is that we could miss things that are important to vital industries in this country, including equine and vinery services?
David Rutley
I thank the hon. Lady for her point. I understand we are covering a lot today, but—perhaps I need to do better at communicating this; I will try once more—the draft regulations are about transferring powers. There is a clear theme. The regulations are about technical operations, and I hope that has come through at least to some degree in the comments that have been made.
With the Committee’s permission, I will move on to some of the more detailed points that the hon. Member for Stroud raised. On animal imports in relation to the effect of leaving the EU on the animal trade and pet travel more generally, I want to reassure him that DEFRA has carried out extensive engagement on imports of animals and animal products. Even where consultation has not been required, there has been extensive engagement: the Department has engaged with over 300 stakeholders to date, with 50 events on this, so there has been close co-operation.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about impact assessments. As he knows, because we have been through this many times before—I am getting a glare from the hon. Member for Bristol West—
David Rutley
No, it was a glare. Yesterday we had an SI Committee and were able to set out clearly what the costs were—very minimal, in that situation—regarding veterinary medicines. In this situation, these changes are minimal.
On food labelling, there will be changes, but through representation and our engagement with the food and drink sector it was clear that we needed to find a sensible transition to the new arrangements, where there would be at least 21 months and, with GI, three years to transition. As a result, the costs involved are very minor.
Based on guidelines, there was no need to conduct a formal impact assessments, but once again I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there was maximum engagement with those bodies. Indeed, I meet the Food and Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium, UKHospitality and the National Farmers Union every week to ensure that I am fully aware of their concerns about issues such as this and many others.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I have been listening to the Minister with interest and concentration, but the truth is that cathartic change always brings about challenge, and it is a cathartic change that we are going through. He is right to say that in the particular case of this SI, the change is minimal, and the future will look much like the past. On the issue of cost, however, it may be that the reconcentration on what we do allows us to think through the cost-effectiveness of that. Over time, we may be able to do all kinds of things, in my hon. Friend’s Department and others, that will be more cost-effective and efficient and will save money. All this discussion about costing money must be balanced against the advantage of that re-examination of how to do things best and most efficiently.
David Rutley
I completely agree that there are opportunities to see how we can do things better and in a more cost-effective way. We will have that opportunity once we leave the EU. At the moment, this is very much about continuity; we can look forward to those opportunities, but I wanted to reassure colleagues that for now, this is about continuity and keeping things as they are. In future there will be opportunities to review, obviously with parliamentary scrutiny.
A number of concerns were raised about GM crops, but again, all we are talking about here is transferring powers. No GM crops are grown in the UK, as I said in my remarks at the beginning. I want to ensure my words are on record clearly: no GM crops are grown in the UK at the moment and none is anticipated. Decisions to approve the commercial cultivation of GM crops are based on a robust and independent science-based assessment, with the planting of GM crops agreed to only when it is clear that people and the environment will not be harmed. We do not have any intention to relax the regulations after we have left the EU. As I said before, no future GM crop is anticipated in the UK. I hope the hon. Member for Stroud is reassured on that. The good news is that we have the scientific expertise to ensure that all the required analysis can be conducted.
With regard to border inspection posts and the concerns raised by the British Veterinary Association, with whom the hon. Member for Stroud has a clear and trusted relationship, we are working closely with BVA, seeking its feedback, input and support to ensure it is ready for the extra volume of export health certificates and preparations for the border inspection posts. There will be no import controls or checks at the border for live animals and animal products directly from the EU on the day the UK leaves the EU. The exception to that rule is animals, animal products and high-risk food and feed not of animal origin coming from third countries that travel through the EU before arrival in the UK.
Clearly, we will continue to monitor the situation, but on day one the risks do not change because we trust the EU regime. We have been part of it for many years, which is why I believe we are in good shape. By transferring these powers, we will be in the right position come EU exit day. Overall, the six regimes will continue to function in a similar way to before and, for the reasons I have set out, I trust the Committee will support the regulations.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
I just wanted to raise a point with my hon. Friend. I fully understand that the aim is to replicate existing EU legislation and he is right to say this is a transition period. I do not want to delay matters but I want to put on record, drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, some of the tricks we are missing and should consider at the end of the transition period with regard to food labelling.
Many of us have thought for some time that food labelling is woefully inadequate, not least that with which we must comply under existing EU legislation. We want it to be much improved and genuinely to reflect country of origin, regional quotas and so forth within the United Kingdom. I draw the Minister’s attention specifically to something for his future consideration. Forty-three tonnes of honey are consumed in this country every year but 95% of that is imported. The current EU and UK labelling says,
“This honey is a blend of EU and non-EU honey.”
That is extraordinarily vague and disguises the countries of origin. It is well known that the majority of supermarket honey sold as pure honey in this country is not pure honey at all. It is often adulterated honey, cut with corn syrup or fructose syrup from China.
When we look at a new regime of food labelling, rather than emulate food labelling under existing EU legislation, there is an opportunity to do something much better and more honest, to expose some of the practice of recent years.
David Rutley
I thank my right hon. Friend for his late, but powerful, intervention. I know he feels passionately about such issues. I agree that we do need a wider review of food labelling and we are committed to doing that once we have left the EU. He will know, because he follows these issues with interest, that we are already looking to reassert and strengthen our approach with allergen labelling, following the recent tragic cases. That will help during the period we are entering, whether that is no deal or a transitional implementation period. There is a commitment once we leave the EU to a much wider review of labelling, which will focus on food safety, sustainability and welfare standards, and will address many of the issues that concern him. I welcome the chance to talk to him further on that. With that, I again commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and I thank all colleagues for coming along to this important statutory instrument Committee this morning.
It is really important that we reach a negotiated settlement with the EU, but it is our duty, as a responsible Government, to prepare for all eventualities, including leaving with no deal. This SI is one such contingency measure and will ensure that regulations governing chemicals and genetically modified organisms for contained use continue to be operable in a no-deal scenario.
I shall take this opportunity to reiterate that this instrument will deliver on our commitments to protect workers’ rights as the UK leaves the EU by ensuring that health and safety regulation continues to provide a high level of protection in the workplace and for those affected by workplace activities. It will also deliver on the Government’s commitment that as the UK leaves the EU standards of protection for people and the environment will remain at least as high as they are at present.
Together with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we oversee a number of key regulatory regimes that affect the chemicals sector. Since the referendum, our joint programme has conducted particularly intensive work to ensure that there will continue to be a functioning regulatory regime for chemicals, with associated enforcement activity, in any exit scenario.
These draft regulations form part of the work being done to adjust our legislative framework in readiness for leaving the EU. I appreciate the technical nature of the regulations and that this instrument, as a composite of several different regulatory regimes, makes things particularly complex. The decision to present the proposals as a single instrument was for the benefit of the House—to reduce pressure on parliamentary time and to ensure that we can deliver an orderly exit. I ask hon. Members to please be assured that the proposals are sensible, proportionate and necessary.
If approved, the regulations will make necessary amendments to three retained EU regulations as well as EU-derived domestic legislation affecting the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. As stated, their purpose is to amend the relevant legislation to ensure that there is provision for an independent UK regulatory regime that maintains existing standards and protections. The Government’s priority will be to maintain a legal framework to ensure the continued effective and safe management of chemicals to safeguard human health and the environment. That framework needs to be flexible enough to respond to emerging risks, while still allowing trade with the EU that is as frictionless as possible.
The first of the three retained EU regulations to be amended is the biocidal products regulation, which governs the placing on the market and use of products that contain chemicals that protect humans, animals, materials or articles against harmful organisms such as pests or bacteria. It is in place to ensure that those chemicals are safe for humans, animals and the environment, while improving the functioning of the biocidal products market. That market covers a wide range of products, such as wood preservatives, insecticides—for example, wasp spray—and anti-fouling paint to remove barnacles from boats.
Secondly, the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures regulation ensures that the hazardous intrinsic properties of chemicals are properly identified and effectively communicated to those throughout the supply chain, including at the point of use. That is done partly through standardised hazard pictograms and warning phrases associated with specific hazards, such as explosivity, acute toxicity and carcinogenicity.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister said that this SI would protect workers’ rights. Could she a bit more specific on exactly how?
Sarah Newton
I would be delighted to. As I will go on to explain, the regimes will be administered by the Health and Safety Executive, so the draft instrument will protect workers’ rights by ensuring that we continue to have some of the safest workplaces in the world—we have a proud tradition of that. I am delighted that the team from the HSE that worked so hard on the draft regulations, and the lawyers that helped us to introduce them, are here today. They have done a fantastic job. I am sure we all agree that the HSE does a very good job, day in, day out, of promoting the wellbeing and safety of people in the workplace. The draft instrument will protect workers’ rights by protecting workers from exposure to harmful chemicals.
Lastly, the export and import of hazardous chemicals regulation implements the Rotterdam convention and requires exports of listed chemicals to be notified to the importing country. For some chemicals, the consent of the importing country must be obtained before export can proceed. These regimes rely on EU processes to take and implement collective decisions. However, much of this business already operates at national level. Decisions at EU level are taken on the basis of evaluations and assessments undertaken by member states, or following consideration of scientific opinions reached by relevant expert committees. Under a no-deal scenario, the instrument will provide for these evaluations or opinions to inform a national decision, rather than informing UK input into an EU decision.
The HSE acts as a UK competent authority within the EU regimes for chemicals regulations, and therefore has capability and capacity that can be built on to enable it to take full UK regulatory authority responsibility. For example, across the whole of the EU, the HSE processes about an eighth of the biocidal active substance approvals and about a third of the biocidal product authorisations.
It is necessary to put in place arrangements for the HSE to recover its costs for work across the wider chemicals regimes, including on plant protection products. That is currently done by EU institutions, and a fee is charged. This approach to cost recovery is in line with HM Treasury policy and is a well-established procedure for charging industry for the various work and advice provided by the HSE—for example, on applications for approval of first aid training on offshore installations and pipelines, or the evaluation of safety cases made under the control of major accident hazards regulations.
The instrument also contains a small number of technical operability amendments to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2014, which affect the use of GMOs in contained sites, such as laboratories, and currently refer to a number of European directives and regulations. These references, some of which are the responsibility of other Government Departments, will be updated to the corresponding repatriated UK domestic law. There are no policy changes or updates to duties, and all existing protections covering human health and the environment will be maintained and will continue to work in the same way post EU exit.
The UK chemical sector is our second biggest manufacturing industry and second largest exporter. It is also integral to the provision of essential products and technologies on which society relies. The draft instrument will provide clarity for the chemical industry and regulators, ensuring that the legal requirements for chemicals regulations are clear immediately after exit, and that certainty for consumers that the use of chemicals in the UK will continue to be desirable and safe.
Before closing, I stress that the devolved Administrations have provided consent for the elements of the draft instrument that are considered to be devolved. I hope that colleagues of all parties will join me in supporting the draft regulations and I commend them to the Committee.
The Chair
Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, let me say that the Minister ably presented the SI accompanied by four pings of a telephone. I am unable to identify which hon. Member had the phone, but I would be grateful if everyone would check and accordingly turn off the phone, so that the Opposition spokesperson is not also accompanied by pings.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I thank the Minister, and you, Mr Hanson; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I sincerely hope there are no further pings. Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to offer a line-by-line commentary on the SI. It is vital that the regulation of UK chemicals and genetically modified organisms continues to operate effectively at the point at which the UK leaves the EU. Her Majesty’s Official Opposition will not oppose the instrument, as the intent is to ensure the operability of the relevant legislation.
The chemical and pharmaceutical industry adds £18 billion of value to the UK economy every year from a total annual turnover of £50 billion. It employs 500,000 people directly and through supply chains, and has annual exports of £50 billion, with 63% of companies in the sector exporting what they make to the world. That is the highest proportion of any goods manufacturing sector in the UK economy.
Sixty per cent. of the exports go to the European Union, and 75% of the imports and raw materials come from the European Union; that is a vital point. The chemicals industry has been and remains a major presence in my constituency of Weaver Vale and the surrounding area, so the regulations are of particular interest to my constituents and many major employers including Ineos-Inovyn and Tata Chemicals.
The regulation and labelling of chemicals is an issue not only for those who manufacture, produce and sell them, but for all of us who use them on a day-to-day basis, whether directly in the form of household goods or medical products, or indirectly in relation to the food we eat and the environment we enjoy. As the Minister said, that means it is vitally important that we get the regulations right.
Although we welcome the general commitment to ensure that chemicals and GMO legislation continues to operate effectively after Brexit and the apparent intent to avoid any deregulatory impact, we have a number of questions about how that will work in practice. We also believe that the instruments cannot properly be considered in isolation, without recognising a wider problem of the uncertainty and instability of Brexit for the chemicals industry.
There is a lack of clarity regarding the Government’s policy on genetically modified foods and what that policy will be in the future. The SI would give the Secretary of State for Environment the power to regulate genetically modified organisms within a research laboratory or biotechnological production facility that are not released into the environment. The Secretary of State has already said that the Government might take a positive attitude to gene editing to develop higher-yielding crops or more valuable livestock. The Opposition want to see guarantees that post-Brexit there will not be a more relaxed policy on GM than the one that the EU currently operates.
Crucially, the instrument is being laid at a time when the Health and Safety Executive—the body being tasked with picking up much of the work and responsibilities required to regulate the safety of chemicals and the workers’ rights mentioned by the Minister—is dealing with budget cuts of 40% from 2010 to 2017, and when the Government have yet to respond to the most recent tailored review.
In short, we recognise the need for this statutory instrument, but we have concerns about the mechanisms to be used for delivery. We believe that the context in which they are being taken—one of cuts and potential chaos—has made the situation much more difficult and even more risky than it might otherwise have been. As such, we have a number of questions about today’s proposals that need to be clarified. I intend to go through them in turn in the hope that the Minister may be able to answer some of them.
Paragraph 3.5 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“After Exit, the same UK regulatory scientists will recommend updates to ensure the continued protection of people, the environment, and the interests of UK business for the UK only, not as part of the EU system. Where ministers agree with the recommendation, they will issue a decision to this effect and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will then ensure that the updates are given effect from an agreed date, and alert duty-holders to changes.”
What processes are in place for any scrutiny and to challenge the Secretary of State about decisions on recommendations, particularly if there is a scenario where the Minister does not agree with the scientific recommendation?
At present, there is scrutiny of regulation by the European Parliament and by member states through the Council of Ministers, as well as supporting committees at EU level. The existing system allows for industry, trade unions, non-governmental organisations and technical experts to contribute to shaping regulation, and it is vital that there is no reduction in scrutiny, challenge or consultation. These regulations do not provide for any equivalent means by which stakeholders and experts in the field can help to ensure that regulation is robust and fit for purpose. Can the Minister confirm that the Health and Safety Executive will be given all the necessary funding and support to carry out its new responsibilities?
Paragraph 3.7 refers to the
“well-established policy of HSE to set fees to recover the full costs of its regulatory activities”.
What guarantees are in place to ensure that the HSE fee cost is considered proportionate and fair by all concerned, and that it accurately reflects the full cost of intervening? The tailored review of the HSE made clear the importance of the tripartite partnership for the HSE; indeed, assessing fair and reasonable costs can only be done on that basis. In the absence of a formal response to the report, it would be welcome to hear the Minister recognise the importance of the tripartite partnership for the Health and Safety Executive in ensuring good governance and effective health and safety.
Paragraphs 7.26 and 7.32 of the explanatory note refer to devolution. Given that we have no functional Assembly in Northern Ireland, how does the Minister intend to future-proof these arrangements with that and other devolved authorities? Paragraph 7.4 refers to the European Chemicals Agency’s IT system being replaced with a UK system. Has sufficient progress been made in developing that system, and have additional staff been put in place to carry out this function?
The current regulations set out arrangements whereby evaluations of active substances are distributed between all 28 member states, and deadlines set for their completion —currently 31 December 2024 for completion of the review programme as a whole. In paragraph 7.8, it is proposed that that be replaced by a UK stand-alone review of 488 active substances, and the regulations give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations, extend deadlines and specify other matters.
We are told that details of how such a programme would operate are currently under development; a progress report from the Minister would be greatly appreciated. There are other major questions and consequences. We welcome the Minister’s commitment that any reviews would be done to the same standards in protecting human and animal health and the environment, but might it mean some level of regulatory divergence, even for a short period of time, when some substances have been reviewed and passed fit or rejected in the EU, but not in the UK?
Since 2006, REACH—the European regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—has built up a comprehensive database on the safety of chemicals. The Government are now walking away from that vital source of data. Their current position appears to be that companies will provide all the data, but a survey by the Chemical Industries Association found that 75% of the companies taking part did not own the data that they would be required to register under a separate UK system. What assessment have the Government made of the ability of companies to provide the necessary data in the future?
We appreciate that fee recovery is suggested to cover costs in some cases, and that fees were payable to the European Chemicals Agency for some services, but in others—such as managing requests by suppliers for the use of alternative chemical names—fee charging was not planned. What guarantees are in place that the Health and Safety Executive has the capacity to undertake all the new functions and responsibilities assigned to it, given the scale of cuts that it has faced?
Is this new landscape not further evidence that the Government must urgently and constructively respond to the recommendations of the tailored review? The Opposition believe that the UK should continue to participate in REACH so that there is no reduction in scientific and technical collaboration with the European Union. More than 50 chemicals companies have already applied to use EU regulators for safety authorisations, to enable them to continue to do business legally in the event of a no-deal Brexit, as REACH authorisations held by UK companies would no longer be valid. That involves transferring registrations with REACH to EU-based companies, or asking customers to act as agents on their behalf.
Paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum sets out engagement with the chemicals industry in a no-deal scenario. A couple of roundtables, a few stakeholder meetings and a question and answer session are nowhere near sufficient to prepare for the massive major challenge that leaving the EU without a deal would present to a sector worth nearly £13 billion to the UK economy. That sector directly employs 100,000 people, many of them in my constituency, and it deserves better.
The Government appear unable even to respond adequately to the findings of those meetings. Paragraph 10.6 states:
“Consultations with stakeholders emphasised that they would welcome an approach that allows technical and scientific updates to the regulations be made in a flexible and timely way that will offer businesses sufficient time to make adjustments”.
Minister, we are two weeks away from exit day. Earlier this week, I received a letter from Inovyn that states that
“any disruption will adversely affect the competitiveness of our business and the potential for future trade and investment.”
It further states that UK businesses have invested in REACH to the tune of £0.5 billion and highlights concerns that that investment would be wasted in the case of a no-deal outcome. It also notes that contingency planning throughout the UK for a REACH alternative is already costing significant time and money. Those concerns are reflected by Tata and other chemicals organisations throughout the country.
The Government have not delivered updates in a flexible and timely way, or responded effectively to the industry’s concerns. The proposals are necessary given the situation that we are in, but the situation is not acceptable to the chemicals industry, those who work in it, or those who are tasked with enforcing it under a cloud of uncertainty, cuts and concerns. The Government must urgently deliver the clarity that the industry needs, and the funding and support that the Health and Safety Executive requires and deserves. The Opposition will continue to demand that they do so.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is always a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and I rise to respond on behalf of the Scottish National party. Although we want to remain part of the EU because of the widespread damage and disruption that Brexit would cause, we understand that we must be pragmatic and respond to the UK Government’s haphazard preparations.
Yesterday, I had a very productive meeting with the Minister about other policy matters. Speaking for myself, and perhaps for the Minister, too, she would probably prefer to get on with her day job than have to respond to the absolute chaos of a no-deal Brexit and all the regulations that have to be passed. That chaos means that we are running out of time to ensure continuity in whatever scenario we find ourselves in. That is why we have ended up in the perverse situation of having to pack several regulatory regimes together, to reduce the pressure on parliamentary time. That is absolutely chaotic and goes against the democratic principles of this House. During the Brexit referendum we were told that we would be taking back control. However, with just 16 days until Brexit, rushing through an SI on a Wednesday morning, it does not feel like we are in control.
The Minister rightly touched on devolution. We continue to push for devolved matters not to be legislated on without consent. Our work in that area has ensured that changes within this SI cannot be made without devolved consent. The Minister has put that on the record. Although the financial implications for leaving without a deal are relatively minor in this SI, there are still additional costs that organisations would not have had to meet had the UK remained a member of the single market and the customs union.
Like the Labour party, we will not oppose the regulations. I wanted to place on record the chaos we find ourselves in, whether that is last night or later tonight. It certainly does not feel like Parliament is taking back control at the moment.
Sarah Newton
I very much appreciate the spirit of the debate and the support from the Opposition parties for these really important regulations, which will provide the clarity and certainty that we know the industry needs. I will respond to as many of the questions that have been raised as possible.
First, for the benefit of Committee members who are not quite so familiar with the chemical industry as others, many of the questions directed to me were about the REACH regime, which is not the subject of these particular regulations. Today, in the House of Lords, they are considering the REACH regulations, which is the major set of regulations that control the chemical industry more broadly. This SI deals with a related sub-set that sits alongside that regime.
The REACH regulations are the policy responsibility of DEFRA. I work closely with the Department on that, because the HSE will be the operational side of delivering that regulatory environment. I assure all colleagues that the HSE has taken its responsibilities to consult with the industry seriously and thoroughly. Those consultations started in February last year and the HSE has met with about 1,000 chemical businesses and held many stakeholder events.
I know from the feedback that I have seen that the HSE’s consultations and engagements with the industry, as it developed these regulations, have been welcomed. The thinking behind both these and the REACH regulations has been about minimising any disruption. They will grandfather a lot of the registrations over to make this as seamless as possible.
I was asked about our preparedness as regards computer systems. Of course, the words “Government” and “computer systems” sat next to each other fill most people with horror, but the computer system has been built and has undergone user testing. As far as I can see, we are well on track to be able to deliver the operational aspects of what we need to do.
Mike Amesbury
But the explanatory memorandum refers to using the current system, not the new system.
Sarah Newton
I was offering some reassurance about the REACH regulations. Although they are not what we are here to talk about today, I was addressing those concerns.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Hanson. With the air conditioning going and the Minister’s unusually quiet voice, although I heard the hon. Member for Weaver Vale clearly, it is really very difficult to hear the Minister.
The Chair
I have noted the air conditioning, and I will ensure that it is turned down for future meetings. Minister, if you could speak up, please.
Sarah Newton
Thank you, Mr Hanson. I will speak up; I would not want my hon. Friend to miss a word of what I have to say.
The computer systems and the capacity of the HSE are there, and I reassure all colleagues that, for this work in chemicals, the HSE has not had any cuts at all. This part of the HSE is all based on cost recovery, not only from industry but from other Government Departments. The HSE is the operations division, if you like, for a number of Government Departments, particularly DEFRA, and those resources have not been cut. I reassure people that the HSE will of course have all the resources that it needs to undertake its vital work, not only in the areas that we have talked about today but in all the areas that it works in to keep us all safe in the workplace.
I have regular meetings with the HSE’s chairman and its chief executive, who assure me that they have the resources they need. They have done a marvellous job, coping with cuts to some parts of their business by innovating and working in new ways. They have responded to those challenges and we should look at the results; they will show that we have some of the safest workplaces in the world, and that will remain the case. I can absolutely assure hon. Members that the HSE will continue to have the resources that it needs.
There has been some discussion of the processes and decision making, so let me provide some clarity for those who are not quite as familiar with the HSE as others are. The HSE board includes representatives of trade unions and workers, and of employers. It has an excellent reputation for engaging with stakeholders and ensuring that we develop appropriate health and safety regulations and legislation, and really effective enforcement. That will continue.
The HSE has a huge amount of expertise, enabling it to make the right decisions about what we should be importing into this country, including chemicals that are safe to use for both our environment and human health. That work will all continue. The HSE is already a leading competent authority in the EU, so it will be more than able to continue to provide guidance to Ministers.
The ultimate accountability for the new regimes will be this Parliament. Ministers in this Parliament will be accountable to Select Committees, which do such a great job of scrutiny, and to Members of this House, so that they can scrutinise the decisions that Ministers take. From the HSE, through its scientific advice and into Parliament, we will be able to make decisions in this place to keep our citizens safe.
So as not to delay the Committee too much longer, if I have failed to address any specific points, I will of course write to follow up. In this House, we often have the opportunity to ask questions of the Minister responsible for the HSE and I am sure that Opposition Members will use those opportunities to seek the further clarity that they want.
What is so important about today is that whatever happens whenever we leave the European Union, and by whatever method we choose to use the European Union, we can be certain that these regulations will deliver the certainty and the safety for our citizens that we all want to see. I commend them to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Petitions
Zebra Crossing on the Green, Writtle
Byfleet and West Byfleet’s remaining Green Belt
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 1 month 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
Application of the Family Test
(5 years, 1 month 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
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the application of the family test.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am delighted to have secured this debate and to be introducing it; it is a refreshing change to be in this Chamber talking about something other than Brexit.
I secured the debate because this year marks the fifth anniversary of the family test, which was introduced when David Cameron was Prime Minister, so I felt it would be an appropriate time to review the test’s application across Government. While conducting my review, I was intrigued to learn that almost 150 parliamentary questions had been asked on the topic since the test’s introduction. There is significant interest in its application—particularly among my Conservative colleagues, if I may say so.
I am pleased to present to the House the review of the family test that I conducted with the Centre for Social Justice—I have a copy here. I place on record my thanks to Frank Young of the CSJ for his work with me on producing it, and to my parliamentary assistant Sam Yung, for his very hard work. As an elected Member, I get the credit for the report, but I should acknowledge that, as usual, other people have done most of the hard work to produce it.
I hope that the Minister will read the review and consider its recommendations; I know that he has already had a look. It was carried out with the intention of providing the Government with constructive and practical recommendations for improving the application of the family test, so I hope that he and his officials will take that on board when they consider it. I welcome the Minister for the Cabinet Office’s comment:
“We know that there is work left to do in order to ensure that the Family Test becomes fully embedded in every department.”
We are sympathetic to the view expressed by Ministers and officials that making the family test a statutory obligation would create a tick-box culture, contrary to the test’s intentions. We have tried to avoid repeating the argument for making the test statutory, following oral evidence to us that suggested that doing so would make the test “a political football”.
Strengthening family life should always be a Government priority. Stronger families improve outcomes for children, while the break-up of family relationships is often the quickest route into poverty. Poverty figures show that children in families who break apart are more than twice as likely to experience poverty as those in families who stay together. The consequences of families breaking up and the role of stronger families find their way into every part of Government, which is why the family test is so important.
New polling evidence from the Centre for Social Justice shows that
“the general public support a government prioritising family within its policy making and rhetoric… Approaching three in four (72 per cent) adults in Britain think that family breakdown ‘is a serious problem and that more should be done to prevent families from breaking up’… More than eight out of ten adults…think that ‘stronger families and improved parenting are important in addressing Britain’s social problems’.”
The review is also intended as a reminder that the test will be important if the Minister shares my ambition for the Government to do everything they can to strengthen families as part of a wider approach to policy. I regret that my review shows that such a commitment is not shared by all his ministerial colleagues; I say that as someone who supports them and is willing them to be more ambitious in their approach to social reform. However, I commend the Departments that are clearly taking the issue seriously and that came out well in our research: the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health and Social Care were able to provide very detailed examples of the use of the family test and its application to their work.
By its very nature, family does not fit neatly into a single Government silo, which is one reason why the Government-wide family test was introduced in the first place. Family can also be a challenging subject for officials to consider, particularly the practical relevance of family breakdown. That is clear from some examples of bespoke guidance to officials on the test’s application, in which the guidance is technical in nature and provides no clear evidence base or clarity about how family applies to a particular Department, or about the consequences of family breakdown for its work.
My first recommendation and request to the Minister is, I believe, simple: each Department should appoint a named senior policy lead, as the Cabinet Office has done, who would be tasked with strengthening the family test network and spreading expertise within the Department. They would amend departmental business plans to include the family test, the Department’s objectives that relate to the family and the impact on families of its work. I do not believe that that would be particularly challenging to the Government, but it is one change that could be made immediately. I hope that the Minister might lead on the matter and ask Departments to appoint a lead. I put him on notice that in six months I intend to return with parliamentary questions on whether that has been delivered.
Saying that, may I praise the work of officials in the Minister’s Department on promoting the family test across Government with a new family test network? I know that he and they are looking to refresh guidance to Departments; I ask that he consider conducting a formal Government-wide review to mark the fifth anniversary of the test. That does not need to be a difficult exercise, and it would renew the Government’s stated commitment to family policy. I recommend that the review be led by someone outside the Department who can bring an external perspective.
External advice can be helpful to the Government in building the evidence base for the impact of family on Departments. The issue of evidence is particularly challenging, so wise counsel is needed. We recommend that the Government make
“better use of external expertise (for example, the Relationships Alliance) by creating an expert reference group. This group should be formalised through a paid expert chairperson who would act as a lead to the group. The group would assist with difficult policy questions relating to the Test… The group would also help each department establish an evidence base on issues relating to the family.”
Our review involved writing to 14 Departments with a series of questions about their implementation of the family test almost five years after it was introduced, supplemented by written questions to all those Departments in the other place. The responses from Ministers were revealing and, in many cases, concerning. Not a single Department, including the Minister’s, routinely records the application of the test, so none of them could tell me or CSJ researchers how many times it had been applied—despite his Department’s clear guidance:
“It is important that the application of the Family Test is documented in an appropriate way as part of the policy making process.”
We uncovered some good examples of Departments that were able to evidence the application of the family test and its impact on policy making. Others, astonishingly, claimed that family had no relevance to them. In answer to a written question, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy claimed:
“The majority of BEIS policy areas do not have a direct impact on the formation, make-up, or breakdown of families.”
I am not sure that working parents struggling with work and family life would agree. Surely the Government understand the connection between work and stronger families.
A lack of transparency about the application of the family test has led to concern that it is not being applied across Government in the way that was intended. Since the introduction of the test in 2014, 149 parliamentary questions have been asked in both Houses of Parliament about it. The Centre for Social Justice has taken oral evidence from MPs who regularly ask parliamentary questions on the application of the family test, and who have criticised Ministers’ responses, which are opaque because no record of the test is kept; there is no statutory requirement to do so. That should not be something to hide behind.
There is good reason not to make the family test a statutory requirement, but equally we need to improve transparency around the test and confidence in its successful application. Although I understand that the intention of the family test is not, and never should be, to reduce family life to a tick-box exercise, there is plenty of evidence in the review that more could be done to record its consideration separately from any requirement to publish that deliberation. We have called for a duty to record. The Minister, as the Government’s lead on this, could make it part of his work to ask Departments to record the number of times the family test has been applied, and to what areas of policy, and to publish that information with an annual statement. That would help to ensure that the test’s prominence is assured across Government.
We have heard of examples of Ministers rejecting advice or proposals if the test had not been applied. We would like that practice extended. Any review of the family test should simply advise Minsters routinely to reject proposals that do not come with a clear statement on the family test. We are told over and over again that the Government are committed to strengthening families, but when we ask if the family is being properly considered in the work of Departments, they cannot even tell us if they have applied the Government’s own family test. The review should make Ministers stop, think, and tell officials clearly that they simply will not consider any ideas unless there is clear evidence that the impact on family life has been thought through.
In coming months, I will challenge the Government to up their game on strengthening families, as I am sure other colleagues will. A Government review would be welcome, to complement the work done by the Centre for Social Justice. I ask the Minister to meet me and other interested colleagues very soon to discuss the family test and how we can work together to help improve its application.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for bringing forward this debate, and the work of the Centre for Social Justice over many years on this issue. My hon. Friend quite rightly said that it is refreshing not to be speaking about Brexit in a debate, but over many years, many of us—particularly those sitting here—have spoken often about strengthening family life. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that much more needs to be done, and to be done by this Government.
In December 2017, I submitted written questions to every Department—15 of them—asking how they had applied the family test. More than half provided an identical and completely inadequate response:
“The Government is committed to supporting families. To achieve this, in 2014 we introduced the Family Test, which aims to ensure that impacts on family relationships and functioning are recognised early on during the process of policy development and help inform the policy decisions made by Ministers. The Family Test was not designed to be a ‘tick-box’ exercise, and as such there is no requirement for departments to publish the results of assessments made under the Family Test.”
That is very ironic, given that it is something of a ‘tick-box’ reply, and only really restates the importance of the question.
Several other Departments provided equally inadequate replies or replies that lacked any information. I will share some of them. The Attorney General Office’s reply was one line long:
“The AGO has not been the sponsoring department for any legislation in this session.”
Officials must have—or should have—considered the issue during the Session.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said:
“Although not a statutory requirement, the impact on families is considered as part of the Department’s compliance with the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty as specified in the Equality Act 2010.”
That does not tell us anything about what the Department did.
The clear contrast between the duty under equalities legislation and this legislation is interesting. A clear duty is being properly and systematically applied and honoured under equalities legislation by every Department; they look at legislation in that context in a way that they do not in the context of strengthening families.
The Cabinet Office’s reply was three and a half lines long, and we should bear in mind that the Cabinet Office is the responsible Department for having a broad overview of how Departments apply legislation. Its reply was much the same:
“The Government's guidance on the family test is available on Gov.uk and provides that the test should be taken into account, if sensible and proportionate, when considering all new policies that might have an impact on the family, including those set out in legislation.”
It took three months to reply, but it was not the worst. I had to issue a reminder to the Home Office, which took six months to reply to my important question.
As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay said, ironically, the Department that provided the best and fullest answer was the Ministry of Defence. I cannot possibly read the whole answer, but it provided the kind of reply that I had hoped to receive from every Department. Among other things, it says:
“We recognise the vital role that their families play...we are developing flexible engagements for those who wish to vary their deployability to better fit their Service career around family life, all of which aims to contribute to increased family stability. A key component of the Families’ Strategy is to ensure that Service families are considered in people policy development, supporting the principles outlined in the Family Test. This is achieved through consideration of the Service family as part of each relevant submission or policy discussion, and through regular engagement with the single Services and the three Families’ Federations who represent the needs and views of Service families. The Department also monitors the development and implementation of policy to assess the impact on families.”
That is the kind of response that we hoped for, and which we deserve, from every Department.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making an interesting point about the Ministry of Defence. It is very good that it has policies of that kind, but, in practice, I have a constituent who is looking for flexible working—she is looking to support her poorly mother and a child. She is getting absolutely stonewalled by the Ministry of Defence. Does the hon. Lady agree that policies are good, but they have to be put into practice and they have to work on the ground?
Fiona Bruce
Absolutely. I recommend that the hon. Lady points her constituent to that reply and challenges the Department accordingly. That is one of the reasons that we raise such questions.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Having well over 2,000 serving defence personnel based in my constituency, I wanted to comment on my hon. Friend’s important points about the Ministry of Defence. Does she agree that rather than being seen as a kind of hindrance, a pro-family policy is incredibly important for morale, not just for the armed forces but right across the civil service and across the country? It should be looked at as a positive thing, and not as something that somehow gets in the way.
Fiona Bruce
As so often, my hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. We need to ensure that strengthening family life is embedded within our policy making, because it is good for the individuals involved, but also because it is good for the country. I am convinced that our productivity levels, which are lower than they should be compared with many other developed countries, have some connection with the fact that we also have one of the highest levels of family breakdown in the developed world. People need to be supported and secure in their home life, from which they can then go out to work and be fulfilled.
As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay who introduced this debate said, we all pay the price if we do not have strong families. There is pressure on housing, because families are divided. There is also addiction, underachievement at school, mental health problems among young people, pressure on GPs’ surgeries because of depression, and, as I have said, underperformance at work. All that adds up to far more than the £51 billion cited in one assessment—I think it was by the Relationships Foundation. We need to look much more closely at underproductivity; it will cost our country dearly if we do not. Clearly, those who are responsible for safeguarding the security of our nation—working in defence—deserve that to be addressed more than anyone.
The Government Equalities Office sent an amusing reply:
“The family test was not formally applied to any of our regulations, as they do not have a direct or demonstrable impact on family relationships.”
It quoted three such regulations, including the Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 and the Equality Act 2010 (Equal Pay Audits) Regulations 2014. If they do not have an impact on families, what does?
I will pass over the Department for Exiting the European Union’s tick-box response. I am sure that we all agree that Brexit will affect every family in the land, if it does not already. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave a one-and-a-half-line reply:
“The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not applied the family test to date, as it applies to domestic policy only.”
The Department of Health and Social Care replied with only four and a half lines, stating:
“The Department does not keep a formal record of the legislation to which the family test was applied.”
That is really important, because it is the exact point we are making: given that there is no requirement to record any assessment, there is no evidence of it being done, which is not satisfactory.
As I said, the Home Office—after a reminder—sent a reply six months later, which was three and a half lines long. It said:
“The Government’s guidance on the family test is available on gov.uk…The Home Office will apply the family test if sensible and proportionate.”
It gives no further information at all. I could go on, but I think colleagues get the gist.
What do we do about this? We need to ask the Government not just to take action, but to take on board the Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill. It is a draft Bill that was introduced in the Lords by Lord Farmer, and which I introduced in the Commons in May 2018. I would like the Minister to explain why nothing has happened about the Bill. It addresses the concerns that we are talking about today. The Bill would require
“public bodies to accompany any proposal for a change in public expenditure, administration or policy with a family impact assessment”.
We felt that “family test” was perhaps not the best term, because it implies a pass or fail. By contrast, a “family impact assessment” is a broader exercise. The Bill would also:
“require the Secretary of State to report on the costs and benefits of extending family impact assessments to local authorities”
within six months of passing the legislation. We wanted to press for that because local authorities keep virtually no data on the extent of family breakdown in their areas. If we do not have the information, how can we start to address an issue?
It is very interesting that a number of local authorities are actively addressing this issue in a way that those of us who work on strengthening family life have recommended to Government in our policy paper, “A Manifesto to Strengthen Families”. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the document, but I never miss an opportunity to pass a copy to a Minister in such a debate. The document is now supported by about 70 Members of Parliament and contains several policies to strengthen family life.
It is disappointing that the Government have not collectively embraced the policies in the manifesto. Ideally, we would like to see that done through the leadership of a Cabinet Minister for families. That is not in any way to denigrate the work or enthusiasm of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). I know that he is interested in this subject, because he has told me so. However, if we are to make real headway on this issue, we need to have a Secretary of State who is responsible for strengthening families. Once again, I ask the Minister to take that message back—it is a key ask in the manifesto.
Another key ask is the development of local family hubs. These would not be Sure Start centres, which are just for pre-school children. The Minister might tell us something about the working group on young children, of which he is a member, and we support that. However, in each community we need a family hub where people can go if they have family difficulties and challenges regarding children of all ages, couple relationship problems or problems caring for an elderly relative. People need somewhere to go to get support on all those issues.
It is very interesting—this will bring me back to talking about the Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill—that many local authorities are setting up family hubs, despite the national Government not providing any particularly strong incentive for them to do so. Across the country, we are getting such hubs set up. In fact, we will hold a family hubs fair in the Jubilee Room on 5 June, and I invite the Minister to attend. There will be examples from all over the country of local authorities that aim to strengthen family life. As I said, without the requirement for data to be produced by local authorities so that they can understand the extent of the issue in their area, how can they address it? That is why the requirement is in the draft legislation.
We also state in the Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill that we want there to be proper evaluation of “progress towards family stability”. The Secretary of State in each Department should publish an annual report on progress towards stabilising families within the Department: what action have they taken? The family impact assessment would then begin to gather together information, recording how policies ultimately have a negative or positive impact on families.
When Lord Farmer introduced the Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill in the Lords, he quite rightly said we need it because there is no systematic way that policies are developed to support family relationships; there are only individual Ministers doing this. It is interesting that the Department of Justice gave a tick-box reply, because it has actually taken up strengthening family life with great gusto. It indicates that the dots are still not being joined up within Departments regarding officials’ work on this issue. I commend the Department of Justice for the way it is developing the Farmer review, but we need to do more.
Our Bill would put family impact assessments and their publication on a statutory footing and, as I have said, require the Secretary of State to report annually on progress. The Government need to do much better. Some of us have been speaking in this place about the matter since this Government came to varying forms of power. It is now almost a decade. We will shortly enter our tenth year—that is half a generation that we have now lost, when we could have taken action to help children who are growing up in dysfunctional families.
We talk about how we will be held to account for the way that we address Brexit, but those children are not able to hold us to account. They cannot go to the ballot box next year or the year after, but they are being dreadfully impacted by the fact that we are failing them and failing to look at how we can strengthen family life in this country. If I am right, there are now 27,000 children involved in gangs. What are gangs if not substitute families? Those children are looking for somewhere to belong, and we must do something urgently to address that. The Government must get a grip on this issue. The responses to our questions about the family test show that that is simply not happening.
The Government should adopt our draft Bill and get on with it. Will the Minister please explain why that has not happened? The whole point is to highlight the importance of the family perspective in policy making. Perhaps one of the problems is that officials and Ministers need training. Perhaps we need to help them assess the impact of policies on family life. We expect them to do it, but perhaps we need to help them by giving them training. As a comparison, we all agree that antisemitism is a concern. Officials are rightly being given training in how to address it, and I believe that the Government have allocated more than £14 million for that. That is positive, but how much is being put in to strengthen family life holistically? Which Departments have sent anyone on courses to train them in how to assess family impact? If that has happened, who was sent, where did they go and what was the outcome? If it has not, why not?
Please let me know if I am speaking for too long, Sir David. I will conclude shortly, but I would like to turn to the loneliness strategy.
Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)
We have until 11 o’clock. I will call the Front Benchers at 10.30 am.
Fiona Bruce
Plus the Front Benchers, obviously.
The loneliness strategy, published in October 2018, states:
“Family wellbeing is crucial for preventing loneliness.”
It continues:
“Government’s intention is to embed consideration of loneliness and relationships throughout the policy-making process. Government will explore various mechanisms for doing this and will, for example, include it in guidance for the Family Test.”
We are six months on. Will the Minister tell the House what action has been taken to fulfil that commitment? If he cannot do so today, will he write to us? The strategy also commits to a cross-Government approach to be led by the Minister for Sport and Civil Society. What steps have been taken across Government to fulfil the Government’s commitment to
“developing and improving its approach”?
The Minister is from the Department for Work and Pensions. Is this on his desk? I believe that he has families in his job description. If not, could he find out what stage this is at? The fact that this is on the desk of the Minister for Sport and Civil Society shows that this issue ends up being split into silos if we are not careful. There is not an overarching senior Minister responsible for it. Whose desk is this on, given that the Minister is from DWP? Could he find that out and ascertain how the Cabinet Office is ensuring that this issue is being taken forward in a cross-departmental way? How many Departments have highlighted the progress they are making on addressing loneliness through their 2019-20 departmental plans? I hope they have them now. Any efficient small business would. How many have published an annual progress report on the loneliness agenda, as set out in the strategy?
The strategy says:
“More research is needed in this area. But current evidence suggests that frequent loneliness and its wider impacts are costly for society as a whole as well as for individuals. Supporting people in this situation to become more connected to their families, friends and wider community also links to government’s aim to promote a more integrated and productive society.”
That is very interesting. I refer back to my question about the connection between family breakdown and productivity. If more research is done on that, we might be able to persuade the Treasury that investment in strengthening family life would be well made.
When the loneliness strategy was launched, I asked the then responsible Minister whether she agreed that one of the greatest antidotes to loneliness is stronger families. She agreed and said:
“We recognise the importance of families in tackling loneliness…we can quite often forget members of our family, so all that is at the heart of the strategy.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2018; Vol. 647, c. 460.]
The Government have a poor history of applying the family test. I will give a specific example, which I thought was an affront. The first family test published was on the Enterprise Bill and the issue of Sunday trading. Several of us had to press Ministers to get it published, despite the fact that the Bill would surely affect every family in the country. In the end, it was begrudgingly published on the day that the debate was taking place in the House of Commons, and the piece of paper was brought into the Chamber. That was completely unacceptable.
Subsequently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who was the responsible Minister, said that she would encourage Departments to publish family tests. That was in response to a question from our former colleague David Burrowes, who is now executive director for the manifesto for strengthening families and still works on this issue continuously. We very much hope we will see him back in this place very soon so he can continue his excellent work in the House.
This is not just a tick-box exercise. It is not just about keeping bureaucrats in their jobs or creating red tape for the sake of it. It matters. It is about people’s lives. It is about saving relationships. It is about preventing addiction. It is about reducing loneliness. It is about addressing mental health problems. It is about improving life chances. It is about improving education and employment opportunities. It is about tackling homelessness. It is about poverty. It is about productivity. Why has this important exercise never been properly embedded in the Government’s thinking or procedures? What is the Minister’s answer to all that?
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I thank my Cornwall colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for securing this really important debate. It is good that we continue to return to this subject. I know the Minister to be a man of compassion and empathy who wants to do the right thing in this area.
I would like to think that I am a Back-Bench Member of a progressive Government. At the moment, it might be difficult to see signs of that. I listened to the responses that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) received from different Departments, and there seems to be a real lack of enthusiasm about applying the family test. I absolutely support the creation of a Secretary of State in this area, which would be important for the wellbeing of our great nation, and the establishment of family hubs.
A great number of topics have been covered already. I will touch on some specific examples of where we are failing families, and where there is evidence that the family test is needed. The review of policy is not helping but hindering family units. The establishment of a one-stop shop where families can go to get help and support whenever things arise would be very welcome. I was very pleased to put my name to the “Manifesto to Strengthen Families”. I often look at what progress we are making in delivering those outcomes.
It is just common sense to apply the family test to legislation. Doing right for families in Government policy has to be the most effective way of creating stronger, healthier communities that feel well, cared for, valued and empowered to play their part in caring for each other. The issue concerns not just people in families, but those who are not, because strong families are a very important part of addressing isolation and loneliness for those who do not have loved ones.
I will mention a series of examples. I have not plucked them from the media or social media; they are examples from my constituency that show where we are failing families, often through policy and its implementation. The Home Office has been mentioned, and I have been working with the Home Secretary on one particular case.
As part of our immigration policy, we welcome people from the Commonwealth to work in our armed forces—this year we are increasing their number to 1,000. For various reasons, they tend to do jobs that are not significantly well paid. I had one such case, which has now been resolved through some clever working of the law. These people are not allowed to bring their loved ones, including their children. They are not allowed to do other jobs because their visa and their commitment to the Ministry of Defence mean that they cannot top up income and reach the threshold that allows them to bring over their wives and children.
The crazy thing about that particular part of immigration policy is that there is no risk that the people will disappear, because they have fixed contracts with the MOD and have to return to their original countries when they finish their contracts, which, in this case, are 12-year contracts. They are provided with housing and there are no concerns about their being a burden on society, so it is a bizarre breakdown of immigration policy and concern for families. Fortunately, in the case I mentioned, we have found a way for this particular individual to come over, but among the 1,000 people who will come from the Commonwealth this year, a number of men and women will not be able to bring their husbands, wives or children.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours. We have seen great progress in the diagnosis, treatment and removal of brain tumours in this country, but for children that progress has been poor. When they survive a brain tumour—I was pleased to be able to mention this at Prime Minister’s questions last week—they are left with an injury and we fail them because we do not put in place the available therapies and care, which would be available to a stroke patient with a similar type of injury. We do not do that for those children. Families are put under incredible pressure because we do not support them in supporting the child to have the best life chances. As a result, families spend a lifetime receiving support from social services and the NHS, which could be avoided—that is proven.
Another area where we fail families and that the family test and application of Government policy should address is special needs education in schools. Schools are now under enormous pressure and unable to provide the necessary support to children with special educational needs. The impact on family is not the breakdown of relationships between the child, the family and the school, but the child’s removal from a school that is unable to provide adequate support, however hard it tries. That means that families suddenly become isolated and lost from the system as they try desperately to give their child the best start.
Steve Double
Does my hon. Friend agree that this relates not only to education, but to the huge burden faced by families with children with special educational needs during school holidays, when all the support on the education side is taken away? Will he join me in commending the Cornwall Accessible Activities Programme, a local charity in Cornwall that provides support to parents with children with special educational needs during the school holidays?
Derek Thomas
Absolutely. It was really good to have a debate in the main Chamber recently about the work of voluntary organisations in supporting families in that very situation. The Government still have responsibility and we should look at how Government policy helps or hinders the lives of families.
Another example from my constituency is a family with two children in separate schools—they were doing well, having moved from other schools. Because of a situation at home, they were evicted and the council’s response was to move them out of the area, away from their schools. Suddenly, through a breakdown of proper legislation and support, the family was ripped out of their local community and support network, and the children were ripped out of schools in which they had become established and were beginning to do well. That is another example demonstrating that the family test is either not considered or not applied and that we are failing families.
As well as the issue of special educational needs, another problem is what the Department of Work and Pensions calls “natural migration” to universal credit—the Minister will know about that. Natural migration sounds very easy, straightforward and normal, but it is not at all. People who naturally migrate on to universal credit have quite often had devastating changes to their lives and situations—for example, a loved one who is the household earner suddenly developing an illness, a significant health problem or another reason why they can no longer be the breadwinner, meaning that they move on to universal credit.
As support mechanisms and transitional arrangements are not being introduced until next year, that change is proving difficult and causing real hardship for families. I have met the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about this. She explained that work coaches should be sensitive to the issue and should not pursue natural migration, but I know from constituents that that is not the case.
Natural migration happens when someone loses a loved one. In those situations, families are broken apart through circumstances beyond their control, and without even realising, they are suddenly subject to the welfare system. When universal credit is eventually complete, that system will probably be better for them—I am not opposed to it—but natural migration to universal credit is causing hardship for many people. Many find that it works when their circumstances change for positive reasons, but for those who fall through a disastrous net—or, dare I say it, over a cliff edge—we must intervene quickly.
On mental health, I have a case in which loving parents are at the absolute end of their resources and energy because of a very unwell 13-year-old daughter. The problem is that, despite the involvement of lots of agencies, the people from them go home at the end of the day and leave the parents to do what they can with a very unwell young lady. Having worked on and watched this situation closely, I can say that we are not providing the right support, empathy or care for families in which young ones have mental health problems.
An issue that I have raised many times is fuel poverty. Government policy should look at how we improve people’s homes. With poor-quality homes and fuel poverty, children do not attain what they can, do not reach their potential in education, and their homes are not as productive as they could be. The older people in those homes find that they enter into social services and NHS care far more often than they would otherwise. It is a massive issue for places in this country, including my constituency, where homes are not of the standard they should be: they are leaky and fuel-poor. Since I was first elected, I have argued that Government could use infrastructure money to address that situation, and that doing so would be a cost saving to Government. I have yet to hear a serious response from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
It is absolutely right that the family test should apply to new legislation. That is good and necessary, but I would also like the Minister to consider how we can review existing legislation and the examples I have given, to look at what the Government can do to ensure we are on the side of families and avoid some of the issues that I have set out. That would be a win for Government; there is huge support across the country for strengthening families, and for Government policy to support families.
We must show a commitment to families, make life easier for them where possible, and remove the unnecessary barriers and unintended consequences that Government policy is causing for our families. Communities are so much stronger when families work well. I am grateful for having had the opportunity to speak in this debate.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David. I am glad to be able to sum up for the SNP this morning.
I give credit to the hon. Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and for St Ives (Derek Thomas), who secured the debate. Their commitment is honourable, but the reality of the family test is that it is barely worth the paper that it is written on. The answers that the hon. Member for Congleton received from all the different parties indicate that. The Government say that the test is not designed to be a tick-box exercise, but in reality it is no kind of exercise at all. It is perfectly clear from cases that I deal with in my constituency that the Government are not applying the test to the policies that they come up with, either in theory or in practice.
On 30 January last year, in a debate on marriage in Government policy—hon. Members may have been there—the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), speaking from the Conservative Benches just there, said this of the time before he left Government:
“I was nominated to construct the family test against which everything was going to be measured. When I finally left—of my own volition, by the way—at no stage had I managed to get agreement from any of the key players about what it would consist of. While there was a principle, which was that the Prime Minister wanted a test that all decisions would be set against, the reality was that the Treasury in particular was not keen on any of it. I urge the Minister to press for a definition of the family test, by which all the effects of policy decisions could be looked at to see whether they would damage the family or make things more difficult. That would make logical sense.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 271-272WH.]
That was last year, and nothing has changed. The policy might exist in some form somewhere, but it is perfectly clear that its application is non-existent. It is utter escapism, and full of contradictions.
I have campaigned on a lot on the first issues that I will discuss, which are to do with child poverty and austerity. The family test has no relevance at all to the two-child policy; I know because I asked Ministers about that when they were talking about bringing the policy in. I have raised the policy at least 60 times in this Chamber and the main Chamber, asking questions about it and campaigning on it. It is completely destructive of families for many different reasons, not least because it moves children into poverty, making it far more difficult for their families to cope and survive.
The two-child policy has been condemned by Professor Philip Alston in a recent UN report, and just this week by CEDAW—the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women—which recommended scrapping it. On Monday, I met a range of organisations, including the Church of England, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, representatives of Scottish Churches, the Child Poverty Action Group, Turn2us, Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis—I have heard from the Scotland, England and Wales, and Northern Ireland equivalent organisations—and Refuge; all of them, as well as the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing, condemn the policy, because they know that it is damaging to families and meets no aspect of the family test. It means that families will be at least £2,780 worse off per year, which makes it far more difficult for them to survive.
The first element of the family test is:
“What kinds of impact might the policy have on family formation?”
The two-child policy deliberately encourages families to have fewer children—that is its stated purpose and aim. That is inimical to family formation. The policy also discriminates against families who wish to come together from two previous relationships. In blended families, where someone has two children from one family and wants to marry and have a third child, or another child comes from the other family, the impact is that families lose out. The policy does not meet that aspect of the test.
The second question of the test is:
“What kind of impact will the policy have on families going through key transitions such as becoming parents, getting married, fostering or adopting, bereavement, redundancy, new caring responsibilities, or the onset of a long-term health condition?”
The UK Government had to be taken to court, and an element had to be added. A woman who had taken on caring responsibilities for her two siblings lost out when she had a child, so the Government were taken to court—and lost, because the policy is unfair; they had not taken into account the impact on those with caring responsibilities.
There is also an impact on bereavement. Say a family had three children, and everything was fine because they could well afford those children—the Tories often say that people should only have the children they can afford. All of a sudden, one of the partners dies; the other has to claim universal credit and reduce their hours worked. The two-child policy does not meet the second aspect of the test, because it deliberately punishes people who end up in those circumstances, which they could not reasonably have predicted.
The third question of the test is:
“What impacts will the policy have on all family members’ ability to play a full role in family life, including with respect to parenting and other caring responsibilities?”
Again, the two-child policy means that anyone who has three children but whose circumstances change will struggle to play a full role in family life. They would not have enough money coming in, or would have to work longer hours and so would have less time with their children, who, as the hon. Member for Congleton suggested, might look to other sources of support, such as gangs. There is a huge impact on the ability to play a full role in family life, not least because of the poverty aspect.
“How does the policy impact families before, during and after couple separation?”
The two-child policy has an impact on that as well, because it creates a perverse incentive: people with three children will get more money if they separate their family, becoming two single parents—a family with two children over here and a family with one child over there. That is the incentive under the policy; the Government cannot deny that.
The final question is:
“How does the policy impact those families most at risk of deterioration of relationship quality and breakdown?”
As I say, families are incentivised to stay apart, rather than to stay together. The Government have not recognised that in any part of the two-child policy.
As Conservative Members present will know well, the policy also has a disproportionate impact on people of religious faith—those who will not use contraception or do not believe in abortion. People who have four children and are affected by the policy lose out, and that disproportionately affects those of religious faith, including the Jewish community, who have spoken out against the policy—as has the Church of England—and those of Muslim faith. That is out-and-out despicable. The Government do not accept that, but it is absolutely true. Furthermore, the two-child policy will have a chilling effect as it impacts on thousands of families throughout the country. People will lose out on their entitlement and on their ability to support their family, which is ridiculous.
In my constituency, I have many cases of families affected by Home Office issues and by Government policy on how they can live their lives. There are people who cannot afford to live as a family, because of the £18,600 threshold that has to be met before someone can bring a spouse over to this country. People who desperately want their partner to come here and to be reunited with their children cannot do that because of an arbitrary figure. I have constituents who lost out by a couple of pounds, and so were not allowed to bring family members into the country. What impact does that have on family life? Where does that fit with the family test?
The minimum income threshold also puts huge pressure on earners in the family. I have a constituent who works two jobs. He works as a bank clerk—a mortgage adviser—and at night, stacking shelves in a supermarket, so that he can bring his family here. That has a huge impact on his mental health and wellbeing; he has to work all the hours he can to get his family in. The Home Office is still making that incredibly difficult for him.
The Government policy of no recourse to public funds also has an impact. People have come to this country and been granted their status, but the Government have decided that they are not entitled to any working-age benefits at all. I have a constituent, case No. 3 in my books—the third from when I was elected in 2015—who still has no recourse to public funds. She is almost destitute. Every year, she has come to my office, looking for support for school uniforms or Christmas presents for her children, because despite the fact that she is working, she cannot afford them. She is working all the hours that she can, but under this Government’s cruel policy of allowing no recourse to public funds, she cannot earn enough to live on. It is heartbreaking. I had her and her daughter in my office at Christmas time, and her daughter came back into my office after she and her mum had left and said, “Alison, why have we not got any money?” I cannot answer that question. It is for the Minister to answer why he wants to put families in a position in which their children are heartbroken and in poverty, and are judged by their friends, and do not have any kind of a life because of the Government’s cruel policies.
Home Office policies such as the hostile environment make it very difficult for people to carry on family life. There is the impact of policies that prevent people from staying in this country. I will give an example. At my surgery one Friday, the first of a number of people to see me were a couple. The wife was a British citizen and the husband was from another country. They had been told by the Home Office that they both had to leave and go to the country where the husband was from because they had no family ties here. They did not have any children, so they could go and live there, and that would be just as easy for them as staying in the UK—there would be no problems there. They asked me, “Alison, would it make any difference if we had children? Would we be able to stay if we had children in this country?” I said, “Probably not. This is just the way the Home Office does things,” and I offered them support.
The next couple, who came in straight after, had quite a young baby and a toddler. They were in much the same circumstances: they had been told by the Home Office to go back to some other country to live, and that it would not make any difference because their children were young and would not know any better. They asked, “What can we do? We have family ties here.” The Home Office computer still said no. That is a huge insult to people who want to come here and do us the honour of choosing to live in this country. We tell them, “No, go and contribute to some other country, because we do not want you here.” That is despicable; it is against everything that the family test ought to stand for.
The family test is not worth the paper it is written on. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Congleton says that it took the Home Office six months to reply. She is lucky; in many of my cases, it has taken much longer. The Home Office does not care how it treats people. A family with three children who were due to report to Brand Street as part of their obligations under the Home Office’s hostile environment policy had to take one child out of nursery and the other two out of school, and did not know if they would be able to go back afterwards. They did not know if they would be removed and sent to Dungavel. What kind of family test is that? What kind of impact will that have on family life—the stress, the distress and the indignity of being forced to report to Brand Street without knowing if they would go home afterwards? It is utterly despicable.
I talked about the impact of people living on low wages having no recourse to public funds; I would like to talk about the Government’s pretendy living wage. They know that it is not enough for people to live on. That has an impact on family life. People who are working away without enough to live on will struggle to maintain a family life, to do all the things they would like to do with their family, such as going places, and to pay for things such as schools trips or books, which would make for a better family life. It is worse for parents under 25, because they are not entitled to the Chancellor’s pretendy living wage. There is a growing gap for those under the age of 25, who are entitled to much less but may have exactly the same obligations. They may have children to support. They have different lives to lead, and they do not get a discount on their rent for being under the age of 25. The Government need to recognise that and ensure that a fair day’s pay is earned for a fair day’s work, which is not the case in this country.
Under the family test, there is no protection for families when people reach old age. I refer to the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign; those women have worked their whole life, and sacrificed their time with their family, only to find their retirement cruelly stolen from them. That has an impact on the family; often they are expected to look after their grandchildren, but cannot, because they have to keep working, and the mums have to keep working to pay the nursery fees. That has a detrimental impact on family life.
I want to talk about Brexit. The hon. Member for Congleton mentioned it briefly, but it will have a hugely detrimental impact on family life. Those people who have chosen to come and live in this country now feel that they have very little option. Some are leaving the place that they called home because they no longer feel welcome. They are giving up the links that they made here, and they are disrupting their family life. There is probably nothing that covers that in the family test, but Brexit has a real impact on families right across these islands. It is hugely sad that the Government are pursuing it, and it will mean that EU nationals in this country will be forced into the same kind of hostile environment that the Home Office applies to everybody else, causing the problems I have outlined.
In Scotland we are doing our best; we are trying to provide baby boxes, and grants for families to support children in the early years, so that they have the best place in the world to grow up in, but we are hampered by the policies of this Tory Government and by the decisions of Westminster. I firmly believe that if we were an independent country, we would make it true for everybody that Scotland was the best place in the world to grow up in. Proper family tests—not something that is barely worth the paper it is written on—would be applied to all our policies.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this debate. He rightly pointed out the importance of families and parenting. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) told us that the Government have a poor history of applying the family test. She spoke of the impact of family life on productivity; I wonder whether she would support Labour’s policy of ending zero-hour contracts, to improve the quality of family life. The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) spoke thoughtfully about a number of areas where policy is failing families, and particularly about the impact of natural migration to universal credit, which is causing hardship for many families. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) spoke passionately about poverty and austerity, and the impact of the two-child policy.
The family test has admirable aims, but this Government have not quite followed through on it in full. It is not clear whether the initiative has made a significant impact. When it was introduced, it was not made mandatory to publish the outcomes of the test; to date, few have been published. Could the Minister tell us how many tests have been carried out or are under way? Will he commit to publishing them in full?
In 2015, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), said that the Social Justice Cabinet Committee would take the lead in ensuring that the family test was properly applied across Government Departments. Will the Minister confirm whether the committee still exists, and when it last met?
The family test was introduced to provide a family perspective in the policy making process. While that is a laudable objective, it is clear that Government policy since 2010 has completely undermined that aim. Families across the country have suffered the impact of this Government’s austerity measures, particularly through cuts to social security. One only has to think of the upheaval and misery caused by the bedroom tax to see that; families were uprooted from their community because of an ill-considered and heartless policy.
The test includes five questions to consider when making policy, including assessing what kind of impact the policy might have on family formation, families going through key transitions such as becoming parents, and all family members’ ability to play a full role in family life, yet Government policy appears almost designed to disrupt and interrupt family life. Indeed, they have made it much harder for parents to secure a safe and happy upbringing for their children. When Professor Philip Alston, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, visited the UK last year, he lifted the lid on a national crisis. He said:
“People I spoke with told me they have to choose between eating and heating their homes, or eating and feeding their children. One person said, ‘I would rather feed my kids than pay my rent, but that could get us all kicked out.’ Children are showing up at school with empty stomachs, and schools are collecting food on an ad hoc basis and sending it home because teachers know that their students will otherwise go hungry.”
There is no use speaking about the family test while ignoring the growing stark reality of people’s lives. More than 14 million people in the UK are in poverty, including more than 4 million children. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that figure will rise to more than 5 million by 2022. No child should have to go to school hungry, or go without heating or clothing, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported last year that more than 300,000 children had to do just that. Its report found that 365,000 children experienced destitution in 2017. Shockingly, 131,000 children woke up homeless on Christmas day last year, according to Shelter. Most people would consider that completely unacceptable in 21st-century Britain.
The Library recently analysed the extent of the cuts to working-age social security, and found that £36 billion has been cut from that budget since 2010, including nearly £5 billion from social security. That has made it extremely difficult for many families to pay the bills. Two years ago, we asked the Government for an impact assessment of the cuts on women, after we published Library analysis showing that 86% of the impact of austerity had been shouldered by women, yet despite their supposed commitment to the family test, the Government still refuse to publish an impact assessment of the cuts on women.
The family test was introduced in 2014. I take this opportunity to examine the policies introduced since then and their effect on families. The two-child limit, which has been mentioned, is expected to push 200,000 additional children into poverty by the time universal credit is fully rolled out. The policy breaks the vital link between what families require to meet their daily needs and their entitlement. The Child Poverty Action Group says that the policy means that
“some children are held to be less deserving of a decent standard of living than others, simply because they have more siblings—a circumstance which they cannot control.”
It was described as “fundamentally anti-family” by the UK’s foremost religious leaders.
The family test asks policy makers to assess the impact of policy on family formation. The Child Poverty Action Group says the two-child limit
“risks creating incentives for larger families to separate, and could discourage single parents from forming new ‘blended’ families. It could also penalise children in separated families who switch the parent they live with—for example to be with siblings, or to remain in their school if one parent moves away.”
It goes on to say that the policy
“may also leave women who become pregnant with a third child, for example through contraception failure, with a difficult choice between moving into poverty and having an abortion.”
Clearly, that is extremely shocking. The two-child limit completely undermines the aims of the family test and the fabric of family life. Can the Minister confirm that it was subjected to the family test? Will he make that assessment public and explain how the policy passed all five tests?
Another policy introduced in 2015 was the freeze on social security, which quite simply increases poverty. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, almost half a million more people will be driven into poverty by 2020 as a result of the freeze, which it says is the single biggest driver behind rising poverty. The Secretary of State sought to reassure the public that the benefits freeze would not be extended beyond next year, but that is not soon enough. The value of working-age benefits is expected to be cut by £1.5 billion over the next year. We have repeatedly called on the Government to end the benefits freeze immediately. Ahead of today’s spring Budget, we say it is not too late for the Government to stop the freeze. The Government have the opportunity to lift 200,000 people out of poverty altogether by ending the freeze, so will they take action?
Since its introduction by a Labour Government, child benefit has been a vital means of supporting families. It is now frozen, having been cut repeatedly since 2010. According to Unison, a family with two children is £450 a year, or £8.67 a week, worse off than it would have been in 2010. Unison analysis shows that, at current prices, that would buy 1 litre of skimmed milk, 15 medium eggs, a Warburtons medium white sliced loaf, a bag of straight-cut chips, washing-up liquid, pork loin medallions and eight sausages—clearly, all things that families could do with. Again, can the Minister confirm that the social security freeze was subjected to the family test, and will he make that assessment public and explain how the policy passed all five tests?
Universal credit has undergone rapid expansion in recent years. However, its roll-out has been chaotic and hampered by cuts—especially those made in the 2015 summer Budget. Universal credit is not working for families, and it is driving many people into poverty, debt and rent arrears. The five-week wait, which was originally a six-week wait, is unrealistic for low-income families. It is difficult to see how families are supposed to survive for five or six weeks without any payment at all when children need to be fed and clothed. The Government say universal credit is linked to food bank use, yet they have failed to address that issue competently and have offered people loans instead. Once again, can the Minister confirm that universal credit—in particular the 2015 cuts and the five-week wait—has been subjected to the family test, and will he make that assessment public and explain how the policy passed all five tests?
Margaret Greenwood
I am very short of time, so I will continue.
Sadly, Government policy is putting intolerable strain on some families. Under this Government, mixed-age couples will be denied pension credit and forced to claim universal credit instead. What is more, younger partners will potentially be subject to the sanctions regime, too. Some families are set to lose as much as £7,000 a year. There have been reports of couples who have been together for more than 20 years considering separation as a result. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of that policy on families? Does the Minister believe it meets the five tests?
There are many more areas that betray how Government policies have undermined the interests of families. Cuts to local government are forcing councils to overspend on their children’s services and social care budgets and run a huge deficit in their reserves for schools. As many as 1,000 Sure Start centres may have closed because of Government funding cuts, and the Government’s change to the threshold for free school meal entitlements could leave 1 million children without a hot meal at school.
We believe that when we all get old or sick, or we have a family, our public services should step in—they should help families remain secure and avoid poverty—but austerity is making that much more difficult to achieve. Indeed, the policies I have mentioned would, in my opinion, demonstrably fail the family test. I hope the Government listen to the points I have made, end austerity and develop policies in line with the stated aims of the family test.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, in this very calm and sensible week for Parliament. I am sure all eyes will be focused on this very important debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for securing the debate. He has an exceptional track record in this important area; it is a real credit to the work he has done that he has so much support from the colleagues who attended the debate. I pay tribute to his work alongside the noble Baroness Eaton with the Centre for Social Justice, which culminated in its recent report on the family test. That excellent piece of work was a really good way to focus minds—not just in my Department, but across Government. I will go into more detail about that.
I also thank all the other Members who contributed, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Derek Thomas) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I will cover many of the questions raised, but let me say two quick things before I forget. I would be delighted, diary and parliamentary duties permitting, to attend the family hub event, so I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton to make sure I have all the details of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives has done fantastic work as an MP to support those with special educational needs, using his wealth of experience from his work prior to arriving in the House. I recognise his point about supporting families with special educational needs children.
I pay tribute to one of my local special educational needs schools, the Uplands School, which has made a very small change that could easily be adopted by all schools and is making a huge difference. Like all schools, it has parental support classes, which offer peer-to-peer support—parents get together over cups of tea and talk about the challenges they are facing and how they can support one another. The headteacher, Jackie Smith, has ensured that parents get an invite to those support classes once they know their children will end up at the school, rather than having to wait until the day they come. That ensures that peer support is provided from the very early days, which is making a huge difference.
We also had a contribution from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who perhaps stretched the intention of the debate—most of her comments were probably better suited to a Home Office debate. I am sure there will be opportunities for Home Office Ministers to respond in the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for welcoming the principle of the family test. I appreciate that, but she then applied a series of political statements loosely to the principles of the family test. It would be remiss of me not to correct some of the points she made. For example, under this Government there are now 500,000 fewer families on the housing waiting list. Food affordability—the measure of whether families can afford the basics in terms of food—has almost halved in just under five years and is 2.5% lower than the EU average. Material deprivation has never been lower. Income inequality has fallen under this Government, having risen under the last Labour Government. There are now 300,000 fewer children in absolute poverty. Welfare spending under the last Labour Government—
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Lady was not willing to take interventions from colleagues who actually stuck to the principles of the debate, so I will not.
Under the last Labour Government, welfare spending rose on average by £3,000 per house. Imagine the impact on hard-working families.
Justin Tomlinson
I will shortly. The Opposition voted against income tax threshold changes that have given families an additional £1,200 a year. Our spending on childcare will have risen from £4 billion in 2010 to £6 billion by 2020—a 50% increase—and we are delivering record employment in all regions of the UK, yet again supporting families. I give way to my hon. Friend.
Fiona Bruce
The Minister has actually made my point for me. The speech by the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) highlighted the fundamental difference in the way we approach this issue. The Opposition’s solution to so many social problems is throwing more money at them. There was no money left when they finished in government.
We are saying that if we strengthen family lives, just like the teacher the Minister mentioned, we will prevent those problems—mental health problems in school, addiction, people going to GP surgeries with depression and losing work days, and so on—from arising in the first place. That is the fundamental difference. That is why we are pressing for the Government to strengthen family life: because we believe that prevention is far better and cheaper than attempted cure.
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is spot on. It was clear from my colleagues’ speeches that they have a constructive, proactive and real focus on the absolute principles of the family test, and I shall now turn to that.
Many hon. Members have underlined the importance of the family test, and I am pleased to see sustained interest in that test among colleagues. I restate the Government’s commitment to the family test, which was introduced in 2014 to help put families at the heart of policy making. In designing the test, alongside the Relationships Alliance, we wanted to help policy makers understand how policies might, positively or negatively, affect families.
We want potential impacts on families to be considered early so that they can shape proposals, rather than at the end of the process when we are preparing to announce and implement any changes. That point is key, and the test helps to ensure that potential impacts are properly considered in the advice that Ministers receive. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay was spot on when he said that such issues must be embedded into that early thinking.
Justin Tomlinson
I will respond to the thrust of the debate. We want the family test to be broad and flexible, reflecting the nature of 21st-century families. The test already encourages policy makers to consider a wide range of impacts, including on family formation, families going through key transitions, the ability of all family members—dads, mums, and the extended family—to play a full role in family life, families who have separated or who are undergoing separation, and those families most at risk of a deterioration in relationship quality and breakdown.
I acknowledge that some would like the family test to be a statutory obligation, but feedback from policy makers, and points highlighted in speeches today, suggest that a statutory test could risk becoming a box-ticking exercise at the end of a policy process, with pass or fail outcomes, rather than something embedded at the beginning of the process, which is key. A legislative test would also risk losing the flexibility to adapt and change.
I welcome the review of the family test by the Centre for Social Justice, and I thank it for highlighting these important issues, many of which my officials have been working to address with the relevant Departments. There is a strong alignment between the report’s recommendations and our approach to strengthening practice in the use of the test. I agree that individual Departments should take responsibility and ownership of their application of the family test—interestingly, the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton highlighted both good and bad practice.
Justin Tomlinson
There we are—it is on the record, and those Departments will no doubt be held to account. The Attorney General’s response is probably the shortest that I have heard from any Department, and I know my hon. Friend will scrutinise it carefully.
We are working with a network of representatives from all domestic policy Departments to develop tailored resources to help officials apply the test in their unique policy contexts, and ensure that advice to Ministers reflects the impact on families. That will be underpinned by refreshed central guidance for officials, which we expect to publish this summer—I will return to that important work at the end of my remarks, with a request for those Members who have demonstrated passion about this issue to ensure that we get it right. My Department will actively consider including the family test in the DWP business plan.
I am pleased to be part of the inter-ministerial group that is focusing on how to improve support for families in the first 1,001 days. Another of the report’s recommendations is for Ministers to take a more active role in ensuring that the family test is applied in their Departments. I have raised the family test with that inter-ministerial group, and I will ask Ministers actively to consider whether the test has been considered in all the advice they receive, on any topic, in their Departments.
The excellent report by the Centre for Social Justice builds on important issues raised by colleagues who published the “Manifesto to Strengthen Families”. It also highlights examples of where Departments have used the family test, and where that has made a difference to the policy making process. We recognise, however, that more progress can be made to ensure that the test is robustly applied to all domestic policy. That is why my Department, which has the cross-Government lead on the test, has been taking action to strengthen its implementation across Government.
Each Department has a nominated representative on the new family test network—my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay highlighted the importance of that—and the network is identifying, developing and sharing best practice on applying the family test. That helps us to deepen our understanding of how the test is applied across Government, and what further support officials need to embed it fully as part of any considerations made when formulating policy.
The network pays particular attention to the need highlighted in the report to build evidence, and we are currently exploring ways to support Departments in that. We will continue to encourage and support Departments to apply the family test, and to make their own judgments on whether and when publishing assessments is appropriate. We will consider whether more can be done to improve transparency, which includes reflecting on the report’s recommendations. It is unclear, however, whether knowing how many family tests a certain Department has applied would bring much greater or more meaningful transparency.
I am keen to avoid introducing layers of unnecessary bureaucracy to the policy making process, but I understand the thrust of the point being made. Insights from the family test network are driving our review of family test guidance, published on gov.uk, which helps officials to understand why, when, and how they should apply the test. Revised guidance planned for summer 2019 will better reflect the needs of users.
We are helping Departments to develop a toolkit of resources for officials to improve consistent and meaningful family test application across Government. Given that effective implementation of the test is fundamentally an issue of capability, we are also working with Civil Service Learning and the Policy Profession unit, to consider how best to support policy makers to apply the family test effectively.
Let me share some examples of how the Government are actively working to make lives better for families, and how our policies are responding to the key questions and evidence set out by the family test. My Department is currently implementing the Reducing Parental Conflict programme, which is backed by £39 million. That programme helps councils across England to recognise the evidence about the damage that parental conflict can do to children’s long-term outcomes. It will soon provide evidence-based, face-to-face support for parents in 31 English local authorities. I attended an important roundtable with those local authorities, and there is real enthusiasm to deliver this programme and build that tangible constructive evidence.
Fiona Bruce
I welcome this programme, but an integral part of it needs to be a focus on strengthening couple relationships, not just parent-child relationships. Will the Minister look into that?
Justin Tomlinson
We are digesting all the successful bids for the various strands of that programme, and I am sure that many organisations will have a proven track record in that area. I am happy to consider that specific issue in greater detail in a meeting on the programme.
We want face-to-face support to be available to those families who need it most. This is why we will prioritise help for workless and disadvantaged families, and why we are exploring how to ensure that those eligible parents with whom we are already working, through Jobcentre Plus and the Child Maintenance Group, are able to access such support as early as possible.
All local authorities can access funding to increase their strategic capability to address parental conflict, as well as training for frontline staff. We are funding even more innovation through our joint work with the Department of Health and Social Care to support children of alcohol-dependent parents, and with our new £2.7 million Reducing Parental Conflict challenge fund. A number of Departments have highlighted that fund to their stakeholders to ensure good engagement.
The principles of the family test are visible across the Government. The Department for Education recently announced that all children and young people will soon be taught about the importance of healthy relationships, including marriage and family relationships. I welcome the positive comments from my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay about the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Ministry of Justice is also considering how we can reduce conflict in families that are going through a divorce. The Troubled Families programme is driving better ways of working around complex families, improving outcomes for individuals and reducing their dependency on services, and delivering better value for taxpayers. That programme aims to achieve significant and sustained improvement for up to 400,000 families with multiple high-cost problems by 2020—something I passionately support.
In conclusion, I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the thrust of this debate—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, who has been a real champion in this area. We welcome the continued constructive work by the Centre for Social Justice, and its review of the family test, and we are actively considering its recommendations.
The importance to our society of strong families cannot be understated, and we look forward to working with all hon. Members as we continue to strengthen our use of the family test and make a difference for families. I would greatly welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friends from the Centre for Social Justice and have a deep-dive look at the recommendations in their respective speeches and the recent report.
Steve Double
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this good debate. We may have differences of opinion on how to address this issue, but it is encouraging to hear that everyone has recognised the importance of strengthening families and the role that Government policy can play in that. I welcome the Minister’s response. We are encouraged by his clear commitment to ensuring that the family test is applied consistently and meaningfully across Government. He will find that many hon. Members, particularly on the Government Benches, are ready and willing to work with him, to ensure that the policy works as best it can to benefit families up and down the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the application of the family test.
Acute NHS Care: South-west Hertfordshire
(5 years, 1 month 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
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered acute NHS care in South West Herts.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir David. I start by saying that none of my comments about the health provision that allegedly looks after my constituents or about the West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust are, in any shape or form, about the frontline staff. The doctors, the nurses, the porters and the cleaners are fantastic. However, as I said the other day in a letter to Mr Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, frankly we have absolutely no confidence in the management of the clinical commissioning group for West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust.
That lack of confidence that we are being represented and looked after in the best possible way has united the community over many years. It is not new. We have been let down time and again. Unlike a certain other subject that is occupying a lot of our time at the moment, there is no political or community division in west Hertfordshire about what we need from hospital acute provision in our part of the world. I will not go on about the other problems we have with health provision, but I have called the debate today—indeed, I was asked to do so by the community—to discuss how we can trust what is going on in our area.
A package is being put together that is convenient for West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust and it appears that the CCG and, I am sad to say, NHS Improvement and NHS England are going along with it. To put it in context for the Minister, we used to have acute hospitals in St Albans, in Hemel Hempstead and in Watford. Years ago, there was an evaluation and the decision was taken to close the acute facilities at St Albans. We were told not to worry, as Hemel was very close and would continue to have its acute provision, and there was a minor injuries-type facility in St Albans for elective surgery. After another consultation called “Investing In Your Health”, all the promises that had been made went out of the window and the acute services in Hemel were closed. As a sop, we were given a 24-hour urgent treatment centre.
Guess what? The urgent treatment centre is now not open for 24 hours a day and has a completely different name. Is it open at night? No, it is not. Where does everybody have to go? Even though Hemel is the largest town in Hertfordshire, we go to Watford. Watford General Hospital is a Victorian building next to the football stadium, in the heart of Watford, which is very densely populated. Promises were made about how quickly the ambulances could get there and how good it would be. They have completely gone out of the window, particularly when Watford football club is playing at home. Even though I am not a Watford supporter, I do not want to criticise the football club in any way. Watford football club is there, and has been for a long time.
Now we are looking to the future, not so much for my generation but for the younger generation in this massively growing area of the country. What is the future of the acute provision and hospital provision in my constituency? Historically, West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust is a small trust that has not been well managed. I have lost count of the number of chief executives it has had during the time I have been MP for Hemel Hempstead. They come and go repeatedly. What always happens—every time—is that the trust gets into deficit, and it is then bailed out in some way. That happened when there were primary care trusts, and now it is being done with the clinical commissioning groups. The trust is in deficit and failing. I do not know how it managed to get something positive into the newspaper the other day, when yet again it is failing in four out of five categories.
That means my constituents are at risk. We rely on the CCG and the trust. I will come on to our involvement in that process in a second, but it appears that as an elected Member of Parliament I have absolutely no influence at all on the CCG’s decisions, West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust decisions or decisions about any other NHS provision in my area. Joe Public does not understand that there are a myriad pillars and silos inside the NHS. The public just sees the NHS, which people are rightly massively proud of; we all are, including me, and it is fantastic that we are putting more money into it. However, we have got more managers, finance directors and heads of nursing. Why on earth have we got all these people divided up inside the NHS? That is an important point I will come on to.
Part of the appraisals and discussions for the strategic outline case—the Minister will know what I mean by a SOC—was about making decisions on what acute hospital provision should be provided in my constituency. I went with constituents to see Mr Mackey, the head of NHS Improvement. I said to him, “What are the criteria here? Tell me, face to face, what are the criteria for the decision that the West Herts hospital trust is going to make about the future?” He said, quite categorically, that fundamentally different options must be put to us. I asked, “Including a greenfield site?” We have greenfield sites available. He said yes. I received a letter of confirmation that that was a requirement of any SOC that was put forward.
Moving forward to where we are now, we apparently cannot have a new greenfield hospital. Why? That is the question that every one of my constituents asks. It would not necessarily be in the middle of Hemel, St Albans or Watford, but somewhere where there is decent access and transport links for the whole community. We cannot have that. Why not? We are not allowed to borrow more than our income. Because we are a very small trust, the income happens to be £350 million. We cannot borrow more than that. Why? Why do my constituents suffer because we have a small, inefficient, badly managed acute trust?
If we amalgamated with another trust, the income stream would probably be about £500 million, or we could amalgamate with another acute trust and double the income to £700 million. All of a sudden, we get somewhere near the fictitious figure of £750 million, which keeps coming up for how much it would cost to build a new acute hospital. The figure of £750 million is why the trust is ruling out new build at the moment. I am not aware of any new hospitals in this country—leaving aside private finance initiative problems that we had in the past under the previous Administration—that cost £750 million. Interestingly, one of my constituents recently emailed me about the new hospital in Birmingham, which was being built by Carillion—we all know about that problem—that is costing £300 to £350 million. The new hospital in Liverpool is costing about £350 million. These are brand new hospitals, which is exactly what I am asking for and certainly what my constituents are united in wanting.
Where has the figure of £750 million come from? It is being used as part of a narrative to block any new acute hospital in my constituency, which would also look after people in St Albans and Watford. In my area, we seem to be fixated on the idea that the only way to use that £350 million is, believe it or not, to plough it into the Victorian hospital in middle of Watford. There are supposed to be evaluation panels, with the community engaged.
The community evaluation panel sat, and some of the members said, “Could we not have on the list a new hospital on a greenfield site?” There was no request for a show of hands, or vote. It just went forward; but it appears it has been completely ignored. The boards of both the West Hertfordshire hospitals trust and the CCG have disregarded it. It is all too expensive. We know, however, that it is not too expensive. Other parts of the country have an open mind, not a closed mind. They are not the same people who closed our hospitals in the past, making the same decisions on the future of Watford hospital.
I have concerns for the people of Watford—the patients of Watford hospital—and the staff. I am concerned about stripping out and fundamentally refurbishing what is a predominantly Victorian hospital, which was massively refurbished in the 1960s and 1970s. How can a full acute hospital continue to operate while that is going on—with all the risks? I have recently written—my old ministerial role was in the relevant Department—to the head of the Health and Safety Executive, because we know there is asbestos in the building. It is fundamentally dangerous, and it is not just because of asbestos, although that is the most prominent issue, and something that can have a massive effect. A tiny fibre in the lung is a death sentence. We know it is there, but we do not understand why the figure of £750 million has been used, and why the figure of £350 million is trapping my constituents in a certain quality of care, simply because we happen to be small and badly managed—not just by the present management but over many years.
Why are we being penalised? That is how we feel, as a community, across political divides—across everything. Labour were massively involved with the problem long before we took over in Government. Why does not NHS England say: “This trust is failing again. It is not big enough. It cannot cope. Let us sort it, management-wise, and bring trusts together.” Then we would go over the £350 million income stream figure, up into the £500 millions. Strangely, £500 million was the figure for what has just been built in Leeds. It seems strange that for Hertfordshire’s largest town, and one of its most historic towns, St Albans, which have massively growing populations, Watford is the option. I do not want to take anything away from Watford until there is a new build. I do not want to take anything from it that will undermine what it has—unlike what happened to us. However, perhaps the Minister would like to come to Watford when Watford football club is playing at home—or even just during the rush hour. He will have a very different experience coming from Hemel or St Albans from the one he would have coming from any other part of Hertfordshire. It is chock-a-block.
I want to touch on a final thing before I hand over to the Minister, because I want him to have time to respond. I have already asked him not just to read out what has come from the trust. I know, having been a Minister, exactly what happens. An MP asks for a debate, the Department writes to the CCG, the CCG speaks to West Herts, and the speech is halfway written before the Minister has even got to Westminster. I ask him please to listen. We are passionate people and are not going to give up. Some people in the campaign group for the new hospital have been working on it year after year. I want to pay tribute to Zena Bullimore, who sadly passed away, and who was chairman of the hospital campaign, and to Edie and Ron Glatter—Professor Glatter. Even though they have been retired for some time, they are a driving force behind the campaign that I was part of long before I was elected. That is how far we go back.
I have some anecdotal evidence to show how wrong it is even to contemplate going further with Watford, instead of getting a hospital out of Watford in a suitable place. One of my constituents had a heart attack and the ambulance arrived in good time. The paramedics did a wonderful job and she was taken to Watford. The ambulance was turned away by the police from the fastest route to accident and emergency. The police had a cordon up so that the fans could use the streets, so it had to go another way, at which stage the non-local ambulance driver got lost. I went to see the officer in charge of the football match and said, “Did you turn the blue light ambulance away?” He said, “I can’t quite—”. I said, “Let’s do another one. Would you have turned away the blue light ambulance that was trying to get to the A&E because you had a cordon up?” He said, “Yes, I would.” I said to him, “If one of your officers had been assaulted and stabbed, would you have let the blue light ambulance in to pick him up?” “Yes, of course I would.” What is the difference between my constituents and the police? I want the police protected, and he would have been absolutely right to let the blue light in. However, the Department and NHS England seem to have tunnel vision about the situation.
I had a response in the last couple of days to a letter I sent to NHS Improvement—to Mr Stevens, actually—saying, “Would you please analyse this very in-depth document that goes into five pages, and give us your opinions?” I got, apart from the signature, one piece of A4 back, which in my opinion was written by the West Hertfordshire hospital trust. If it did not write it, it contains all the same language—probably the same language that is in the Minister’s notes. We have to open up to the fact that there must be accountability in the NHS. It is right that Ministers do not these days make decisions in the way they used to, but things have gone too far. There are people running CCGs who are not qualified to do so. I do not think that a GP is highly qualified to chair and run such a trust.
My acute trust has to make a fundamentally important decision, based on fact, but it is ignoring fact—not just public opinion or “This is the best place for it”, but fact. They keep going on about “You can’t afford it. It will be over £350 million. It will cost £750 million.” Frankly that is a pack of lies and we need to wake up. As I said the other day among colleagues, “Wake up and smell the coffee.” The public will not put up with a second-rate management system in the NHS. It is affecting my constituents—and I class myself as a member of the public. I live in the middle of the town. I am not going to put up with a second-rate system of management, and incompetence in running a trust.
I shall probably ask to intervene on the Minister during his speech.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and to respond to my right hon. Friend. I want to say at the outset that one thing we absolutely agree on is what he said in his opening remarks. He expressed, in bringing forward this important matter for debate on behalf of his constituents, recognition of and admiration for the frontline staff. Even though I do not know the frontline staff in his area, I know from my visits in my short time as Minister and from my constituency experience that the professional care they deliver is admirable and extraordinary. We should never forget the effort they put in, and my right hon. Friend is right to acknowledge that.
Before I address specifics, and before what I suspect will be an iterative debate, I want to deal with two fundamental points, which I know my right hon. Friend knows, but are worth putting on the record. First, any service change in the NHS must clearly be based on clear evidence. Secondly, before any substantive change is made, patients and the public should be consulted. My right hon. Friend raised two interesting subjects on which we could have a debate of an hour and a half, or probably even three hours. One was local accountability in the NHS, in its wider sense and form, and how he is accountable as the Member of Parliament. The other was funding criteria.
My right hon. Friend has, I think, addressed two other Ministers on his passion for the longstanding need to improve the quality of hospital infrastructure in west Hertfordshire. That has been a stated aim of the Hertfordshire and West Essex sustainability and transformation plan since its inception. I know it is engaging in the process of looking at how a redevelopment and redesign of the hospital provision in west Hertfordshire can be achieved, working alongside NHS England and NHS Improvement.
I recognise that my right hon. Friend has real concerns and real scepticism about the work of the CCG. I hope he will recognise the work that the sustainability and transformation partnership is involved in in the hospital development process, and the fact that the director of strategy took part in a process and evaluation meeting in February 2019, at which a shortlist of our options was discussed. The STP is also due to take part in the next evaluation event.
I understand what my right hon. Friend says about the capital. I hear his criticism and scepticism of the West Hertfordshire hospitals trust, but it has been taking the lead in developing the strategic outline case for change. I understand that it and NHS Improvement had dialogue, and feedback was provided on the strategic outline case for the acute hospital redesign submitted by the trust. I also understand, as he will, that the feedback made two key points: it was clear, first, about the need for funding, and secondly, that the overall public money for hospital redevelopment is relatively limited.
My right hon. Friend has raised the issue of the £350 million; he knows that the turnover figure is a key criterion and a key threshold for capital investment, and that any options that significantly exceed the £350 million capital cost have been excluded from the current shortlist. He is obviously aware of a £750 million figure being used locally, but I must confess I am not aware of that figure. I would be delighted to offer him a chance to sit down and try to work out with me where that figure came in—recognising, as he rightly points out, that it will not be a Minister who makes any decision. If it is helpful to him, I am happy to have that discussion.
Sir Mike Penning
I had that discussion with the Secretary of State, a couple of days after he was appointed. It is not just Ministers that I pick on—Secretaries of State get it in the ear as well. There are two points I would like to touch on. First, how can it be fair to a community that, if it is just based on the turnover of a trust and that trust happens to be a very small one, the provision we get locally is second class? We cannot even go to that territory. Secondly, on the £750 million, I will ask the Minister to step in, because that is the figure being used locally to rule out the greenfield site. There was an evaluation panel, and members of the panel asked for the greenfield site to be put in, and fundamentally, it appears to me, they have been completely ignored.
Stephen Hammond
I made the point a moment ago that, because the cost of that greenfield site exceeds the £350 million threshold, it has currently been dropped from the shortlist of options. My right hon. Friend repeats a point that he made during his speech, questioning the criteria; he will know that I have heard what he has said. As he has just informed me, he has made a representation to the Secretary of State about that figure, and I have offered to have a meeting with him so that we can both explore it.
I do not think that, in the relatively short time available, I should get into the debate about the loan criteria, as I said at the beginning. We can have that debate at some other stage if my right hon. Friend wishes to put it forward, but he knows that at the moment the key threshold for capital investment would be the turnover, and therefore options that significantly exceed a £350 million capital cost have been excluded. As part of the option appraisal process, senior leaders and clinicians, as well as expert analysts, were involved in information gathering to put together the option evaluation. He will know that that included demand and capacity analysis based on population, hospital activity and operational planning.
With regard to reviewing that process, my right hon. Friend, as he said, wrote to both NHS England and NHS Improvement concerning the approval process. As he referenced in his speech, he forwarded to them an email from Professor Ron Glatter of the New Hospital Campaign. I understand that in that email, the professor requested a full statement of the outcomes of NHS Improvement’s review of the trust’s acute transformation strategic outline case.
In its answer, NHS Improvement has so far said that it has not started its formal review because the Treasury and the Department have not yet decided whether the proposal represents a scheme that can in principle be supported by central Government. I recognise the strength and effort of the campaigning for the new hospital option and I acknowledge the expert views that have been sought. While it is obviously not right for me to prejudge the answer from NHS Improvement, I know my right hon. Friend will recognise that I and the Department must take a wider view and that decisions made on capital funding must be the same for everyone across the country.
There has clearly been a huge amount of public engagement throughout the process, and I understand that further public engagement is planned for this month. Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend’s scepticism, I understand that the results of those consultations, in terms of the preferred way forward, will be taken to the trust board and the CCG in June 2019.
I recognise my right hon. Friend’s commitment to improving services; I assure him that the information provided by the New Hospital Campaign is being considered and will be considered as part of the review. As I said, it is not appropriate for Ministers to comment on specific decisions but, as he knows, the Government are determined to encourage innovation and to ensure that all patients have access to high-quality services. The updated proposal will clearly help to inform both the Department and the Treasury about capital allocations in the next spending review. I will not rehearse the arguments about the extra £33.9 billion of cash to support the NHS, or the additional capital and the bid we are putting forward in the comprehensive spending review.
Sir Mike Penning
If we accept that the rules at the moment are that any bid cannot be over the revenue income, which is the £350 million, can the Minister explain to me why, in Birmingham, the new build for 750,000 people cost between £300 million and £350 million, which we know because of the Carillion contract that collapsed, and the Royal Liverpool cost £335 million, yet we have been ruled out of having any new build on land that is actually owned by us—one of the sites is on Crown Estate land, public land—because it would exceed £350 million? I know he probably will not have the ability to answer that this second, but a letter in the next few weeks would be very helpful.
Stephen Hammond
As my right hon. Friend knows, all Ministers can make an attempt at an answer, but I am sure he would prefer a detailed answer. Therefore, I will make that detailed response to him, as he has asked, in a letter. I also know that he would like me to commit to the spending now, but he will know that I am unable to do so at this stage. I have listened carefully to his points about what might be the cost of the redevelopment that he believes should happen, and he will know that I have heard that. He will also know that I have heard the differences that he has pointed out between the supposed or quoted cost and the cost of build in other areas. He knows that I will have taken that on board.
At this stage, with just 30 seconds to go, I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the Chamber and for making the case yet again for his constituents. He should know that the Minister and the Department have listened, and I will respond to him and have that meeting with him.
Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order; I do not think we have time, Sir Mike. There is no right to sum up in a half-hour debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Leaving the EU: Fishing
(5 years, 1 month 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
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered fishing and the UK leaving the EU.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I start by welcoming the Minister to his place. It is incredibly welcome that he is an east coast colleague, and so will understand the particular pressures on the fishing industry in that part of the world. I look forward to building a constructive relationship with him over the many years that I know he will be in post. Many Members will use their contributions to talk about the catching aspect of our fishing sector—both around the whole UK and in their local areas—with which they will be more familiar than me. I will focus on the impact of Brexit on the post-catching aspect of the sector.
The fishing sector has been the hallmark of Grimsby for generations, and factories such as Young’s and Seachill are the largest source of employment for people in Grimsby. Traditional Grimsby smoked fish is perhaps the most recognisable symbol of quality in the fish world. If the Minister has not yet had the chance to try some, I urge him to visit my constituency and to come along to Alfred Enderby, which supplies Marco Pierre White’s restaurants, and hopefully then he will understand exactly why it has such an excellent reputation.
However, the fish that feeds those factories and smoking houses no longer lands at the docks in Grimsby, and often not even in the UK. Instead, the fish processed in my constituency arrives at our factories from across northern Europe. The cod and haddock used by companies such as Young’s and Seachill and enjoyed by many in the fish and chip shops up and down the country are caught in the likes of Norway and Iceland. They are then transferred across Europe, usually by lorry, moved on to a container ship and then put back on a lorry, eventually arriving at their destination. Those companies really worry about the effect of Brexit on their sector.
It is right that we talk about the sector as a whole, including processing. The Government document, “Seafood 2040: A strategic framework for England”, looks at the whole sector, from catching the fish all the way through to its ending up on people’s plates. The strategy covers the industry in its entirety, which is why it is relevant for me to raise these issues. Companies such as Young’s and Seachill rely on seamless supply routes to ensure that the fish that they use arrives in as fresh a state as possible. Any delay in the transport of what is a highly perishable good will have a massive impact on both the quantity of spoiled fish and the quality of the end product in our supermarkets.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentioned, and is a powerful voice for, processors in her constituency. Could she give us some idea of how much of their supply those processors source from EU member states and how much is sourced from places such as Norway and Iceland, which are clearly third countries to the EU at the moment?
Melanie Onn
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we source the majority of our product for processing from Iceland, Norway, the Faroe Islands, Greenland and so on. However, it is worth noting that those countries have European economic area and European Free Trade Agreement agreements with the EU. Our relationship with the EU will impact on those agreements. There is no way, so far as I can see, that we can supersede their existing relationships with the EU. The hon. Lady is shaking her head vigorously from a sedentary position. I am sure that she will address that point in her own comments when the time comes.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Does she share my concern about a no-deal scenario? The Welsh fish and sea fish sector exports 90% of what it produces, much of it to the EU, and is worth £25 million to Wales. Will she join me in calling on the Department to provide financial support in the event of a no-deal scenario?
Melanie Onn
The hon. Lady raises an important point, and £25 million is not an insignificant sum to Wales. We saw this morning the release of proposed tariff rates, which I will come on to later. Perhaps the Minister can offer some reassurance on that. Going ahead with no deal will have a dramatic impact on trading as we know and understand it, because all our systems are set up to work within the current framework. It is absolutely imperative that the Minister hears these issues raised by colleagues.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Lady will doubtless be aware that the tariff guidance published by the Government this morning lists a range of tariffs for imported fish. However, there will of course be zero tariffs between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. First, how workable does she think that scheme will be? Secondly, does she think that it will find favour with processors in her constituency?
Melanie Onn
Certainly, the information we received this morning presents a range of difficulties, as the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight. The difficulties of potentially having zero tariffs on imports coming from Ireland, through Northern Ireland and into the UK will have a dramatic impact on the whole sector’s trade routes. I think the figure put on tariffs for import was 11.9%. I will ask for further information about that, because obviously we had that information only this morning.
It is quite concerning that that information has only been released today. It would have been preferable for these kind of details to be in the public domain at an earlier stage. All parliamentarians have been considering and voting on issues relating to leaving the EU and we are only now finding out some of these facts. That is not in the best interests of the industry and is certainly not in the best interests of people working in the industry in our constituencies around the country. Grimsby’s fish processing sector needs assurances that, come what may, it can continue to enjoy its current seamless supply route. However, industry leaders in the area currently express deep concern about the lack of clarity over how they expect the sector to operate in what could be a matter of weeks.
Currently, health certificates for fish imports from inside the EU or EFTA are only required for species that carry, or are at risk from, controlled diseases, but they are needed for all fish imported from outside the EU. Fish from EU and EFTA nations do not need to go through border checks when entering the UK. Imposing requirements on markets such as Norway and Iceland to provide health certificates for all the fish they export to us would lead to increased border checks on fish from those countries and could mean damaging delays to the delivery of fresh fish into the country. Will the Minister confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to require all fish from markets such as Norway and Iceland to have health certificates once we leave the EU?
If we leave the EU without a deal, all fish exported to the EU will require export health certificates, but companies in my constituency have raised concerns that local environmental health officers simply do not have the resources to facilitate that significant increase in their workload. Can the Minister perhaps put companies’ minds at ease by informing us of what steps the Government are taking to ensure that exporters will not be hindered by struggles to produce health certificates in the very unenviable situation that we leave without a deal?
If there are extra certificates, checks and tariffs, those will all be checked and carried out at our ports, and there are concerns among Grimsby companies that even with a deal, ports will experience a bottleneck post Brexit. We have heard about the plans for lorry parks in Dover, but there are also plans around the country for extra capacity to deal with delays in port areas, and the position is the same in north-east Lincolnshire.
Currently, fish arriving at ports in north-east Lincolnshire have been checked and certified in Iceland before being shipped to the UK. Fish arriving here can be seamlessly transferred because of the long-standing relationship between Grimsby and Iceland. There is enormous trust as a result of that relationship, which has existed for decades. It works, and nobody wants that to change. It means that the fish is moved seamlessly. There is no damage to the product. It comes in, and there is no risk of any kind of perishing of the product when it comes through, which of course would devalue it on the open market.
If the UK imposes its own customs checks on fish once we leave the EU, rather than accepting checks as it does now, that would severely impact the quality and quantity of usable fish that ends up in the UK market. Can the Minister therefore confirm that the Government will continue to accept checks from the likes of Iceland as valid and will not impose further checks at UK ports, which could have severe impacts on the viability of the fishing industry in the UK?
We know that additional funds have been directed towards UK ports. The Humber ports of Immingham, Grimsby, Hull and Goole will share £135,000. However, the “Seafood 2040” document highlights the fact that 72,000 tonnes of fish caught under UK licence are currently landed in ports outside the UK. That issue is partly about infrastructure at ports and partly about inadequate facilities. If the Government really recognise the potential for the future of the fishing industry—the potential to grow as we leave the EU—do they consider that that investment of £135,000 between four different ports in the Humber area will be enough to enable them to cope with future demand? Will it make Grimsby fish stocks ready for the 21st century?
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
May I congratulate those people in my hon. Friend’s area who have secured some of that money for the ports, however inadequate it is. I point out to the Minister—I understand that this is a Department for Transport and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government matter—that of the £3 million in total that is being given to ports across the country, not a single penny is coming to any port in the north-east of England.
Melanie Onn
My right hon. Friend raises a serious issue. There must be equitable distribution of funds. If there is a genuine desire to support the industry, the infrastructure and the facilities must be there. To exclude one at the expense of another is not looking to the future. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to respond to my right hon. Friend’s point in his closing comments.
The additional funding is of course welcome; nobody is going to say no to additional funding, but how it will be shared and distributed and where the priorities will lie are still a concern. When it comes to the spending, will it go to the company that runs the dock facilities, which will have all the responsibility of dealing with the customs checks and perhaps an increase in activity? If Dover is unable to cope, perhaps we will see an increase in freight coming up to our port. What will that mean for the fish stocks and for the auction site? Will it get a share of it? That is not clear. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has any thoughts on that, too.
The concerns are clearly not felt by the processing sector alone. According to the UK Seafood Industry Alliance, we export most of what we catch and we import most of what we eat, with 90% of the cod consumed in the UK coming from outside our borders, and species such as nephrops, which are quite unfamiliar to UK dinner tables, being among our most valuable seafood exports. If we leave without reciprocal and favourable trade arrangements with major importers and exporters, we could easily end up in a situation in which fishermen struggle to make vital profits on export species that are extremely valuable in foreign markets, while we see the cod and haddock in our chippies and supermarkets skyrocket in price as tariffs are slapped on our imports.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
Customers may not recognise nephrops, but they will certainly know what Whitby scampi or Young’s scampi look like.
Melanie Onn
Yes. The Minister makes a key point. Perhaps there is less familiarity with some of the other species that we export, and export very valuably, to the EU markets.
Let me return to the point about tariffs, which we touched on. There was the publication this morning that referred to 11.9% on protected lines. That is the most preferred nation rate. It is what, in the event of no deal, we will be trading on. Can the Minister explain that in greater detail? The information came out only this morning. I have gone to various sources, including the Library, to try to get more detail about exactly which species will be affected and how, but perhaps the Minister can put that on the record here today. If he cannot do so, will there be a ministerial written statement to explain the implications of the tariffs and what they mean for the UK sector?
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Lady will accept that the EU would be absolutely barking mad to embark on a tariff war on fishery and fishing products with the United Kingdom, given our dominance of the sea.
Melanie Onn
We are in a fortunate position, in that the Minister’s predecessor set a very positive tone from the start of the negotiations to leave the EU. I expect that tone to continue under this Minister. He is a very reasonable gentleman, and I expect him to recognise, in the same interest of standing up for the UK fishing sector, that an unnecessarily aggressive approach is not one that he should take. I do not think that there is any desire on either side to start so-called tariff wars. There is a mutually beneficial industry. The common fisheries policy may continue to be a bone of contention, but in more recent years the relationship has improved, and the changes that have been made in the CFP have struck a good balance between the environment and the catching sector. I hope that that will continue, so I hope that the scenario that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) highlights and perhaps foresees does not come to pass. That would not be in anybody’s best interests.
Mr Carmichael
I confess that I am not entirely sure what this means, but the list published by the Government this morning says that
“shrimps of the genus ‘Penaeus’ even smoked or whether in the shell or not—including shrimps in shell cooked by steaming or by boiling in water”
will be subject to a 12% tariff. If that is what we are levying as a tariff on imports, why would the EU not levy something similar on our exports to the EU?
Melanie Onn
The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about what would happen in the event of no deal. We know—we will be voting on this very subject later—that it is highly unlikely that there will be a majority for a no-deal outcome. For this sector, we should perhaps, in the course of the debate taking place in the main Chamber, go and make our voices heard and say exactly why that would be an incredibly unhelpful outcome.
Liz Saville Roberts
Does the hon. Lady share my concern, though, about the withdrawal agreement? The whelk market is worth £6.2 million a year to Wales. It is understood that even if we leave with the withdrawal agreement, there is currently no agreement with South Korea. At the moment, we trade with South Korea under an EU agreement. Processed seafoods, such as whelks, would be subject to a 20% tariff in South Korea if we traded under World Trade Organisation rules.
Melanie Onn
The hon. Lady leads me neatly to a point about international trade and the role of the Secretary of State for International Trade in securing deals. As I see it—I am sure hon. Members on the Government Benches will leap to the defence of the Secretary of State—there has been such a strong desire to ratchet up the number of confirmed trade deals that, in some circumstances, they have been made at the expense of the fishing sector. The hon. Lady’s point stands, but I would like to expand on the example of the Faroe Islands deal.
It is good that a deal has been done with the Faroe Islands. In the fishing sector, the Faroe Islands is a relative small exporter to this country, exporting about 35,000 tonnes, which is much less than Norway and Iceland. In previous fisheries debates, we have discussed the fact that the catching sector has been kept very separate from the trading element. At the time, we all agreed that it was probably a good thing not to combine the two, because it would get too complicated. In the case of the Faroe Islands, it seems the deal has been made at the expense of—
Melanie Onn
Mackerel, I am reliably informed by the right hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position. If that is the blueprint for future deals with Iceland and Norway, it will not serve our industry well. I wonder what conversations have taken place between the Department for International Trade and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on this specific issue. If there have not been detailed conversations, perhaps there could be such conversations in advance of signing up to any more deals, which otherwise will make it more difficult for companies that catch and trade in fish to continue their business. Companies that rely on importing say that we need to focus on deals with major suppliers, such as Norway, Iceland and Canada, if we are to have a seamless transition post Brexit.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Is the hon. Lady aware that in the trade deal between the UK and the US, fish and fish products are included with industrial goods? While agriculture is excluded and protected in that deal, bizarrely, fish is not.
Melanie Onn
That point has been discussed in previous debates on this matter. It complicates the issue of whether things are considered food or industrial goods, or whether they come under farming. Therefore, it is unclear which Department has responsibility for and understanding of the fishing industry, which is a complex industry, because it encompasses so many different elements, as we discussed.
Will the Minister confirm what discussions he or his Department—given his recent appointment—have had with the Department for International Trade about the importance of getting those deals with major suppliers over the line? Will he inform us of the status of the deals with Norway and Iceland, and whether we can expect favourable trade terms for fish when we leave the EU, regardless of the scenario in which we leave?
I know that people in the industry are very concerned at the amount of repetition that occurs in paperwork and fear that it will only get worse post Brexit. Are there any plans to simplify the often arduous paperwork? Currently, there are no digital solutions in place that I am aware of to reduce the burden of the bureaucracy on people throughout the sector.
Finally, regarding the future of the fishing sector, I know that people in Grimsby would be delighted to see the rebirth of its traditional fishing industry, to sit alongside the new, emerging sector in offshore wind energy. There remain issues around training, awareness and skills. Even in the industry as it stands, we have not managed to get those things right as a country. I hope the Minister will put all his efforts into ensuring that we have the best possible industry in future.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We have about half an hour before I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, leaving about five and a half to six minutes for each speaker. I do not want to impose a time limit.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), my colleague in the all-party parliamentary fisheries group, on securing this debate. My constituency of Banff and Buchan is estimated to have been the most pro-Brexit constituency in Scotland—in fact, it was the only constituency in Scotland that voted to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum. That is unsurprising in the context of this debate, given that it is home to two of Europe’s largest fishing ports. Peterhead is the largest white fish port in Europe and Fraserburgh is the largest for shellfish.
Fishermen across the UK have endured 45 years of their industry being run down through being a member of the EU and the common fisheries policy. They voted to take us out of the EU and the CFP. For years, they have compared their industry, declining under the CFP, to the Norwegian and Icelandic fishing industries, and even to that of the Faroese, all of which have flourished. Opposition to the CFP is a major reason why those countries have refused to join the EU.
It is clear that we can forge a better way as an independent coastal state with our own fisheries policy, but it is important that we get this right. We must ensure that we leave the CFP and take back control of our waters no later than the end of 2020. The UK Government have committed to that repeatedly. I hope that my amendment to the Fisheries Bill currently going through Parliament, ensuring that we do become an independent coastal state by the end of 2020, will reinforce that commitment and reassure fishermen across the country.
Likewise, it is vital that any future relationship with the EU does not compromise our status as an independent coastal state in exchange for some other priority, which would be a betrayal of the fishing communities. I have repeatedly said that I could not support any future arrangement that does not advance the interests of fishermen in general, and Scottish fishermen and those in my constituency in particular.
The Government have repeatedly committed to lead us out of the CFP, to become an independent coastal state. When that is achieved we can control the access to our waters for all foreign fishing vessels and secure a greater supply of fish for our industry, without compromising on sustainability. That rebuilding process will require more than those measures alone.
Decades of decline in the industry, coupled with the appeal of the oil and gas industry in north-east Scotland, have made it particularly difficult for the industry to attract local labour to crew fishing vessels, leaving us heavily reliant on attracting foreign crew. In Scotland, approximately 400 fishing crew come from the EU and twice that number come from places outside the EU, such as the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Ghana.
The industry has already made moves to return to reliance on local workers in the future, and is willing to work with the UK Government to achieve that, but for the time being it expects to continue having to employ significant numbers of foreign crew, especially from non-EEA countries. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby will appreciate, that applies to the seafood processing industry, which is heavily reliant on foreign labour.
Across the fisheries sector, the increased supply that Brexit promises will exacerbate the need for foreign staff in the short term. It would be tragic for British fisheries to be liberated from the CFP, only to be held back by labour shortages. I have been consistent in calling on the UK Government to ensure that their future immigration policy is fair for the entire UK fisheries sector.
Dr Whitford
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that inshore on the east coast, and particularly on the west coast, where all fishing is inshore because of the Hebrides and the Outer Hebrides, we have an even greater problem in getting visas for non-EEA fishermen? We require a fishing or seafarers visa. At least a lot of fishing in the north-east is outside the inshore limit.
David Duguid
I agree with the hon. Lady. It is a cross-party concern: the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) and I have repeatedly approached the Immigration Minister on that basis.
I was going to encourage the Minister to engage with the industry, but I found out recently—I think he announced it yesterday—that he is going to visit my constituency to discuss the investment opportunities in the sector. That is most welcome. It is not enough to suddenly have access to more of our own fish in our own waters; we need to expand our capacity to catch, land and process our seafood, and we need to expand that capacity rapidly—perhaps more rapidly than business will be able to do naturally. We must ensure that our fish and seafood produce can be easily exported to markets around the world.
Mr Carmichael
When the hon. Gentleman shows the Minister the investment opportunities in his constituency, he should probably also take him to local veterinary practices, which are now being sounded out about their ability to produce export health certificates in the highlands and islands and Aberdeenshire. In a no-deal Brexit, the Scottish Government expect that somewhere in the region of 150,000 certificates will be required in Scotland, but local authorities do not have the capacity to deal with that 3,000% increase. They are looking to vets to fill the gap.
David Duguid
The right hon. Gentleman makes a couple of interesting points. One reason why I supported the withdrawal agreement last night was that it would have helped to alleviate that. The need for additional environmental health inspectors has been repeatedly raised with me by the fishing industry in my constituency. They are employed through the local council but no funding has been received from the Scottish Government for them, although I understand that English councils have received about £56 million overall for EU exit preparations.
I am conscious of time, so I will finish. As I said, we must ensure that our fish and seafood produce can be easily exported to markets. These are turbulent times for Brexit and for the country more generally, but we must never forget the hope that led many of our coastal communities to vote to leave the EU and the CFP. We can vindicate that hope, and I believe that the Government are committed to doing so, but delivering on that commitment will not be straightforward. It will require a cross-industry and cross-Government vision of our islands becoming the world-class global centre of excellence that they can be in the fisheries sector.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak on this matter, Mr Stringer. I do not think a fishing debate has taken place during my time in Westminster that I have not participated in. People may say, “Well, he participates in most debates”, but that is by the way. The predecessor of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) was the instigator of many fishing debates and it was always a pleasure to work with him, as it is to work alongside the hon. Lady now.
It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), with whom I see eye to eye on many fishing issues. He highlighted the issue of the Filipino fishermen, who we have spoken to the Minister about. The Minister knows the story only too well, because the four parties involved have made cross-party representations to him to try to bring about changes. We are fortunate to have the Minister in his place and I look forward to working with him. I also thank the former Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for his contribution, because he was definitely a friend of the fishermen as well.
The Minister was a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which did an inquiry into fishing, so he knows the issues. He also had an opportunity to visit my constituency, especially the village port of Portavogie. He sampled and enjoyed the wonderful Portavogie prawns and scampi, so when I say they are the best in the world, he knows that they clearly are.
The other issue that came up in the visit to the village port of Portavogie was the boats and the fact that many of them were old—we talked about it yesterday, as the Minister will recall. We need reinvestment in the fishing fleets in Portavogie, and in Ardglass and Kilkeel. In this House, I represent the fishermen and fishing sector in Portavogie, but I also have the opportunity and privilege of representing the fishermen in Ardglass and Kilkeel, given that the hon. Member for South Down (Chris Hazzard) unfortunately does not feel that it is his duty as a Member of Parliament to come to the House and represent the fishing sector. That is a story for another day, although it is true and factually correct.
The difficulties with fishing post Brexit could be no different from today, but I am quite confident about the future and I believe that the situation will improve. The fishing sector in my village of Portavogie is confident about where it will go and what it will do. The investment and the money that the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority has spent in Portavogie harbour is significant and welcome. We are also pleased that significant multimillion-pound projects are planned for Kilkeel post Brexit.
On a slightly different issue, I mention to the Minister the issue of the eel fishery, which we looked at in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I am mindful of the time, so with that introductory comment, I will quickly comment on one issue.
The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and I brought the issue of the voisinage agreement to the Minister’s attention. He responded to me in a letter after I applied for an urgent question, which the process of the House unfortunately did not allow to happen. I put on the record my annoyance on behalf of the fishing sector. We talk about post Brexit, but here is an example of what could happen to us.
The voisinage agreement means that Irish fishermen can fish in our waters close to the shore, and enables us to do the same, but a court case brought by Irish fish producers down south legally restricted the option and possibility of our fishermen—British fishermen—fishing in their waters. Under that legal agreement, they seized two fishing boats from Kilkeel and arrested the crew. At that point, some sanity crept into the process at long last. The Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation and the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation released a statement, but in fairness, the judge in the court down south realised that the matter could be dealt with in only one way, and released them. That increased our angst about it, however.
For our fishermen who have fished under the voisinage agreement, and for the future of fishing, that is a warning signal that we cannot afford to ignore when we move out of the EU and into better times. We have continued to allow Irish boats access to our fisheries as part of our gentlemen’s agreement and as a nod to good working relations, and the behaviour of the British Government, the Minister and the Minister before him has been above reproach, yet that was the Irish Government’s response to our decent hard-working fishermen. They need to be reminded of the harsh truth; I am sure the hon. Member for South East Cornwall will do likewise.
I am conscious of the time, so I will skip forward to the other issue. I welcomed the immediate statements from the Irish Government; it appeared that they had realised that their aggressive approach and the arrest of our fishermen was not in the spirit of co-operation or neighbourliness. Despite the commitments made by the Irish Prime Minister and deputy Prime Minister, however, who indicated that in the light of the situation, they would table legislation in the Irish Parliament to resolve the matter, I have seen little or no evidence of that so far. Again, I ask the Minister to update us on where the Irish Government are on that. Our fishermen need assurances that the Government will hold the Republic of Ireland to their commitment to pass legislation to resolve the voisinage agreement in the immediate term.
The previous Minister told us that he was committed to doing that at a meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and I held with the two fishing producers organisations in December last year. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs addressed a group of industry representatives in London stating that he and the Home Secretary were working to ensure that there would be a route for non-EEA fishermen into the industry post Brexit. I mentioned that earlier, and I mention it again. There seems to be some welcome news coming. Indeed, it is an essential component to any fishing policy.
I finish by making something abundantly clear: the post-Brexit fishing potential is enormous. It can bring great dividends. We must make the most of it, and stop kowtowing to those who have no respect or regard for us. They are taking care of their own and now, I believe, it is the Minister’s job to take care of us.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Leaving the common fisheries policy provides so many opportunities for the UK fishing industry. Article 62 of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea states that any surplus, and only the surplus, that UK vessels are unable to take from UK waters needs to be made available to other nations, and the UN fish stocks agreement protects shared stocks that transit between each country’s waters.
Leaving the CFP means an opportunity to boost our fishing industry, rather than allowing other member states to simply come in and take fish from UK waters, as is the case when the French take 80% of the cod from waters off the south-west coast—we will be able to take that with our fleet. That has the potential to benefit the UK economy: we will no longer be just giving away this very valuable UK asset to other nations to profit from, with no benefit at all to the Exchequer.
I pay tribute to the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—he did a really good job—and I welcome the Minister to his place. I cannot think of a better person to represent the fishermen for whom I care so much.
Leaving the CFP gives us the potential to implement measures that will attract young blood into the fishing industry. The industry has been in decline for the last 40 years, and we have the potential to grow it. I pay tribute to my joint co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who I know really cares about the processing sector. I also pay tribute to her predecessor, who I knew for many years and who I worked with on the Save Britain’s Fish campaign, since he was—
Mrs Murray
Absolutely. Austin Mitchell was a great man, and the fishing industry cared so much for him.
Mrs Murray
Yes, but he is not an MP any more. Sorry—I should have said he was a great MP!
Processors source much of the fish used in their factories from outside the EU—from Iceland and Norway, in particular. As an independent coastal state, we can set up deals with those nations. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby mentioned the European economic area. I may be wrong, and the Minister may correct me, but as I understand it, protocol 9 of the EEA agreement refers to no tariffs between EU and EEA nations, but does not prevent the European Free Trade Association—the three nations that sign up to the EEA—from signing bilateral agreements, either collectively or independently. I genuinely believe that there is an opportunity for the United Kingdom to sign trade deals that could benefit our processing sector with those nations.
I also believe that our membership of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission provides us with a very real opportunity to speak to other nations that are not part of the European Union club. We have been hampered by our membership of the European Union for the past 40 years. I also understand that the EEA agreement excludes fisheries and agriculture, apart from some areas of compliance with regard to fisheries products. Could the Minister confirm that?
Finally, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is time for the UK to take action under the voisinage agreement to stop the Republic of Ireland from imposing what I would describe as a hard border between the six-mile limit off the Republic of Ireland and that in UK waters off the coast of Northern Ireland. I hope the Minister can give us that assurance today.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to welcome the new Minister to his place. I thank his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for his sterling efforts over the past few years. I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) on securing this debate. Her timing is particularly auspicious.
Although the final form that Brexit will take is uncertain at present, I believe that, generally, the Government and Parliament have used the period from 23 June 2016 up to now to good effect—focusing on the UK fishing industry and gradually putting in place a policy framework that will revive the industry.
To revitalise the industry in Lowestoft and along the East Anglian coast, which is now a very pale shadow of its former self, we need to address three challenges. First, local fishermen must be given the opportunity to catch enough fish to earn a fair living and to supply local markets, processors and mongers. Secondly, we must put in place a sustainable fisheries management system. Thirdly, we must ensure that the benefits of properly managed fisheries go to local people, local communities and local businesses.
My view is that, although there is still much work to do, we are gradually moving in the right direction and making progress. The cornerstone for the revival of UK fisheries is taking back control of our waters so that we decide who fishes there and on what terms. The Prime Minister has come under much pressure in negotiations to compromise on that undertaking. She has not done so and, whatever happens in the next few months, it is vital that we do not give ground on that point.
Mr Carmichael
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister has compromised on this—she compromised when she said she would put fisheries into the transitional arrangement period.
Peter Aldous
From my perspective, the Prime Minister has come under a lot of pressure from the French and the Dutch, and she has not given way in a meaningful sense.
Despite the fact that I tabled a large number of amendments to the Fisheries Bill when it was in Committee, it is generally a good document and Ministers and officials are to be commended for drafting it to such good effect under such time pressure. That said, it does need some changes. I have tabled an amendment to promote the fairer distribution of fishing opportunities, and we need to consider strengthening what is known as the economic link. Furthermore, although the Government have laid down a statutory instrument to outlaw electro-pulse fishing, there is a worry that loopholes are being left open. I wrote to the previous Minister detailing those concerns and, if they cannot be addressed, we may need to consider outlawing that abhorrent and completely unsustainable practice through provisions in the Bill.
To make the most of the opportunity to ensure that Lowestoft and other East Anglian fishing communities reap the Brexit dividend, the industry in East Anglia, under the leadership of June Mummery and Paul Lines, has formed the Renaissance of East Anglian Fishing. With the assistance of Waveney District Council, a grant has been obtained from the Marine Management Organisation to develop a long-term strategy for the East Anglian fishing industry. Additional financial support has been provided by the east Suffolk councils, Suffolk County Council, Norfolk County Council and Seafish. The work, which is being carried out by Vivid Economics, is now under way. It looks at the current state of the industry and will come up with a strategy for its revitalisation all the way from the net to the plate. I anticipate that it will highlight where investment is needed in port infrastructure, skills and supply chain building, and I expect that we will be making submissions to the Chancellor’s autumn Budget.
The project is exciting and could prove to be a blueprint that could be replicated around the coast. I invite the Minister to visit us in Lowestoft to find out more about it.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. It is always an honour to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who is well known for his knowledge of these matters. As he knows, I have family connections to Lowestoft, and it is good to hear him.
The Minister was a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and had the honour of visiting Northern Ireland on many occasions during that time. He of course visited Portavogie and other ports, and met fishermen there; he was a keen Committee member. We prepared a report on fisheries in Northern Ireland, and the conclusions and recommendations were welcomed by the fishing industry there, as he will know. Unfortunately, however, the Committee and industry have still not received a substantive response to the report from the Government. Now that the Minister is effectively a poacher turned gamekeeper, perhaps when he is in the Department he could rustle up a powerful and positive response to it, to ensure that the industry and indeed the Committee is better informed about Government thinking on the key issues we identified. The report recorded the enormous potential that Brexit offers the industry in Northern Ireland. The common fisheries policy has had a detrimental impact there, and we want to rectify that—something that the industry looks forward to.
The United Kingdom has previously stated its intention of leaving procedures for importing seafood unchanged. Today that has been reinforced by the Government’s announcement of no tariffs on produce entering Northern Ireland from the Republic. Clearly that must be reciprocated by Dublin and the EU. Otherwise, as I said in an intervention, it is the Republic of Ireland that stands to lose more in a tariff war with the rest of the United Kingdom, given its dependence on British sea waters. No one wants that; we want to be good neighbours to the Republic of Ireland, and we have been good neighbours. However, it is important that people recognise that the hard border in Northern Ireland is actually a hard sea border, where the fishermen of the Republic of Ireland have denied access to our fishermen. That has to be rectified. I wait with interest to see whether an amendment going through the Irish Parliament in Dublin will rectify the situation and ensure that the reciprocal voisinage agreement once again operates fairly for our fishermen in Northern Ireland.
Our report came out in December, at which time the Minister for Immigration would have been aware of the issues that affect the Minister’s constituency in this regard. The Minister met fishing representatives in Northern Ireland, and heard that among the issues that affect them is the fact that Whitby Seafoods, based in his constituency and employing 250 people in Kilkeel in Northern Ireland, needs to maintain supplies of raw material to its factories. Without crews, one of the trawlers is clearly going to stop operating. Over two years and longer, there has been no resolution, although, interestingly, owners will shortly pay Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tax for their crew who are not from the European economic area. That seems a little ironic given what a grey area the question of status in the United Kingdom is.
We look forward to those issues being resolved by a Minister who had his hands on the issues while in other service. I hope that the concerns of people who raise the harvest from the sea will be identified appropriately and resolved to our satisfaction.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I call Philippa Whitford. I will call the SNP spokesperson at 3.30 pm.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Scottish industry dominates because of the sheer scale of its share of water around Scotland. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) said, the industry is overwhelmingly based at Peterhead. However, there is a significant difference between the industry on the east and west coasts. In the east there is inshore fishing, but deep sea fishing predominates. That brings up the issue of visas, which I mentioned earlier. Non-EEA crew can get transit visas and join a ship. That is not available on the west coast or to inshore fishing.
David Duguid
On a point of clarification, the hon. Lady is obviously correct to comment on the vastness of the waters, and the fact that the Scottish area is huge—and that there is an emphasis on deep sea fishing in Peterhead, as well as Fraserburgh and Lerwick in Shetland. However, there are a lot of smaller-scale fishermen from those ports who fish on the west coast.
Dr Whitford
I did say that there is inshore fishing. On the west coast it is predominantly inshore fishing. In Troon in my constituency, we have the south-west Scotland fish market. It is very much a matter of small boats, and of nephrops, lobster and langoustine. Eighty-five per cent. of that harvest is sent to the EU. People make statements about all fishermen supporting leave, but that is not the case. The Clyde Fishermen’s Association and the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Association have withdrawn from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation because they felt that the only view ever put forward was for leave, as if fishermen were unanimous.
I understand that there are major issues with the common fisheries policy, but lots of issues that have been blamed on it are nothing to do with it. One is the fact that 80% of all the boats in Scotland share 1% of quota. The rest has largely been dominated by a handful of companies. In England the figure is 77% sharing 3% of quota. A lot of change would have to happen in the UK to make sure that the industry has quota. Norway has been mentioned. Why not look at having community quota, so that quota remains where it should be and is not transferred, as happens in Scotland—bought up and transferred from the west coast to the east? When we talk about opportunities for coastal communities, that must include the harbour, market and processors. The processors employ more people and generate higher gross value added than the fishermen. We must look at the whole supply chain. We do not feel that that is happening.
The right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Sir Alan Campbell) mentioned that there was no funding for ports in north-east England. No Brexit preparation funding has come to ports in Scotland. I am not sure of the situation in Northern Ireland. Up and down the west coast, we cannot get crew and have boats tied up, so the industry is on its knees. That is not to do with the common fisheries policy; it has to do with decisions made here.
As I have said, most of our produce from south-west Scotland goes to Europe. As was mentioned, under WTO there would be a 12% tariff, but fishing is excluded from the customs union, even within the withdrawal deal. We have a particular problem because of the Irish backstop. Northern Ireland fishermen could fish right in close to our waters, land fish and send it through southern Ireland at 0% tariff, whereas the more that was processed, the higher the tariff would be. Scottish salmon dominates the smoked salmon market in Europe. It is one of the biggest food exports of the UK. It beats Norwegian salmon, which carries a 13% tariff. We will lose our aquaculture advantage, and Scottish smoked salmon could also end up with a 13% tariff. The idea that this is all easy and will be beneficial to fishermen is simply not true.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I welcome the Minister to his place. I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) on securing this debate, which gives Members another opportunity to raise their concerns about the effect that Brexit will have on their fishing industries. I say “industries” because it is important to recognise the great differences that lie underneath the catch-all term “fishing industry”, and all too often only the voices and opinions of the big players are heard or considered newsworthy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) rightly said, in Scotland about three quarters of our active fishing vessels fish primarily in inshore waters, which are defined as those up to 12 nautical miles from shore. As Member of Parliament for Argyll and Bute, I am well aware of the importance of the fishing sector to the economic wellbeing of my constituency. As well as having an inshore fishing fleet, Argyll and Bute produces and exports enormous quantities of shellfish and has a hugely valuable Scottish salmon industry. Although those industries may do different things, they are linked by a couple of vital threads. First, they need to be able to recruit the right people to crew their boats and process their catch, and secondly they need guaranteed, fast and unimpeded access to markets. I believe that Brexit, in whatever form it eventually takes, threatens all that, and I do not think that that feeling of trepidation about what lies ahead is confined to the west coast of Scotland or the inshore fleet.
Brendan O’Hara
I will make some progress for now. In a debate last November I quoted from an article in the Financial Times by Mure Dickie who, during a visit to Peterhead, spoke to at least one fish wholesaler based there who believed that they had been sold down the river once again.
Brendan O'Hara
Let me finish my point. Interestingly, a couple of weeks ago, the Financial Times asked Mure Dickie to visit the west coast of Scotland to see how the promise of the bright new post-Brexit world was going down with fishing communities in Argyll and Bute. What he found bore a striking similarity to what he had encountered in north-east Scotland. When asked about the “sea of opportunity” that was promised to fishing communities during the referendum, Kenny MacNab from Tarbert, who chairs the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, replied:
“It’s only a sea of opportunity for a few. It’s not a sea of opportunity for the west coast inshore fleet”.
Just down the road in Campbeltown, long-time skipper Andrew Harrison said:
“We haven’t got the fishing opportunities to gain out of Brexit. We’ve got a hell of a lot more to lose”.
For fishing communities—from large producers in north-east Scotland to the inshore fleet on the west coast—the promised sunlit uplands of a painless extraction from the European Union, in which the UK will dictate who can fish in our waters and exactly how much they can take, while still receiving tariff-free access to the European Union, have been replaced by cold reality. Their sense of betrayal is palpable. That is not what people were promised; that is not what was written on the side of a bus.
Mrs Murray
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm what he appears to be saying, which is that Scottish National party policy is to remain in the common fisheries policy?
Brendan O’Hara
I am referring back to the debate we had last November, and indeed before then; we have had this verbal ping-pong before, and I will not be taken down that blind alley again. [Interruption.] I will make some progress.
I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous); like it or not, the EU has already linked gaining access to UK waters with access to markets. That suggests that any increase in quota for UK boats could come at the price of new trade barriers. That is an inescapable fact; that is what the EU is going for. Let us be honest: United Kingdom Governments do not have the best track record in defending the interests of the fishing industry when it is expedient for them not to do so.
In 2016, fishing, aquaculture and fish processing combined generated just short of £1 billion to the Scottish economy, and employed 15,000 people. In 2017, Scottish vessels landed just short of 0.5 million tonnes of sea fish and shellfish. However, it is one thing to catch and land fish, but quite another if there is no market to sell it in. Right now, we have a mature, stable and growing market. Fifteen days from now, who knows what we will have? That is causing grave concern in the Scottish fishing industry.
The European Union is by far the most important export market for Scottish seafood; in 2017, 189,000 tonnes of Scottish seafood, with a value in excess of £700 million, was exported to the EU. Fishermen in my constituency have perfected the art of getting langoustine, lobster or prawns out of the water and on to tables in some of the best restaurants in Europe in a matter of hours. That does not happen by chance. That has taken 40 years of dedicated hard work, and we will not stand by and watch it be thrown away by this Government’s incompetence, intransigence, and ideologically motivated red lines. As members of the European Union, we enjoy tariff-free access to 27 member states. No Brexit deal out there could be better for our exporters than the one we already have as full members of the European Union.
Dr Whitford
Does my hon. Friend see the danger in the fact that if fish processors on the continent require fish, they can invite fish catch landing at zero tariff? That could take fish from the North sea to the continent, which would mean that processors, harbours, and the rest of the supply chain here would not get to handle it.
Brendan O’Hara
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will touch briefly on fishing tariffs. We all feared that catastrophic tariffs would accompany a no-deal Brexit, and at 7 o’clock this morning we found out just how catastrophic they would be. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) pointed out, the suggested tariffs are colossal and include a 7.5% tariff on monkfish, 15% on frozen fish, 12% on shrimp, 12% on nephrops, and 24% on tuna. I do not share the optimism of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that the EU will not at the very least reciprocate when it comes to those tariffs. Those figures are potentially ruinous for the industry and will cost thousands of jobs in areas of the country that can least afford to lose them. I hope that every MP who cares for the future of this industry will join me in the Lobby tonight to ensure that no deal is taken off the table.
This debate is not solely about the tariff regime; a lot of other issues are deeply concerning. Last month I hosted a fishing summit; 60 skippers from all over the west coast of Scotland and beyond came to meet the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy in the Scottish Government. Had anyone else bothered to turn up, they would have heard concerns about the loss of the European maritime and fisheries fund, how the quota has operated historically, and how the crippling cost of buying or renting quota is blocking new entrants to the industry.
In conclusion, for more than two years the UK Government and Westminster have offered Scotland, its people and its businesses nothing more than crippling uncertainty, and there is no prospect of that ending soon. More and more people are coming to the conclusion that only independence as a member of the European Union will save Scotland and its peoples. I look forward to the day when we can work with our neighbours and friends in Europe, collectively and collaboratively, on a fishing policy that benefits us and our neighbours.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) on securing the debate. Her timing could not have been better, because this debate gives the Minister an opportunity to let us know what he thinks about fishing and to clarify some of the remarks on his website, which I hope he will do shortly.
This debate has also been a chance for Members to ask where the Fisheries Bill is, because as we approach the end of this parliamentary Session we want to know where it is, when it will make a return, and whether it will be carried over to the next Session or whether it will fall, meaning that the process would have to start all over again. I realise that the Minister’s views may be subtly different from those of his predecessor, and I would be grateful if he clarified that when he gets to his feet. Nevertheless, I welcome him to his post, as I did in yesterday’s debate about farming; then, I welcomed him as the new farming Minister and now I welcome him as the new fisheries Minister. He has quite a portfolio of challenges ahead of him and Labour Members wish him well, because it is really important that fisheries policy is got right.
I will spend the brief time I have today talking about what fishing should look like after Brexit. There is an opportunity to recast fishing policy and to address the genuine concerns that have been raised about the common fisheries policy; like my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby, I am no fan of the CFP. However, concerns have been raised about the additional powers that the Government are considering, how they will be used and whether the Government are using the powers they already have to make the lives of fishers better.
It is worth saying that the Labour party does not oppose the Fisheries Bill. However, like the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who mirrors lots of my views about fisheries, there are still improvements that should be made to it. In particular, we need to consider how the Fisheries Bill can create truly sustainable fisheries. Our fishing needs to be sustainable, both environmentally and economically. In the past, those two elements have been seen as being opposed to each other, when in fact they are the same thing. If we do not have a sustainable fisheries policy, we will not have the fish, which means we will not have the fishing fleet, the processors and the industry, which would further affect our coastal communities.
That is why sustainability needs to be at the heart of the Fisheries Bill. The Minister’s predecessor was not so generous as to accept an amendment from the Opposition that sought to change the name of the Fisheries Bill to the “Sustainable Fisheries Bill”. Nevertheless, I would like to see the new Minister to put sustainability throughout the Bill. We need to ensure that, regarding what comes after Brexit, the Fisheries Bill considers how we can regenerate our coastal communities, gives a fairer deal to our small fleets in particular, ensures a high level of marine safety by UK boats and—importantly—by foreign boats in our waters, promotes fishing co-operatives, and deals with the grand rhetoric and huge promises that the Secretary of State and others in Government have made about what fishing can get out of Brexit, because, as has already been mentioned, there have been concerns about the betrayal of fishers.
I encourage the new Minister to be cautious about making any grand promises, because, as we have heard about fishing in the transition period, promises that have been made to the industry and repeated time and again have not been delivered. I therefore invite him to be cautious about some of the words that he uses, to make sure that there are no additional betrayals or disruption.
The Labour party believes there is an opportunity to use the Fisheries Bill and post-Brexit fishing to consider redistribution of quotas. It is really important to consider how we can support the small-scale fleets in particular in post-Brexit fishing. There is an opportunity, with the powers that the Minister already has under the CFP, to consider reallocation of quotas and whether our quota system is the right one.
The Minister, writing on his own website, has come out in support of effort-based regimes regarding quota allocation. Many of us in this House hoped that that had been put behind us, so I would be grateful if he clarified his view on effort-based regimes, especially as they were not front and centre in the Fisheries Bill. As we go forward, it is important that the promise to coastal communities that Brexit will deliver more jobs and more fish is delivered, and it can be delivered through fair distribution, within the CFP and outside it. That needs to be written throughout the Fisheries Bill.
Another issue that we discussed in the Fisheries Bill Committee was marine safety. Brexit must be used as an opportunity to increase marine safety, for not only for UK boats but foreign boats. At that time, the Minister’s predecessor did not want to consider a suggestion from the Opposition to require foreign boats to have the same high environmental standards and marine safety standards as UK boats. However, there are great opportunities to adopt more widely what is already going on.
I invite the Minister to consider the lifejacket scheme being pioneered by Labour-run Plymouth City Council. This scheme has been developed with the industry to provide new lifejackets to fishers—let us face it: fishers do not always wear the lifejackets that we know they should wear—to ensure that the buckle does not get in the way of their work, and, importantly, that there is a personal locator beacon on every single lifejacket, so that if a fisher falls overboard or comes into contact with seawater, the PLB activates and the “search” is taken out of the search and rescue operation. Although responsibility for this scheme is shared with the Department for Transport, developing it further is something that the Minister could achieve a quick win on.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very well aware that I have a personal interest in safety at sea. Does he welcome the fact, as I do, that in the last Budget the Government made quite a considerable sum of money available for safety equipment for fishermen?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady, who has a neighbouring constituency to mine, for that intervention. It is good that we have two MPs from the far south-west championing fisheries in this debate. However, I would like to know what that money is being spent on, because I am cautious about press releases and announcements, and I want to see action, including action to spread the best practice of that lifejacket scheme to every single one of our fishing communities. That could be really strong action.
I agree with the hon. Member for Waveney, who made some compelling points about strengthening the economic link; we know that for every one job at sea, there are 10 jobs at home in fish processing. However, the Fisheries Bill does not strengthen that link; it is nowhere near strong enough in that regard. I therefore invite the Minister to consider how we can strengthen that economic link. Labour’s proposal to ensure that at least 50% of all fish caught under a UK licence is landed in a UK port could be a huge step forward in that respect.
I also press the Minister to do more to support the development of fishing co-operatives, in both the catching sector and the processing sector. Fishing co-operatives are a real success story; from the south-west of England to Scotland, they have prospered largely without Government support. Their potential for expansion, with a fairer share of wealth and power in our coastal communities, is vast.
I hope that the Minister will carefully consider ways to encourage the establishment of more co-operatives, and that he will work with Labour and Co-operative MPs to help double the size of the co-operative sector in fishing. There is a real opportunity to keep the money that is generated by fishing in those coastal communities by building more co-operatives.
Finally, because I realise my time is running out, I repeat that I share the concerns of my “double” from across the aisle—the hon. Member for Waveney—about electric pulse beam fishing. I know that we had a brief conversation about that in the margins of yesterday’s debate on farming, but I put on the record the Opposition’s real concern about electric pulse beam fishing. It is a cruel method of fishing. As a nation, we should be proud to say that we will not allow it in our waters. I know that the Minister is taking steps to look again at the licences of UK boats engaged in electric pulse beam fishing, but the statutory instrument that was tabled by his predecessor would allow 5% of the UK fleet—around 200 boats—to use this cruel method of fishing, which is simply not good enough. We should ban electric pulse beam fishing and allow it only under scientific derivations when there is a clear scientific case for it, and we should not use the case for science—as some of our Dutch friends do—to create commercial fisheries that use electric pulse beam fishing.
There is a huge opportunity to make sure that our coastal communities receive the investment they need, because in many cases those communities have been hit hardest by the austerity of the last nine years, and if we are to realise the promises made during the leave campaign, and since the referendum, about the benefits that can derive from a revised fisheries policy, we need the Minister not only to ensure that the regulations and laws that come after Brexit work, but to use the powers that he already has to ensure a fairer distribution of quota and more investment in our coastal communities.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, may I ask him to leave a minute or 90 seconds at the end of his remarks for the proposer of the debate to wind up?
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
Thank you very much for that, Mr Stringer, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greater Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who is my relatively near neighbour on the other side of the Humber, for securing this important debate.
As a former shipping Minister, I know Grimsby very well. Indeed, I recall that, years ago, when I first entered Parliament, there was the annual fishing debate, when Austin Mitchell and I would often engage in speeches. By the way, I am very pleased to know that he is still alive, but he will be very pleased when the UK finally leaves the European Union, as will the many people in Greater Grimsby who voted to leave.
I begin my first debate as fisheries Minister by paying tribute to our fishermen, who regularly risk their lives to provide healthy, sustainable and nutritious food in what is still one of the most dangerous jobs in this country. My thoughts are with the fishermen who have suffered loss and injury and with their families, and I thank those in the rescue services for their bravery and dedication. Before I turn to the notes I have prepared, I will comment on some of the points that have been made during the debate, which are probably more important. I particularly want to address the hon. Lady’s point about tariffs, and the situation in Northern Ireland.
Leaving the EU with a negotiated deal remains the best outcome for the UK, and I am disappointed that so many people in this room, particularly those on the Opposition Benches, did not vote last night to leave the European Union on 29 March. Doing so would have moved us on from many of the concerns that Members expressed about a no-deal Brexit.
Liz Saville Roberts
I know that many fishermen are watching this debate. Will the Minister tell fishermen in Wales who export processed whelks to South Korea what their future will be under the withdrawal agreement? I emphasise to the Minister that the highest percentage of small vessels in the United Kingdom are Welsh vessels. Ninety per cent. of Welsh vessels are under 10 metres, and many of their owners make their money out of this sort of industry. The withdrawal agreement could be devastating for them—I declare an interest, because my daughter is the part owner of exactly one of those vessels. Will the Minister commit to providing financial support to fishermen who trade under non-EU free trade agreements in this current situation of uncertainty?
Mr Goodwill
South Korea, as we know, is not in the European Union, and therefore Brexit will not have an impact on that industry. However, the hon. Lady may rest assured that we are planning for all scenarios, as any responsible Government would, including leaving without a deal.
Today, the Government have published information about essential policies that would need to be in place if the UK were to leave the EU without a deal on 29 March. In that scenario, the Government would implement a temporary tariff regime that would apply for 12 months. Under that regime, the majority of imports would be tariff free, including the majority of fish imports. There would be exceptions for some fish products, primarily tuna and warm-water shrimps and prawns. For those products, preferential access to the UK market is important for developing countries.
In a no-deal scenario, the Government are committed to entering into urgent discussions with the EU, including Ireland, to jointly agree long-term measures to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. On a temporary basis, the Government would not introduce any new checks or controls on goods crossing from Ireland to Northern Ireland. However, fish from outside the EU would need to enter Northern Ireland through a designated entry point.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
In recent weeks, I have been corresponding with Iceland’s ambassador to the UK, who is particularly concerned about whether the tariff advantages that Iceland receives under EEA arrangements will continue. Can the Minister confirm that that will be the case?
Mr Goodwill
I think I will be spending quite a lot of time in Oslo, Reykjavik and the Faroe Islands, which will be our new allies in this area, particularly at the annual Fisheries Council. We will attend those negotiations as an independent coastal state like Norway, making those important decisions.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), the Opposition spokesman, talked about effort-based regimes. The points I made came at the height of the discard crisis, when there was a particularly emotive story on local BBC television about perfectly good fish being thrown into the sea because the fishers had found some larger-quota fish. We are moving into a new era, and the landing obligation solves many of the problems that the quotas created, but our White Paper noted that effort-based regimes attract mixed views. We may consider a pilot, but we need to ensure that fishing is sustainable and that we do not encourage a race to fish.
The right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Sir Alan Campbell) made a point about investment in ports; as a former ports Minister, I refute his allegations. Ports up and down the country, including in the north-east—private ports, trust ports such as the one in Newcastle, and local authority ports—are making massive investments. In Whitby, £7.6 million is being invested in pier repairs. Sirius Minerals is investing massive amounts of money as part of a £4 billion project to deliver polyhalite fertiliser through the port of Tees, using many of the facilities that British Steel used. On 26 February this year, Hartlepool council announced a big investment development order through which many opportunities will come to Hartlepool, including offshore wind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) repeated his invitation to visit Peterhead, which I hope to do very soon.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
I want to correct the record. Opposition Members said that there had been no investment in the fishing industry, but last year’s UK Government Budget delivered millions in technology and methodology funding. That will ensure that we not only regain control of our waters when we leave the CFP, but give our fishermen the chance to innovate within the industry.
Brendan O'Hara
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. The hon. Lady claims that people on the Opposition Benches said certain things, but she was not in her place for most of the debate. I am flabbergasted as to how she could have come to that conclusion having not been in her place.
Mr Goodwill
If anyone wants evidence of investment and confidence in the Scottish fishing industry, they should visit Parkol Marine Engineering in Whitby, which builds fishing boats. It has an order book stretching almost into the middle of next decade, with Scottish fishermen from Shetland and elsewhere buying state-of-the-art boats because of the confidence they have in the fishing industry. Massive investment has gone into Fraserburgh and Peterhead, and I have also heard of amazing plans for future investment in Peterhead’s fishing industry.
David Duguid
I hope the Minister will forgive me for potentially being helpful to Scottish National party Members, but does he agree with the Scottish Government’s report from last summer, which stated that Brexit could generate up to £540 million for the fishing industry and 5,000 jobs?
Mr Goodwill
That is exactly right. It is nice to hear some optimism from the Government Benches, in stark contrast to the SNP, which is fast becoming a one-trick pony. It has had one referendum, which it lost, but it seems to think that the answer to everything is an independent Scotland. The people of Scotland made their view quite clear in that referendum, and the SNP should respect it, in the same way that the people of the United Kingdom respect the result of the referendum on leaving the European Union.
It is a fact that the majority of people working in the fishing industry voted to leave, and many did so because those in that industry who survived the common fisheries policy still bear its scars. It is also true that we have asymmetric access to the market: an average of 760,000 tonnes of fish was caught by foreign EU vessels in our waters between 2012 and 2014, compared with only 90,000 tonnes the other way around.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Does the Minister agree that it is not just UK fishing businesses that will benefit from increased catches, but the UK Exchequer?
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We touched briefly on visas, and as a former immigration Minister I know about the problems with Filipinos working on vessels because of the way the 12-mile limit works, particularly in Ulster and the west of Scotland. I am sure that the new Immigration Minister will have conversations with right hon. and hon. Members on that topic. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) said, we need to get young blood into the industry. We need to train our own people, and have newer ships in places such as Portavogie.
I know of the recent concerns about the Irish suspension of the voisinage agreement, which has been mentioned, and the impoundment of two Ulster boats. That was the result of a legal challenge, not of any action by the Irish Government; I am pleased that the Irish Government have committed to resolving that issue, and we will monitor any moves closely. When I was a transport Minister in the European Council, Mr Varadkar was my opposite number. I know that he is a man of great integrity, and we should take the Irish Government at their word that they are going to fix that problem.
I understand the concerns that have been raised about pulse trawling. The statutory instrument laid before the House on 13 January will provide continuity for the fishing industry by ensuring that EU law on technical conservation is operable in the UK. That will mean that vessels will no longer be able to conduct pulse trawling in UK waters.
I had better allow the hon. Lady who secured the debate to make a few concluding points. If I have not covered every point, I will be happy to write to right hon. and hon. Members.
Melanie Onn
I have to say that I am sorry about the tone that the Minister took in his remarks, particularly about the withdrawal agreement. He said that he knows my constituency very well, but he does not know it that well. It is Great Grimsby; getting its name right would be a good start.
I worry about the flippant tone that he has taken about non-EU nations and the impact on the industry of leaving, even with a deal. That is not going to help the Welsh industry, as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) pointed out, so I hope that the Minister will take that point seriously. Why will the Minister not set up a DEFRA marine safety hub in my constituency, to support the industry in Grimsby and secure its future?
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Child Trust Funds
(5 years, 1 month 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
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Child Trust Funds.
It is very nice to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I am pleased to have secured this debate on child trust funds—a landmark Labour policy set up by Gordon Brown in 2005 to give every young person a financial asset.
Child trust funds were closed to new accounts by the coalition Government in 2011. When Gordon Brown launched them in 2005, he said:
“Our aim is a Britain of ambition and aspiration where not just some but all children have the best possible start in life. The Child Trust Fund is designed to ensure every child has assets and wealth and that no child is left out.”
Unfortunately, it seems that lots of children are being left out. Child trust funds provided a tax-free savings account, with Government contributions to children born between 1 September 2002 and 2 January 2011. Under the scheme, the child is allowed to manage the account when they become 16, but can withdraw money only when they reach 18 years of age. The funds will mature on 1 September 2020.
The scheme was designed to provide a financial cushion for young people as they entered adult life, while building their skills and confidence in money management. As I said, child trust funds were closed to new accounts in 2011, but they remain live and continue to gain value through market growth and family contributions. Today, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the continuation of their tax-free status. There are now 6 million such accounts, worth an astonishing £9.3 billion in total, but shockingly the Government have lost more than 1 million of the account holders; their accounts are worth £1.5 billion. What a blunder! The Government have failed to run the scheme properly.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does she share my concern that, when I have tabled written parliamentary questions asking for the number of lost accounts by social class or nation and region, the Minister does not know? He also does not know how much he has allocated in additional resources. Does that not show a lack of political will to identify that, and to get the money to the poorest children in the country?
Helen Goodman
Absolutely. I did not know about my hon. Friend’s parliamentary questions, but I find that astonishing. The figures that I will present come from the Share Foundation.
There are now 6 million accounts worth £9.3 billion, but 6% of the accounts held by children in the top 15% of the income distribution have been lost. In total, those have a value of £213 million. Some 14% of accounts in middle-income families—where Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs cannot link them up with the family—have a value of £540 million. There is no contact information for four in 10 of the children from families on child tax credits—the worst-off, struggling families, in the lowest 15% of the income distribution. The Share Foundation tells me that, on top of that, another 40% have been contacted but have not responded.
There are therefore between 400,000 and 800,000 children with accounts valued at £1,600—a lost value of £710 million, or even £1.4 billion. That is completely disgraceful. Losing £1,000 may not seem like a lot to a Treasury Minister, on a salary of £100,000 a year, but to most families in my constituency it is a fortune that could pay a young person’s rent as a student for several months, or for a course, or for driving lessons.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I have to declare an interest: both my children received child trust funds when they were born. That started the pathway for us to save for them for when they are 18. It is a terrible scandal. The Government should recompense all the families who missed out, and look at the accrued interest and compensate them fully for everything that they have lost.
Helen Goodman
The money is in the accounts but the families have not accessed them and do not know about them, so what the Government need to do is link them up. The Chancellor had an opportunity in his spring statement this afternoon, but he failed to take it. The whole purpose of the scheme was redistributive. The wealthiest children were given a Government contribution of £250 at the outset and middle-income children were given £500, but poorer children and children with disabilities got more. They got it in two chunks that totalled an average of £920.
Chris Ruane
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous. Why does she think that she can get that information from the Share Foundation, but I am unable to get the information from the Department?
Helen Goodman
I simply think that the Treasury has taken its eye off the ball completely on this matter. It thinks that it can contract the administration out to a small, well-intentioned charity that is doing its best, but it is fundamentally a Government responsibility, and Government Ministers must take their share of the responsibility.
As I was saying, children from wealthy families started off with £250. Children from poor families started off with £920. However, the valuation of the accounts now shows that that position has completely reversed. The accounts of the wealthiest children are now worth, on average, £4,000, but the accounts of the children from the poorest families are worth £1,600. That is partly because wealthy families were able to keep topping them up, which poor families cannot afford to do. Wealthy families have also been managing them more actively.
In essence, the Government have overturned the whole purpose of the scheme. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said, the Government seem to be hiding the funds from those for whom they are intended. Information is printed in tiny typeface on the letter that goes to 16-year-olds giving them their national insurance number. All it says is: “When you turn 16, take control of your child trust fund. Ask your parents for more information. Go to www.gov.uk/child-trust-funds”. If someone does not know that they have a child trust fund, or what a child trust fund is, they will not notice or follow that. It ought to say: “You have an asset. It is probably £1,000. If you want to get hold of it, you need to do this.” It should be in big red typeface, like the national insurance number itself, on the letter that is sent out.
Furthermore, most young people, once they have clicked through to the Government website, will not be able to access the fund, even if they follow the instructions in the letter that they get with their national insurance number, because the Government website requires them to have a Government gateway user ID—I do not know whether you are familiar with those, Sir Christopher. It means that, as well as their national insurance number, young people need a passport, a P60 or a payslip. Obviously, 16-year-olds are at school; they do not have P60s and payslips. We are particularly concerned about people in low-income families. Many of them do not have passports, which are very expensive. More to the point, young people are not really very financially sophisticated: 62% of 14 to 17-year-olds cannot read a payslip, while only 52% of seven to 17-year-olds say that they have received any financial education in school, at home or in other settings.
The Government contracted out the administration of the scheme to the Share Foundation, a charity that has been administering it for the 45,000 children in care and which has managed to track down 60% of them via local authority records. That is very commendable, but I put it to the Minister that it is completely irresponsible to contract out the administration of a database of 6 million people to a voluntary sector organisation for a fee of £300,000 a year and expect 1.5 million people to be tracked down on a voluntary basis.
HMRC writes to every mother whose child is soon to be 18, stating that entitlement to child benefit is about to end. I suggest that that is the perfect opportunity to signpost them to the child trust fund. Mothers could be told, “Your child benefit is coming to an end, but your child will then be entitled to this money.” I hope that the Minister will take that idea away and implement it with HMRC, which is a department under the Treasury’s responsibility.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the possibility that accounts that have not been activated may be deemed dormant and may therefore be subject to the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008? Does she agree that that is an issue?
Helen Goodman
That is exactly right. If the account is dormant for 15 years, the person will no longer be able to access it.
The results of a YouGov survey, published at lunchtime today, underscore the lack of signposting:
“One in six parents of children aged 8 to 16 were not aware of Child Trust Funds… This figure rises to one in five (21%) among families who were receiving child tax credit at the time”—
families that would thus have been eligible for the larger voucher from the Government.
This is a scandalous and secret maladministration of public money on a vast scale. Unless the 1 million children and young people are tracked down and the £1.5 billion is given to those for whom it was set aside, that money will go back to the Treasury, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said, to be redistributed by a bureaucrat. That would be a terrible waste—not just of the money, but of the life chances of the young people for whom it was intended.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on securing this debate; I recognise that she has taken a keen interest in the issue and has been a doughty campaigner on matters of childcare and child poverty, following her 11 months as a Minister in the last Labour Government. I also acknowledge and will try to address the points made by other hon. Members.
The Government share the commitment of hon. Members of all parties to supporting people to save at every stage of life, irrespective of income or background. Financial inclusion is one of my key priorities as Economic Secretary, and in the past year I have met many organisations and experts in the field. I strongly believe that learning financial skills at a young age equips young people to make better decisions when they are older, so I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out the Government’s view.
The Government introduced junior individual savings accounts in place of child trust funds in November 2011, providing continued tax incentives to encourage families to put money away for their children’s future. Under legislation introduced in 2015, existing child trust fund accounts can be transferred into a junior ISA, providing families with the flexibility to choose the right option for their child. The Government also sought to make specific provision for children in care; as the hon. Lady pointed out, we contracted the Share Foundation to work with local authorities to open a junior ISA account on behalf of looked-after children.
The Government currently pay £200 into the accounts of children who have been in care for at least one year. The Department for Education has provided the Share Foundation with funding totalling £531,624 for that administration, and 120,000 payments of £200 have been made to children in care since 2012. We want those children to leave care with money to their name and the means to continue saving as they become independent. I should stress that junior ISAs are just one element of our work to promote financial education among young people. We want all children to enter the world of work understanding the importance of budgeting and saving, so financial literacy is now taught as part of the citizenship curriculum for 11 to 16-year-olds.
Let me turn to the so-called lost child trust funds, which were the core of the hon. Lady’s speech. There are many complex and overlapping reasons for the lack of engagement, but the Government are working with industry to actively seek holders of the accounts. Child trust fund providers are required to send regular statements to the child’s last known address and are taking steps to trace those who have moved. They have a statutory obligation to send such statements on the child’s seventh, 10th and 15th birthday, but in line with Financial Conduct Authority guidance, most do so annually.
The national insurance notification letter that HMRC sends to all 16-year-olds has recently been amended to include details about how child trust funds can be located; the hon. Lady referred to the size and colour of the font used, which is clearly a matter that I can take on board and examine. I also draw hon. Members’ attention to HMRC’s online tracing tool, which is available via gov.uk. Of course, people can still contact HMRC by telephone or post if they so choose.
Chris Ruane
May I put to the Minister the same question that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman)? The Share Foundation was able to give her statistics on the distribution among socioeconomic groups, but when I tabled questions to the Treasury asking for exactly the same information, it was not available. When I asked for estimates by nation and region, that information was not available. When I asked what additional resources had been allocated to assist in locating child trust fund accounts, that information was not available either. Can the Minister supply it today?
John Glen
I am grateful for that question about the regional and income breakdown of the distribution of child trust funds. Such information is published by HMRC and discriminates by region and county and by whether additional contributions were made; no income distribution data is collected by HMRC. I am happy to look into the matter further; if I can give the hon. Gentleman any more information, I will write to him.
Looking to the future, approximately 6 million child trust funds have not yet been transferred to junior ISAs. The first of those accounts will mature next September, and a further 55,000 will mature every month thereafter until 2029. What young people choose to do with their money is ultimately a matter for them, but we want them to engage in the process so that they can make the best decision for their individual circumstances.
Helen Goodman
As I have explained to the Minister, the problem is that people cannot use the Government website to access their accounts if they do not have a payslip, a P60 or a passport. Will the Minister address that point? Hundreds of thousands of young people will be in that situation.
John Glen
The key question is how an individual child knows what they have. The hon. Lady’s allegation is that this money is lost, but it is not lost; it is just that the individuals have not come to the point at which they can engage with it, which will happen at age 16 when they get a letter with their national insurance number. At 16, they are allowed to make decisions about their investment choices for that fund, and at 18 they can access it. They get the letter, along with their national insurance information, at 16, the age when they can start making individual decisions about that money. I think it has been suggested that the Share Foundation should interrogate data from the Department for Work and Pensions, cross-reference it with HMRC’s, and somehow write to these individuals—
Tonia Antoniazzi
What plans does the Minister have to encourage eligible parents, and children when they turn 16, to access this money? Is it not the responsibility of the Government to do some kind of public awareness campaign to say, “Hey, look—here’s your investment that the Government made for you. This is how you access it.” Let us make this a can-do exercise.
John Glen
The key point is that children have access to this money when they are 18, but can influence decisions about it from the age of 16, when they are paying tax and have a national insurance number. They will gain that access mechanism when they secure their national insurance number. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland made a point about how this issue should be depicted on the form when 16-year-olds get their NI number, but that number provides the key to unlock awareness of, and access to, the fund that has been invested for them.
Helen Goodman
I do not like to denigrate my former profession, but I do not think the Minister has been very well briefed. According to the Share Foundation, the lost accounts of the most wealthy number 54,000, the middle income 560,000, and the poorest 444,000. Those are not families in which the child is already 16 to 18; it includes all families. It means that the addressee has gone away. We do not know whether the address we have got is the right address for that group of people.
John Glen
The point I am making is that all individuals, no matter what their background is, will gain access to the funds at the point when they can gain their national insurance number, by reference to the letter that has been provided. I have had extensive conversations with my officials, and I note the hon. Lady’s reference to bureaucrats. She worked for over 20 years at the Treasury—I have the highest regard for it and the accuracy of the material it has given me.
No funds or accounts have been lost. All child trust funds have been managed by child trust fund providers—either by the original provider with which the account was set up, or by a subsequent provider to which the funds have been transferred. There are 69 providers currently managing child trust funds, and the Share Foundation’s analysis appears to be based on accounts held with just one provider: the Share Centre, which represents only 1.5% of the number of accounts. The hon. Lady might want to contradict that by extrapolating the data to all of them, but the Government are working together with the industry to encourage child trust fund holders to re-engage with their accounts.
As I said, we have developed an online tracing mechanism and recently amended the national insurance notification letter to 16-year-olds to include a reference to child trust funds. That happened in January in order to take into account the points raised. Any account holders who are unable to retrieve their account details online are encouraged to contact HMRC directly.
Helen Goodman
I have just explained to the Minister that to get through to the website, people must have other documents that—by definition—16-year-olds do not and cannot have. The system is not working. The Minister needs to rethink how the website works!
John Glen
I do not think that the hon. Lady’s raising her voice in an aggressive manner is going to help anyone. I have just set out the Government’s position and explained the detail of the provision. The hon. Lady has extrapolated some figures from one piece of analysis by one of the providers, which is not a reliable way of carrying on. I have told her about the action we took in January.
The issue is not just about the online portal, but about being able to call up HMRC. Last year’s Budget included a commitment to consult on draft regulations that will ensure that investments currently held in child trust fund accounts can retain their tax-free status after maturity. The consultation will take place later this spring, when the Government will lay regulations before the House, well in advance of the first accounts maturing in September 2020.
In summary, both junior ISAs and child trust funds allow parents and guardians to save on behalf of their children, tax free. People have the option to convert their child trust fund into a junior ISA, and we are working with providers to reunite dormant accounts with their intended owners. However, all remaining child trust funds will continue to enjoy tax-free status, even after they mature. The amount that young people can save in child trust funds and junior ISAs will increase by the rate of inflation in April—it is currently £4,260 a year.
Chris Ruane
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland that the system is not working. As a way out, would the Minister consider meeting people who have sufficient knowledge—I would include my hon. Friend—or perhaps citizens advice bureaux, the Share Foundation and a panel of parents, so that some answers can be given to the questions that have been raised?
John Glen
On behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who is the Minister responsible for this area and is currently before a Select Committee, I would be very happy to offer a meeting with hon. Members to discuss this matter further. It is his responsibility, and I am sure he would be very happy to attend.
We have made efforts to provide young people with savings to draw on as they reach adulthood, and we hope this encourages further saving at every stage of life. The points made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland on access have been comprehensively addressed by the Government’s sending a letter to 16-year-olds.
Helen Goodman
Will the Minister take on board my suggestion of writing to the recipient of the child benefit when the person turns 18? The Government writes to every mother across the entire nation, and that would be an opportunity to catch them in the net.
John Glen
The key point here is: when does somebody have access to make investment decisions as a young person? It is when they turn 16, and then they can access it when they are 18. Trying to overlap the letter with the mother when actually it is about the beneficiary, who is the child, is not the route to go down.
Disability Assessment Services
(5 years, 1 month 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
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered improvements to disability assessment services.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate this important topic. People with disabilities and ill health are often confronted with barriers at every turn. I believe it is the role of Government to remove these barriers as often as possible. Everyone deserves the same opportunities to achieve their potential, and I am proud that we are ensuring that the issue is high on the Government’s agenda. The support available through the benefits system is there to take some of the strain off people who are living through often unimaginable day-to-day challenges. However, I am sure that, like me, colleagues have heard from constituents at times when they have needed help and found it difficult to navigate the system.
A very dear friend of mine and colleague from the business world, Andrew Knowlman, sadly lost his courageous fight with motor neurone disease late last year. He used his time and experience of the disease to campaign to ensure that I clearly understood the physical challenges it brought him, and the challenges he faced in trying to access the support available through the Department for Work and Pensions. One of the most significant issues that he brought to my attention was the repeated requests he received to attend work capability assessments.
This point is echoed by my constituent Lee Millard, who has been diagnosed with the same condition. Lee and his wife Jean have been campaigning to make a difference for those affected by the disease. When we met, Lee explained how stressful the reassessment process can be for claimants of the employment and support allowance, which is now moving across to universal credit, and personal independence payments—particularly when we consider that conditions such as motor neurone disease are degenerative, and the person who is affected is all too aware that they will not improve. He said that the whole process can feel very much like a “waste of precious time.”
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that disability assessors should rely more on the opinion of medical experts, particularly when judging mental health and invisible disabilities?
Gillian Keegan
Yes, that is absolutely vital. One of the learnings from the system is that it needs to make sure that those assessments are available in time. I will go on to talk about that.
In a bid to tackle this problem, the Department stopped requiring people with the most severe and lifelong conditions to undertake assessments from September 2017. However, some of my constituents told me that that is not their experience, and that they are still being asked to go for assessments. The Minister kindly clarified that for those receiving ESA and universal credit before 29 September 2017, the severe conditions criteria will take effect at their next work capability assessment, so it could be that my constituents had one after that date, but will not have another.
I welcome the move, which is being encouraged, to enable decisions to be made without face-to-face assessments, through health questionnaires and evidence collected from GPs and specialist health professionals. On a similar note, I am pleased that people receiving the highest level of PIP will receive an ongoing award, with only a light-touch review after 10 years. That is another progressive step to ensure that those who most need support receive it hassle-free.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Some of my constituents have found the PIP assessment process and the work capability assessment deeply traumatic and very flustering, and they often get confused. Does my hon. Friend agree that allowing assessments to be recorded—especially video-recorded—will give people confidence that they are getting a fair assessment, and that the assessors are being monitored and must come up to a high standard?
Gillian Keegan
Yes, I do. Technology in general is enabling us to put better processes in place. Recording will not be appropriate for some people, but it is important to use technology in the right circumstances.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I declare an interest: my wife is disabled. I am interested in the assessment that takes place when somebody moves from the disability living allowance to PIP. From my constituency surgeries, I have noticed that that the mobility element for DLA is somewhat lower than for PIP. Does the hon. Lady think that that pattern is more widespread throughout the UK? Is there something here that is not right? Leaving out my wife, I have dealt with cases of people who have lost out on the initial assessment. The sentiment about continuing assessment is absolutely correct, and I support that.
Gillian Keegan
I am not in a position to see an overall pattern—perhaps the Minister does, because she sees what is going on across the country—but many of us have heard about issues relating to mobility and Motability.
Last week, the Secretary of State announced that people over state pension age will no longer have to go through PIP reassessments. That is part of her ambition to ensure that disabled claimants do not feel like they are on trial. These changes have been rightly welcomed in the press and, I am sure, by many Members in this Chamber.
These improvements are good news for claimants. However, one of the most common times when I receive a request for help from a constituent claiming disability benefits is when they do not agree with the outcome of their assessment. Recent figures from my area—Chichester—show that the overturn rates at tribunal are 71% and 81% for ESA and PIP respectively. It is my understanding that that is largely due to medical evidence not being available in good time, and being available only at tribunal. Those levels are clearly unacceptable. It is very stressful for people to go through the initial assessments, the reassessments and a tribunal. I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know what more work is being done to improve the system. Are there any plans to consider the timescales within which we ask GPs and medical professionals to give information about claimants, to ensure it is in time for assessments?
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
We have all seen that the appeal rates are unusually high. What, in the hon. Lady’s experience, is the time it takes to get to an appeal? In my part of the world, it is 40-plus weeks, which for some of these people is a ridiculous amount of time to wait.
Gillian Keegan
Yes, it can be quite a long time. We have heard that people can wait for three or four months. That uncertainty means that it is very difficult for a person to plan, as they do not know how much support they will receive.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and is putting into words what a lot of us experience in our constituencies. In my area, it takes 48 weeks for an appeal to be heard, and people usually have to sign on for universal credit, rather than ESA. They have to undergo conditionality, even though in 71% or 72% of cases in my area, at the end of the process it is found that they are not able to work. They are being pushed into that by a system that does not take into account their disability. Does the hon. Lady agree that that desperately needs looking at? People have to wait a year or more to get assessed properly.
Gillian Keegan
Yes, I do, but we need to solve the root cause of the problem, so that we do not have these high tribunal rates. If we do not have them, we will not have the waiting times. That is the best way to ensure that the system has a low failure rate.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is being very generous with her time. Is she as concerned as me about a report in the GP journal Pulse last week that said that the transformation of the new health assessment system could lead to unfettered access to medical records via the GP? We should surely speak up against that. Medical records are personal data; that is an absolute human right.
Gillian Keegan
Yes, although we need to balance that with having enough medical data to make the assessments in the first place. I have not seen that report. I do not know whether the Minister has, and whether she can take that into account in her speech.
I am glad to hear that, following the recent Government announcements, we are moving our benefits system into the 20th century by integrating multiple data sets into one system, although I take the hon. Lady’s point that we must ensure that they are very well protected. That will streamline the assessment process and make submitting a claim much more user-friendly, particularly for people transitioning between benefits. Plans to test a single health assessment for all disability benefits will mean less form-filling, and will reduce face-to-face assessments, cutting red tape and the inconvenience it causes. My constituents who need support often have highly complex needs, so I hope the changes will save them time and stress. It is important that we listen to our constituents and put them in the driving seat of reforms. I hope the Department will do that.
An issue that has been highlighted to me is people’s reluctance to attend assessments. We must do more to ensure people feel comfortable with and trust the process. It is key that we ensure that people know that in every case they are being assessed by a qualified doctor, nurse or healthcare professional—often somebody who works in the NHS—who has undergone additional training to carry out assessments. I did not realise that every single assessment is carried out by a qualified medical assessor. Many members of the public do not realise that. They think it is some third-party company, but often nurses work for those companies. We need to do more to make sure that people are aware of that, so they feel more comfort and trust.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that the questions in the assessment process are not too intrusive, so people do not feel that their integrity or dignity has been taken away from them? They should feel comfortable taking part in the process.
Gillian Keegan
Yes, absolutely. We should not only look at who is carrying out the assessments, but open up where they can take place. Perhaps we can have a wider range of premises where assessments can be carried out, including places that are more familiar to and convenient for claimants, such as local authority buildings, NHS sites or even jobcentres. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has any plans to do that.
In recent years, disability employment has risen, and now over half of disabled people are in work. Nine per cent. more disabled women and over 6% more disabled men are in work than in 2013. That is testament to the programmes that support people with disabilities into the workplace. I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State outlined her ambition to build on that record, as every person with a disability or learning difficulty deserves the same opportunities to go to work and build a career. Programmes such as the personal support package have been crucial to that; they provide tailored employment support that recognises the individuality of people’s conditions. Much of that work is done through the jobcentre. In Chichester, we have a great team with some real success stories because of the support available through the programme.
Our Jobcentre Plus makes good use of the community partners and small employment advisers. Chichester has a low unemployment rate of 1.7%, so local businesses look to use all the available talent and need more local people in the workplace. I am glad that the small employment advisers are able to bring people with long-term health conditions and disabilities together with businesses to help them find a decent job.
Work coaches and disability employment advisers use all the tools at their disposal to help build skills, and to help disabled claimants prepare for the workplace. They do that not only through national programmes, such as the Work and Health programme, but local initiatives, such as WorkAid, which is run by the Aldingbourne Trust. It is great to hear the success stories of constituents who have managed to move into work, and that is made possible by the tireless effort of the jobcentre staff, who make those initiatives a success on the ground. I am sure that we all have many examples of that.
Getting a good job has a powerful impact. Last year, I met a constituent whose son is on the autism spectrum—there is a big problem getting people with autism into the workplace; much more needs to be done on that. She told me that he rarely utters a word and is uncomfortable around people. She is determined to help her son, and managed to get him work experience at a games software development firm. That was transformative; for the first time in a long time, he began to speak.
Getting a foot on the career ladder is challenging irrespective of disability; sometimes, extra-special effort must be made to find opportunities, particularly for work experience. I am very pleased that the jobcentre is offering careers advice to disabled students in schools, because building confidence in disabled kids as early as when they are 12 is critical to making them feel that they have all the opportunities that everybody else has. This is just the start; there are exciting pilots up and down the country, such as Tri-Work, which offers work experience to children in years 10 and 11, and programmes that support internships for school-leavers. I want every disabled child to be excited and have a wide range of options in the workplace, so we need to ensure that such initiatives are available throughout the country. The schemes are empowering young children, but they must to be available to all who need them.
The Disability Confident scheme is another successful programme, which now has almost 10,000 signatories. One participating employer is Chichester District Council, which works hard to make sure that its work environment is accessible, and has made workplace adjustments—for example, providing ramps, lifts, and an emergency evacuation chair. Perhaps more importantly, on top of that, the council has a welcoming workplace culture, actively helps applicants to apply, and will always interview disabled applicants when they have fulfilled the basic role requirements. That additional support removes the barriers to the workplace for disabled people and gives them confidence to start their journeys into new jobs.
We all know from our constituents that the system is not perfect, but I am pleased that the Government and the Secretary of State are listening to constituents’ voices and reforming it. There needs to be less stress, wasted time, and red tape all round; we need a more welcoming environment that makes people feel that they can trust the system, not that they are on trial.
I am proud of this Government’s record in supporting disabled people into work. There is still a long road ahead to ensure that all disabled people who can and want to work get the support that they need and the opportunities that they deserve.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) on securing the debate. Like many other Members, I am sure, I felt compelled to speak because of the number of constituents who have come to me with harrowing stories of their experiences, and with a clear message that improvements to disability assessment services are very much needed.
In my constituency, we have seen a variety of issues recently, including cases of incorrect information being recorded; there have been statements saying that physical assessments were carried out when they were not, and that a constituent could go out alone when the assessor was actually told in the interview that they could not. In one case, the information was so incorrect that it was assumed that the assessment report had been mixed up with that for another case. My constituent Amy was recorded as walking despite being wheelchair-bound, which must surely have been apparent at the assessment. When a complaint was raised, the DWP noted that that could be a “misleading statement”, but worryingly, Capita, which has consistently failed to meet its target for an acceptable standard of assessment, responded that there was no evidence that the statement made by the assessor had been misreported. I find that unbelievable.
Last-minute cancellations are a problem. We have heard from constituents whose assessments were cancelled on the day that they were due to take place. Even worse, in some cases, the constituents were actually at the assessment centre when their appointment was cancelled. Yet perversely, if a constituent is unable to attend their assessment, they are penalised. When one of my constituents rang up two days before her assessment to give notice that she would not be well enough to attend, she was told that it was too late for the assessment to be rescheduled, and that she would be recorded as a no-show. Those are double standards of the highest order.
Constituents who have attended assessments have raised with me the concern that their assessor carried out the assessment very quickly, and did not listen to their answers. Others were concerned that the assessment was not carried out safely. For example, a constituent with a slipped disk was asked to complete the physical part of the assessment without anything to support her, despite informing the assessor that she would need to hold on to something. Why are my constituents being put at risk in that way?
Another major concern is the refusal to conduct home assessments, despite medical evidence that they are necessary. That is a concern shared by organisations such as Macmillan Cancer Support, which has found that home visits can often be difficult to obtain, and that the option of a home visit is not widely communicated.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about home visits. Does he agree that the problem is compounded by the fact that some people have to travel very large distances for those assessments? That is an issue facing some of my constituents. It would be so much easier if they could be done at home.
Justin Madders
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman’s constituency must be rather more rural than mine, but for anyone who has a disability, travelling distances of any order is challenge. Home assessments need to be much more widely promoted.
Andrea Jenkyns
I was recently contacted by a constituent who won her battle against cancer. That should have been a moment of celebration, but she is worried about her impending disability assessment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the parity of esteem between mental and physical health should be reflected in disability assessments?
Justin Madders
I agree; I will address that shortly. I will not take any more interventions, because a number of hon. Members wish to speak.
My constituents feel let down by the complaints process. They do not feel that it is fit for purpose. Many of their legitimate complaints are just passed back to the DWP, so those undertaking the assessments face little accountability. Does the Minister monitor the number of complaints against particular providers, and if so, can she tell us who the worst offenders are and what will be done about them?
As the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) mentioned, another common issue is that assessments do not take into account the effect of mental health conditions, or acknowledge that many physical conditions can fluctuate daily. Certainly, the assessments that I have seen have focused on what people say about their good days—or moments—as the baseline for a typical day. There appears to be an almost institutional incapability of appreciating that just because people with fluctuating conditions have times when they are doing better, that does not mean that that is their condition all the time. There are occasions when they do need real assistance.
I am sorry to say that some private providers show no prospect of making any real improvements to disability assessment services, which are inaccurate, ineffective and unfair, and need to be brought back in house. It is a damning indictment of the system’s failings that the DWP does not even bother to turn up to about 80% of the appeal hearings against the assessments.
The message that I bring from my constituents to those who undertake the assessments—perhaps the Minister can consider this—is that they should be carried out with the idea that we should treat others as we wish to be treated. Show respect, show empathy and show compassion. That is what our constituents deserve.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) on securing it. I know that the Minister, who is almost a constituency neighbour, is fully engaged in the issue, and we should be in no doubt about how committed she is to finding a way through.
Vicky Ford
Would my hon. Friend like to take this opportunity to put firmly on the record what a brilliant Minister and champion for disabled people she is?
Derek Thomas
I am sorry that I did not make it quite as plain as my hon. Friend did, but that was the point that I was trying to make.
I am fortunate that in my office I have a member of staff who used to work in the DWP, before I pinched him. He has taken this issue seriously, and we work hard and often successfully to support people who find themselves challenging, and struggling because of, PIP decisions. My office has seen numerous cases of the DWP accepting a poor medical report containing obvious errors and incorrect recommendations from medical services. If those reports had been returned at an earlier stage, decisions would have been overturned immediately.
We have also seen numerous cases in which the mandatory reconsideration has rubber-stamped the original decision, failing to reflect in any detail what the constituent has said or to refer to any new evidence provided, and in which the DWP has failed to send new medical evidence for a medical opinion—I mentioned that earlier—to contact the constituent to find out more, or to consider further evidence when it is provided. Therefore, once a mandatory reconsideration is done, it must go to appeal. I know that is often very much the responsibility of work coaches and individual jobcentres, but there is a need for leadership in addressing the problem.
Resolving any disputes without the need for an appeal will help to ensure that people receive the right decision earlier in the process. Avoiding a tribunal saves money and time for everyone concerned. I am reluctant to mention the Minister’s constituency and county, but the tribunal statistics for the Truro tribunal centre in this financial year show that 351 PIP appeals have been cleared, with the DWP’s decision upheld on only 32 occasions. We have heard other tribunal statistics this afternoon, but in Cornwall 90% of tribunal appeals are won. That must be addressed; we need to look at what is going on in Cornwall.
A constituent of mine was awarded no PIP at all, but on appeal was awarded higher mobility and daily living components within minutes of attending the tribunal. I dropped off my member of staff as I went to another meeting on the way up to London, and he texted me within 15 minutes to say we had won—it was almost immediate, because the minute the tribunal started my constituent was awarded the higher allowance.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Like the hon. Gentleman and his office, we have had cases—in particular those related to PIP and other benefits—where it has been questionable whether people will get their benefits through examination. I know that the Secretary of State is looking at that, but it also strikes me that the companies who do the assessments are not well managed and, more importantly, their staff are not trained properly. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Derek Thomas
That is fair. I sit on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions with other colleagues in the Chamber, and we hear such examples all the time.
I met the individual I am talking about and I could see clearly that he should have been getting the higher mobility component. An assessor who had asked the right questions and inquired after the person’s clear and obvious physical difficulties would have discovered their whole life was adapted to be independent, and a tribunal would absolutely have been avoided.
On a few occasions, medical services for PIP assessments have stated that tribunals are not as “restricted as we are”, when justifying the fact that tribunals are often successful for the claimant. Our understanding, however, is that they all follow the same legislation and the same medical handbook, so it can only be down to poor information gathering, poor questioning and poor decision making.
The Minister knows about what I will mention now, and I am sure that she shares my concern. If the DWP did not rubber-stamp mandatory reconsiderations, as it does, people in Cornwall would not be left in desperation, causing them to turn to organisations such as Benefit Resolutions, which charges clients £100 before it even looks at the cases. Then, from some of our most vulnerable people, it takes 15% of tribunal winnings in commission. It no longer attends tribunals, and it uses aggressive tactics with the DWP, other offices and its clients. Going by the results claimed on its website, Benefit Resolutions has taken almost £200,000 from the most vulnerable people in Cornwall over the past four years. There have been numerous complaints about its conduct throughout Cornwall, and the previous charity related to it, which was called Bufferzone, was closed down following an investigation by the Charity Commission.
I take the opportunity to remind people that the many free-to-use services include Citizens Advice, Counselling and Benefit Support, disAbility Cornwall and MPs’ offices. I have serious questions about the work and moral justification of companies such as Benefit Resolutions. I would always encourage people to make contact with the organisations that I have referred to. However, the truth remains that Benefit Resolutions and companies like it exist only as a result of incompetent and poor service provided by the system.
To conclude, I will read from a letter that has been submitted as a formal complaint to the DUP, I mean the DWP—probably not the DUP, though they might do a better job—which clearly sets out the case being made this afternoon:
“Last week I had a PIP assessment which lasted an hour and a half. They ask you really hard questions like do you think about committing suicide, and you have to go over again and again how your disability or illness has affected your life.
I understand they have to assess people and I am grateful there is somewhere that we can ask for help in this country, but the system is failing and more importantly it is hurting people…This was my third assessment in three years. It was gruelling and left me completely distraught afterwards. Having to face how much my life has changed and how little I can do now in comparison to before is very difficult. Watching the person who is sitting in on your assessment with you get visibly upset by the process is heart-breaking.
I have probably over 20 supporting letters from doctors, neurologists, colorectal surgeons and healthcare professionals. These letters state that I am not going to get better. That things are likely to deteriorate for me. Not fun reading. I hand them all over willingly.
A week later I got a phone call saying that I would have to be reassessed again. The healthcare professional had not gathered enough evidence. They were at my house for an hour and a half asking me question after question. I have support from all my doctors. How could they not have enough evidence? They could not answer that question. My father asked for management to call back the next day. They did not, and have not fulfilled that request. Instead I was booked in the next day for another assessment. Not just a few extra questions. I have to go through the whole thing again.”
Thank you, Sir Christopher.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
I will call the wind-ups at 10 past 5 o’clock, which means that we have about 12 minutes and four or five people wanting to speak.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Thank you, Sir Christopher. I will be as brief as possible.
Support for those living with a disability is a mark of a civilised society but, as we have heard, the process that too many seeking support have to go through is often found to be daunting. That is certainly the case in my constituency. The rate of successful mandatory reconsiderations and appeals demonstrates that the process is fundamentally flawed. Evidence-based reviews conducted on behalf of the DWP have identified a pervasive culture of mistrust around PIP and ESA processes. That is simply not good enough.
There is no place in a welfare system for private companies, because that immediately introduces the profit motive. Looking after and supporting our sick and disabled should not be influenced by how much profit a private contractor can make. The Scottish Government will therefore remove the use of private companies for assessments.
We all have cases of constituents who have had an unfavourable decision made about them because information on them has been inaccurately recorded. Unbelievably, for example, someone with a heart condition has been assessed by a mental health professional, or vice versa. How does that promote faith in the assessment system? We need an overhaul of the system, a true recognition of the fact that life costs more for someone who lives with a disability. That is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. For that reason, in Scotland the bedroom tax has been fully mitigated by the SNP Scottish Government, because we know that people who live with a disability are disproportionately affected by the tax.
The PIP evidence-gathering process should be streamlined—that is the way forward. The stress and bureaucracy that claimants are put through, which I see every day in my constituency, are unacceptable. They cause real harm to people who are already struggling every day with serious and debilitating conditions. The system must take more account of the often very vulnerable people with whom it deals, and be redesigned accordingly. Otherwise, when our constituents need support, they will continue to face cruel and unnecessary barriers. Scotland is building a social security system that is fair to all. I urge the Minister to look critically at the system in place and do what she can to improve it for the people who use it.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) for securing this debate. As MPs, we have all handled cases where errors have been made with disability assessments; that was the case before the introduction of universal credit and the personal independence payment. Sadly, no doubt it will continue to be the case as the system is further refined and improved. I do not say that to lessen the impact of the distressing cases we have all assisted with or read about, but to illustrate that individual mistakes do not alone indicate a fundamentally flawed system, just that the system has to improve.
I certainly had concerns previously that there was a lack of common sense and flexibility in the assessment process for those with longer-term disabilities. I know many in this House felt the same. Health conditions can change and hopefully improve over time, so there will always be a need for occasional assessments to establish the correct level of support, but one must recognise that for some conditions sadly there is no improvement or recovery. However, I am pleased that of late there has been a greater focus on flexibility in the assessment process, whereby those with the most serious conditions can now have their evidence reviewed by a DWP case manager without the need for a face-to-face and repeated assessment. I very much welcome that change.
The help to claim service in tandem with Citizens Advice, which was mentioned earlier, is free to the user and is to be launched next month. It is designed to help the most vulnerable claimants with their applications, whether through a home visit, over the telephone or online. It will assist universal credit claimants with their award until the first accurate full payment is received. I very much welcome the Government’s recent improvements to the PIP process and the measured approach with which the universal credit system itself is being implemented nationally. However, there is no room for complacency. I hope the Minister and the Department will develop a policy of continuous improvement, ensuring that client trust is established—particularly with clients with a disability.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) on bringing forward this debate. It is an important issue; I told her I would make it my business to be here at the right time.
I have made my reputation as a councillor, a Member of the Legislative Assembly and an MP based on my constituency work, which I am very proud of. I used to fill out the disability living allowance application forms myself, and attend appeals for constituents. I do not have the time do that now because I am over here most of the time, but also because the number of applications and the help needed have increased so much. I have a full-time staff member who is allocated to PIPs and benefits, although I still carry out that work whenever I can when I am at home.
Benefits is the biggest issue in my office, but the question is not why so many people are claiming—I have always had large numbers in my area who are disabled and who claim. People are so desperate for help and they deserve help and attention. The Minister is always very responsive to anything I ask her—I thank her for that. I have seen people with serious illnesses being turned down for PIP.
I have a constituent with a long list of ailments who is at pains always to be dressed well, be washed and look the part. That is only possible because his ex-wife comes every day to make sure he gets out of bed and is washed and dressed. He was turned down. Like the example the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) gave, he went to an appeal and was not even called in, because the panel looked at the notes and said, “You know something? This man should get it,” and he got it in 15 minutes. Why did that happen? When someone goes out to assess someone and looks at their circumstances, they will say, “He looks terribly well,” or, “She’s dressed well and her hair is combed. She’s okay, she has no illness.” But they need help.
I have said this to the Minister in correspondence and I will underline it: one must question how much a physiotherapist knows about the intricacies of ulcerative colitis and the side effects of the medicine. How much does a paramedic know about the restriction on the movement of someone with multiple sclerosis? Someone with expertise needs to assess the circumstances, and GP notes should follow that up. Four out of 10 PIP candidates do not appeal as they cannot handle the stress. Do we really believe that half of the people who are claiming do not deserve it? I do not. As far as I am concerned, those people are telling the truth and they should not be looked upon as liars.
There must be a written review. We must start again for the sake of those people who are living beneath the poverty line, because they do not possess the mental fortitude to fight for what they are entitled to. Today, other hon. Members and I fight on their behalf and ask for fairness, a level playing field and an assumption that not all people are telling lies.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) on securing this debate.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s recent announcement of the change in the assessment process. Face-to-face assessments cause anxiety and distress among our constituents. It is paramount to safeguard the most vulnerable in society from undergoing assessment when their conditions are unlikely to have changed from their previous visit. As a constituency MP, I am often able to obtain the agreement of the DWP for paper-based reports that remove the need for face-to-face assessments, or at least the agreement to a home consultation, but it can be a real uphill battle to do so.
Those suffering from conditions such as MS, myalgic encephalomyelitis, severe autism and Asperger’s, agoraphobia and a range of mental health health disorders should not be required to submit a new claim every two years. Those suffering from mental health conditions do not find it easy to obtain the required evidence, particularly if that person has no engagement with medical professionals due to their condition. The recent announcement will alleviate those concerns for some claimants. I quickly draw hon. Members’ attention to the great report by the Scottish Association for Mental Health, which is the Scottish equivalent of the charity Mind. It is a sensible report that states clearly that the assessment process does not adequately gauge the impact of mental health or other fluctuating conditions, because it focuses primarily on physical impairment.
The decision to integrate assessment services into one body is welcome news; it will streamline services and allow those applying for ESA, universal credit and PIP to undergo just one assessment rather than two. Although the benefits assess two different matters, the information obtained from one assessment can be used to determine both benefit outcomes.
Like all hon. Members, I have met several constituents who have stressed their anxiety at undergoing assessments because they do not trust the system. Many constituents have been reassessed for ESA and PIP every couple of years and do not get the time to focus on improving their well-being without the threat looming over them of going back for another assessment and potentially losing some or all their benefit. Ultimately, as many Members have stressed, the issue is a lack of trust and faith in the system. Is it any wonder, given the number of low or nil awards given incorrectly, not properly picking up hidden and non-physical disabilities and forcing people to battle the system that should be supporting them?
Like many MPs, my office offers full advocacy support for welfare claimants, from the initial application and accompanying to the assessment centre, to doing appeals and representation at tribunals. Our record of success is well over 80%, which is partly due to my amazing caseworker, Jamie. But that is ridiculous, because we should be getting those decisions right first time, to increase the faith and trust of vulnerable people in the assessment process. By introducing the changes the Government have outlined, we are taking a huge step to begin to rebuild that trust with those living with disabilities.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
I echo much of what has been said across the House. I am glad that Members on the Government side are taking an interest. I would love for some of them to take up the vacancies on the Work and Pensions Committee, where we look in detail at these issues.
I have met and heard from many constituents, particularly those with mental health problems, who suffer from the whole round of assessments. They are often on both ESA and PIP, so they have assessments roughly every year. Once they get a letter about an assessment, they have to fill in a form and seek medical letters to substantiate their claim. Many medical professionals are refusing to write those letters, because the DWP ask for such detailed information and they cannot possibly give the time to provide that. If they do, they charge for the letters—often £25 or £30.
As Members across the House have said, there is great reluctance to perform home visits—particularly in my very rural area where they can take longer, but also where it takes much longer for constituents to travel to appointments. Often, they simply cannot. One constituent told me about dragging her disabled daughter, who was ill and in pain, out of bed to go to her assessment because she was told she had to. Another’s GP refused to give evidence for any more assessments about home visits.
Yes, people get their taxi fare paid for them, but they have to pay up front. That often costs £100, which some people simply cannot afford. The Minister promised the Work and Pensions Committee that work capability assessments would be video-recorded, but now people are being asked to provide their own recording equipment. Again, that is an issue of affordability.
As the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) said, the process has an impact on claimants’ mental health. They go to an assessment; they wait for the result; they put in for a mandatory reconsideration, which often is turned down point-blank, and they then have to wait for an appeal. That is an incredibly stressful process, during which the claimant has to sign on for universal credit and go through the process of being assessed for work and claimant conditionality, under threat of sanctions.
I spoke to the Minister last week about a constituent of mine who died on his first day back at work. I spoke to his wife, who was absolutely clear that her husband had been forced into returning to work by DWP’s refusal to take doctors’ evidence. It said it knew best because he had passed a work capability assessment. That should no longer happen. Doctors should not receive letters saying they must not give people fit notes because they have passed a work capability assessment. That sends people further into mental health despair and, in some cases, towards suicide. I really hope the Minister looks at this issue.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I appreciate that we only had an hour for this debate; I am only sorry that some hon. Members who made a number of interventions were not able to stay to hear the Minister sum up. I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George), whom I commend for her work on the Work and Pensions Committee. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) for securing the debate. I share her belief that we need a system that works better for everyone, especially those with disabilities.
The process for claiming personal independence payment or employment and support allowance is not easy or straightforward. As we have heard, claimants fill in extensive forms detailing how their condition affects their daily life and send them off to the Department for Work and Pensions. For some people, that, along with medical evidence, is enough to merit an award. However, more often than not, people are required to attend a face-to-face assessment carried out by one of three contracted assessment providers. The healthcare professional employed by the contractor reports back to the Department, and a decision maker makes a decision about the claimant’s entitlement.
Last Friday, I was invited to witness a personal independence payment assessment, which was conducted by an actor and a health professional. It took an hour and a half. I imagine that was the gold standard for conducting such an assessment. I am sure everyone in the Chamber would agree that the experience of most of our constituents—granted, we see the worst examples—is that assessments are never conducted quite as efficiently or in as gold-standard a way, so I think that exercise was slightly contrived. It was worthwhile to see how the process should operate, but we have all argued time and again how it should operate; the reality is that it does not operate in that way. In reality, assessments are stressful, and many people are forced to go through the mandatory reconsideration process and the conclusions of a decision maker, which ultimately is unfair.
I only have a few minutes to sum up, but I pay credit to the hon. Member for Chichester for rightly highlighting the experience of her constituents, and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for St Ives (Derek Thomas), for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton). I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the work of the Scottish Association for Mental Health. The Government have to do more to recognise mental health in the assessment process.
I read recently that the Department for Work and Pensions will introduce a further step in the appeals process called the continuous online resolution system, which will involve an online review by a tribunal panel. If my understanding is correct, that means people will have to endure a claim, potentially a mandatory reconsideration, and an online text-box tribunal before they can get an oral appeal. The success rate for written appeals is dramatically lower than that for oral hearings, so does the Minister accept that that step may serve only to introduce another needless level of bureaucracy to claimants’ appeals, and that it may not achieve the ends she hopes it might?
The high number of mandatory reconsiderations and the fact that, as the hon. Member for Chichester outlined, 71% of decisions are overturned shows that there are already flaws in the system. I would like the Minister to do more to address those current flaws before taking on the process of streamlining and bringing all these benefits together. I genuinely worry that that would cause many of those who need financial support—particularly those who are disabled—not to get that support, and that such an integrated assessment service would penalise disabled people who need the full range of benefits. I would hate to see that happen.
It is not right or fair for any individual, whether they are disabled or suffering from mental ill health or a long-term debilitating health condition, to be put through such an arduous process. These people are not criminals—they are people who demand and need support from the social security system, which was designed to support them. I hope the Minister takes the time to answer my questions.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) on bringing forward this debate. She made some really valid points. She is absolutely right that it is up to the Government to remove of some of the barriers that disabled people face to ensure that they can live independently and participate fully in society. I welcome the move to stop assessments for personal independence payment for pensioners, but we need to go further to ensure that those who do not need reassessment do not have to continue to go through the arduous assessment process.
We heard from Members across the Chamber about the fundamental flaws in the assessment framework for disabled people. We heard about the time that many ill and disabled people have to wait for an assessment. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) highlighted that in her area people have to wait up to 48 weeks before they get to an appeal. We heard countless accounts of what happens at assessments and of poor decision making. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) shared his constituent’s experience of being given two days’ notice but still being recorded as a no-show, yet assessment providers can cancel at the last minute. We need to eliminate such double standards. The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) pointed out some of the poor decision making that happens after assessments and highlighted the rubber stamping of decisions at mandatory reconsideration stage. That step was put in place to ensure that we got decisions right earlier, so it is really important that that issue is picked up.
Since 2013, more than 700,000 ill and disabled people have been forced to challenge decisions at appeal following poor decision making after their assessment. Last week, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions admitted that disabled people feel “put on trial” by these assessments. By her own admission, we need not just small-scale improvements of the assessment framework, but a wholesale overhaul of the system, which has created a hostile environment for disabled people.
Every week, I hear from constituents and from disabled people across the country who have been pushed to despair as a result of the failing assessment framework. I was contacted by a lady called Susan, who has Crohn’s disease. She is on DLA and has a Motability vehicle. Following her assessment, in which she did not score any points for her mobility, she lost her car, which she described as her one bit of independence. I share her experience with the House because it is not isolated; I hear these heart-wrenching accounts all the time.
Some 72% of PIP decisions are overturned at appeal, and more than 100,000 disabled people have been wrongly deprived of PIP. We heard that more than 4,500 disabled people were wrongly denied PIP when they transferred from DLA. Most shockingly, 17,000 people died before their PIP decision was reached. In the last three months, nearly three quarters of people who appealed their work capability assessment decision were successful.
We know the system is flawed and is not working. That is why it is worrying that we are looking at combining all these assessments. We cannot combine them when we know there is bad decision making and the assessment framework is flawed, so I ask the Minister: why not listen to people like Susan, and look at conducting a wholesale review and overhaul of the system?
Marsha De Cordova
I will not; I do not have time, frankly.
The Government announced last week that they would extend the contract of the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments, better known as Maximus, to carry out work capability assessments. Nothing could be worse for any disabled person to hear. Since 2014, an estimated £595 million has been paid to Maximus to carry out assessments and in total £1 billion has been paid out to private contractors. These companies have repeatedly failed the DWP’s standards, so does the Minister agree that rather than extending the contract, it is time to bring these assessments back in-house? Will she confirm that the details of the new contract will be made available to Members?
It appears that I have only 20 seconds left, which is shocking, so let me be clear: we need a radical overhaul of the assessment framework before any moves are taken to combine the assessments. We need an assessment framework that will take into account disabled people’s lived experiences and treat all disabled people with the dignity and respect they deserve.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful for the number of Members from across the House and all parts of the country who have come together for the debate. There is a compelling debate going on in the main Chamber, yet many Members chose to prioritise this debate, which is to the great credit of everybody who has participated.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) for her passionate, eloquent and well-informed contribution. She was joined by many colleagues who shared examples of the poor treatment that their constituents had faced in going through the assessment services. That is exactly why we made the announcements last week about the transformation of the way that we undertake assessments.
Our approach has been one of wholesale continuous improvement—to the personal independence payment since it was introduced, but also to the work capability assessment, since it was introduced by the Labour Government back in 2008. There have been numerous independent reviews, the Select Committee did an excellent inquiry and the Department has embraced and implemented a great number of recommendations. We are committed to continuous improvement, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) asked us to be. I thoroughly agree with him and want to reiterate what he said: we should treat others as we would like to be treated. Everyone should be treated with respect and dignity, and I can assure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, who also raised that point, that there is no complacency at all; there is an utter commitment to improvement.
Sarah Newton
I will not; I have little time, and I was asked many questions. If I do not manage to cover all the questions that Members asked, I will of course write to them. It is great that we often have debates in this Chamber on this subject. I am sure there will be other opportunities to ask questions, perhaps in oral questions to the DWP on Monday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester asked some questions that I particularly want to answer. She made a good point about how people feel when they go to an assessment, as well as about the location, how people look and what clothes they wear. People forget that the assessors are fully qualified healthcare professionals; they are the same people they might see if they went to A&E on a Saturday night. As part of our transformed service, we are looking carefully at where we can co-locate services. That could be in NHS or local authority facilities, but they need to be in a place where people will feel more comfortable.
We are seriously looking at how the people undertaking the assessments appear, and at ensuring that their certificates showing that they are fully qualified healthcare professionals are available, so that people have the same confidence when going to their assessment as they do when going to see their GP. Most people have a high degree of trust in their GP, and that is helpful, because that is the point that I want to get to. Repeatedly, GPs and healthcare professionals have told us that they do not want to be the gatekeepers of the benefits system, as that would get in the way of their patient-doctor, or patient-healthcare professional, relationship. We will need to have healthcare professionals undertake assessments, but they need to be separate from NHS services.
We are working closely with the medical profession to make sure that we have as close a relationship as possible, and to obtain information as swiftly as possible. I want to offer reassurance to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) about how we will go about getting medical information in our new transformed service. It will be with patient consent. We will not break into NHS or GP computer systems and extract data somehow. The information will be obtained with the consent of the patient.
I want to reiterate a commitment that I made at the Dispatch Box, when I answered the urgent question about the new transformed service. I want to make sure that disabled people co-design the service with us. We are starting soon on stakeholder engagement to enable that. We will work with the medical professionals—as I said, we will do a lot of work with them over the summer on this—stakeholders and disabled people. We want to improve people’s confidence and trust in the system, and make it properly accessible.
There were a whole range of really good points raised by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for High Peak (Ruth George), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), and my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), pointing to changes that they would like to see in the training of the healthcare professionals undertaking the assessments. I reassure hon. Members that a whole series of stakeholders—charities or people who work alongside those with particular health conditions—have met those undertaking health assessments to ensure that the guidance given to them is up to date and properly takes into consideration variability in conditions, and to ensure that those assessing people with rare conditions that we do not often come across are aware of that condition and its impact on a person’s ability to live their daily life in the way that we would like them to.
I assure all hon. Members that we give physical and mental health parity of esteem. Many of our healthcare assessors, as well as our frontline staff in the DWP, are undergoing good mental health awareness training, and they all have access to specialists whom they can call on. Through lots of small improvement to assessments, we are beginning to see real changes.
We spend a lot of time working with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that people can access tribunals in a more timely way. The delays are unacceptable. There has been recruitment of a lot of staff, and there is a new online resolution service for PIP, which was piloted and received good feedback from claimants. It will not replace people’s opportunity to have a face-to-face tribunal service, but some people might choose to go that way.
We are looking at improving our mandatory reconsideration process. It is not fair to say that it is a rubber-stamping process—around 20% of decisions are changed at mandatory reconsideration—but we are learning from the work we are doing with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to ensure that we can get more information, including medical information, from the claimant at the mandatory reconsideration stage, so that more decisions can be changed then, without having to go on to appeals.
However, the most important thing is to get more decisions right the first time, and to enable conversation, so that people are confident enough to give us all the information we need when we need it, and that we get that. We are working on that at pace.
In terms of the transformed service, it has been necessary to extend the existing contracts for both PIP and the work capability assessment, so that we have a secure and stable way of assessing the benefits. Developing the new transformed service will take a huge amount of work. We are creating a new digital platform, which we will co-design with disabled people. It will take this year to get that right; only then can we start to introduce the new service.
In the short time I have left, I return to the good point that my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives made about organisations such as the Benefits Resolutions service, formerly known as Bufferzone. I would love to work with him on what we can do to regulate those offering support to people going through the tribunal service. I agree with him; what he described is totally unacceptable. I would also like to work with my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) and look at the report he mentioned to see what we can do to ensure that improvements are made.
I thank all hon. Members very much indeed; I am absolutely determined, as they all are, to improve these services and ensure that they are the best they can be.
Gillian Keegan
I thank the Minister very much, mostly for listening and taking into account all the points raised today. I thank you, Chair, for your excellent chairmanship, which got us through this debate in an hour, and I thank all hon. Members for their participation. It is clear that we all have similar desires and concerns: we want to ensure that the system continuously improves, treats people with respect and in the way that we would all like to be treated, and, perhaps most importantly, helps people to live a fulfilling life, so that they can make the most of their many talents. I thank everyone for participating, and I look forward to seeing the transformation of the service.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered improvements to disability assessment services.
Written Statements
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Spring Statement 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
Today I have delivered the spring statement to the House of Commons. This written ministerial statement provides more detail on some of the announcements in the spring statement, and sets out details of other forthcoming Government policies. Derby and Nottingham £7.2 million Southampton £5.7 million Leicester £7.8 million North East CA £10 million Portsmouth £4 million Norwich £6.1 million Sheffield City Region £4.2 million Plymouth £7.6 million West Yorkshire CA £2.2 million Stoke-on-Trent £5.6 million Colchester £3.5 million Rutland £2 million Isle of Wight £0.8 million Shetland Islands £2 million Norfolk £8 million South Essex £4.5 million North Wales £8 million Stoke-on-Trent £9.2 million Northern Ireland £15 million
Public spending
Public value framework—later this year we will conduct a spending review that will focus on public value outcomes. Today, the Government will publish a revised version of the public value framework along with accompanying guidance on how to use it most effectively. The revised framework reflects the learning from our public value pilot programme.
National leadership centre—the new national leadership centre, which will support senior leaders from across public services in England, will welcome its first cohort in September. The Government have committed £21 million to the centre.
Infrastructure
Today I can also make the following announcements that will help to deliver the physical and digital infrastructure the UK needs:
Borderlands growth deal—up to £260 million for this innovative deal to strengthen the deep ties that bind these communities within the United Kingdom. On top of the £102 million announced recently for the Carlisle southern link road from the housing infrastructure fund, this means up to £362 million of UK Government investment into the borderlands area.
Transforming cities fund—£60 million of investment in 10 cities across England, from the fund announced at Budget 2017. This will fund 30 new schemes such as bus station upgrades, new cycle lanes and road improvements, supporting the wider programmes being delivered by city regions as part of the industrial strategy. The 10 cities were selected for the competitive fund in September 2018, and are as follows:
Local full fibre networks: wave 3 allocations—£53 million of funding, for nine local areas who have successfully bid since Budget, from the third wave of the local full fibre networks challenge fund—enabling next-generation full fibre connections to key public buildings, and nearby homes and businesses. The locations of the nine local areas are as follows:
Toton development vehicle—Sir John Peace will oversee the development of proposals for a new delivery vehicle at Toton, which will include considering the case for a development corporation.
Apprenticeship levy—Budget 2018 announced that the co-investment rate will be halved from 10% to 5%, and the amount employers can transfer to their supply chains would increase to 25%. These changes will now take effect from April 2019.
In the coming months, the Government will publish:
Planning for future high streets—a consultation exploring potential changes to help local areas make better use of planning tools to support their local high streets, including through compulsory purchase orders, local development orders, and other innovative planning measures.
Future of mobility: urban strategy—a publication setting out the Government’s approach to putting the UK at the forefront of mobility, and responding to the significant changes taking place in transport technology—such as the growth in electric vehicles, the development of self-driving vehicles and advances in data and internet connectivity.
Living standards
National living wage (NLW)—the Government can confirm the Low Pay Commission’s remit for 2019, and later this year we will set a new remit beyond 2020. We have today published the terms of reference for Professor Arindrajit Dube’s review of the latest international evidence on minimum wages. This review will report to HM Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. As these terms set out, Professor Dube will engage closely with the Low Pay Commission, drawing on its expertise and deep knowledge of the UK’s labour market.
Openness and competitiveness
It is vital that the UK remains an open and competitive place to do business. To support this ambition, today I can announce:
Financial services legislation—following consultation later this year, the Government will legislate as necessary to ensure that in the immediate period after we leave the EU, the UK can maintain world-leading financial services regulatory standards, remain open to international markets, and realise new trading opportunities.
Future financial services regulatory framework— ahead of the summer, the Government will set out their approach to consulting on how to ensure our financial services regulatory framework adapts to our new constitutional position outside the European Union. This includes the need to ensure financial stability is delivered through an effective regulatory framework, with the responsiveness necessary for a dynamic and open financial services sector and an appropriate level of democratic accountability.
Access to finance and EU exit—the Government stand ready to deliver their commitment in all circumstances to provide additional funding to the British Business Bank for venture and growth capital, as we leave the European Union and our relationship with the European investment fund changes.
Scientists and researchers—from autumn 2019, PhD-level occupations will be exempt from the tier 2 (general) cap, and at the same time the Government will update the immigration rules on 180-day absences so that researchers conducting fieldwork overseas are not penalised if they apply to settle in the UK.
New UK export finance (UKEF) general export facility—UKEF will introduce a new general export facility to provide more flexible short-term support to UK exporters. UKEF will make the new product available over the coming months and will publish further details once they become available.
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) research on the impacts of regulation on competition—the CMA is announcing today that, subject to an orderly exit from the European Union and therefore resources, it will carry out a review to assess how regulation affects competition in the UK business environment.
Today the Government will publish:
Offshore oil and gas decommissioning industry—a call for evidence, as announced at Budget 2018, seeking to identify what more should be done to strengthen Scotland and the rest of the UK’s position as a global hub for safe, environmentally-friendly decommissioning that meets the Oil and Gas Authority’s ambitious cost reduction targets.
In the coming months, the Government will publish:
International education strategy—a strategy, to be launched by the Departments for Education and for International Trade, which will help to strengthen our position at the forefront of global education.
International research and innovation strategy—a strategy setting out the Government’s ambition to ensure the UK retains its place as a global partner of choice for science and innovation collaboration. As a first step in implementing this, the Government have launched an independent review to assess and make recommendations on our future frameworks for international collaboration.
UKEF consultation on changes to foreign content rules—a consultation on proposed changes to the rules in relation to foreign content in export transactions where UKEF support is provided.
Science and technology
Today, I am allocating over £200 million in cutting-edge infrastructure to support our world-leading scientists, innovators and industry. These investments, which underpin the Government’s ambition to raise economy-wide investment in R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027 and drive progress against the grand challenges, such as healthy ageing and the AI and data revolution, include:
Photonics—allocating £81 million to a national extreme photonics application centre in Oxfordshire. This centre will help researchers and industry better understand the composition of new materials and how they behave in different conditions.
Bioinformatics—investing £45 million in a critical upgrade to data storage cloud computing infrastructure at the European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridgeshire, to support researchers using big data to drive genetic research.
Supercomputers: Archer funding—allocating £79 million to a new UK supercomputer (ARCHER 2) which will replace the current national high-performance computing platform (ARCHER), providing researchers with a fivefold increase in computing capacity.
Joint European Torus (JET) funding (fusion)—setting aside up to £60 million to confirm funding is guaranteed for the facility over 2019-20.
Housing
At autumn Budget 2017, the Government set out a comprehensive package of new policies, including at least £44 billion of financial support over a five-year period, to raise housing supply by the end of this Parliament to its highest level since 1970 and put us on track to reach 300,000 a year on average. To move us towards that target, today the Government can announce further progress on planning reform, as set out in more detail in the accompanying written ministerial statement laid by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. In the coming months, the Government will:
Independent report on build-out rates—introduce additional planning guidance to support housing diversification on large sites. Sir Oliver Letwin concluded that greater differentiation in the types and tenures of housing delivered on large sites would increase build-out rates.
Response to consultation on planning reform—introduce a package of reforms including allowing greater change of use between premises, and a new permitted development right to allow upwards extension of existing buildings to create new homes.
Accelerated planning Green Paper—publish a Green Paper setting out proposals on how greater capacity and capability, performance management and procedural improvements can accelerate the end-to-end planning process.
Clean growth
The Government are determined that we will be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. The UK leads the world in tackling climate change and delivering clean growth, preserving the planet for future generations. In the coming months the Government will set out further detail on the following:
Review on the economics of biodiversity—a new global review, led by Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, to assess the economic value of biodiversity and to identify actions that will simultaneously enhance biodiversity and deliver economic prosperity. The review will report in 2020, ahead of the 15th meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biodiversity in Beijing in October that year.
Future homes standard—a future homes standard, to be introduced by 2025, future-proofing new build homes with low-carbon heating and world-leading levels of energy efficiency. The new standard will build on the Prime Minister’s industrial strategy grand challenge mission to at least halve the energy use of new buildings by 2030.
Greening the gas grid—accelerating the decarbonisation of our gas supplies by increasing the proportion of green gas in the grid. To meet our climate targets, we need to reduce our dependence on burning natural gas to heat our homes. The Government will consult on the appropriate mechanism to deliver this commitment later this year.
In the coming months, the Government will publish:
Biodiversity and conservation in overseas territories—a call for evidence inviting creative ideas from stakeholders on how the Government can safeguard the biodiversity found in the overseas territories.
Red diesel: response to call for evidence—a summary of responses to the May 2018 call for evidence on red diesel and air quality.
Public finances
Debt management report 2019-20 and NS&I financing remit 2019-20—today, the Government publish the financing remit for 2019-20, which sets out the planned financing that will be raised by the Debt Management Office through issuing gilts and via NS&I’s retail financing products.
Retail prices index
House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report on the retail prices index (RPI)—the Economic Affairs Committee made several recommendations both to the Government and the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA). The Government are considering the report, and the complex issues it raises. The Government are discussing the relevant issues with the UKSA and will respond to the Committee’s report in April.
Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance
Since 2010, the Government have secured and protected over £200 billion of tax that would otherwise have gone unpaid, introduced over 100 measures to reduce avoidance, evasion and other forms of non-compliance, and continued to support taxpayers to get their tax right. Today the Government will publish:
“Tackling tax avoidance, evasion and other forms of non-compliance”—a policy paper setting out the Government’s achievements.
Offshore tax compliance strategy: “No Safe Havens 2019” —a policy paper setting out the direction for HMRC’s updated strategy for offshore tax compliance, bringing together the Government’s response to all forms of offshore non-compliance. This reflects the substantial progress that the UK has made since the last strategy was published in 2014 and complements the paper on avoidance and evasion activity to date.
In the coming months the Government will publish:
Preventing abuse of the R&D tax relief for small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)—a consultation on the measure announced at Budget 2018, as part of the package on tax avoidance. This consultation will focus on how the measure will be applied, to minimise any impact on genuine businesses.
Insurance premium tax operational review—a call for evidence on where improvements can be made to ensure that insurance premium tax operates fairly and efficiently.
VAT administration in the Isle of Man—HM Treasury’s findings and recommendations to ensure the right VAT continues to be paid and collected in the Isle of Man. Following the Paradise papers allegations, the Isle of Man Government invited HM Treasury to review its VAT administration processes for the importation of aircraft and yachts.
Maintaining the tax system
Making tax digital (MTD)—mandatory digital record keeping for VAT for businesses over the VAT threshold (with turnover over £85,000) comes into force from 1 April. This is an important first step in this modernisation of the tax system to which the Government remain committed. The Government can confirm a light touch approach to penalties in the first year of implementation. Where businesses are doing their best to comply, no filing or record keeping penalties will be issued. The focus will be on supporting businesses to transition and the Government will therefore not be mandating MTD for any new taxes or businesses in 2020.
Today the Government will publish:
Structures and buildings allowance—draft legislation, published for comment, on introducing a new, permanent allowance for investments in non-residential structures and buildings to create a more competitive tax regime for businesses—as announced at Budget 2018. The Government intend to lay this legislation early this summer.
Aggregates levy review—a discussion paper launching a review of the aggregates levy, including the terms of reference, information on timing and scope of the review as well as membership of an expert working group.
In the coming months the Government will publish:
Offshore receipts in respect of intangible property—draft regulations to ensure the provisions apply as intended, and draft guidance relating to the practical application of the measure.
Hybrid and other mismatches—draft regulations to update the definition of regulatory capital instruments that are entitled to an exemption within the hybrid mismatch rules.
General anti-abuse rule (GAAR) amendments—a technical note alongside draft legislation on minor procedural and technical changes to the GAAR legislation to ensure that it works as intended.
National insurance contributions (NICs) employment allowance draft regulations—a document inviting technical comments on the draft regulations implementing the reform, as announced at Budget 2018, of the NICs employment allowance to restrict it to businesses with an employer NICs bill below £100,000.
Child trust funds (CTF): consultation on maturing CTFs—draft regulations to ensure that CTF accounts can retain their tax-free status after maturity.
VAT simplification and the public sector—a policy paper exploring a potential reform to VAT refund rules for central Government, with the aim of reducing administrative burdens and improving public sector productivity.
VAT partial exemption and capital goods scheme: simplification—a call for evidence on potential simplification and improvement of the VAT partial exemption regime and the capital goods scheme—ensuring they are as simple and efficient for taxpayers as possible. This follows on from the recommendations of the Office of Tax Simplification, which has looked in detail at our VAT system and possible areas for improvement.
Worldwide harmonised light vehicles test procedure (WLTP) and vehicle taxes—a Government response following the review into the impact of the WLTP on vehicle excise duty and company car tax.
Consultation on the use of diesel by private pleasure craft—a consultation seeking evidence on the likely impact of the Government’s proposal to require diesel-powered private pleasure craft to only use full duty paid heavy oil (white diesel) for propulsion, replacing the existing system where private pleasure craft use marked gas oil (red diesel) but pay the white diesel rate of fuel duty.
Review of time limits—a report, as required by section 95 of Finance Act 2019, comparing the time limits for the recovery of lost tax involving an offshore matter, with other time limits, including those provided for by schedules 11 and 12 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017. In the report the Government will set out the rationale for the charge on disguised remuneration (DR) loans legislated in Finance (No. 2) Act 2017 and its impacts. The report will be laid by 30 March 2019.
Social investment tax relief (SITR)—a call for evidence on the use of the SITR scheme to date, including why it has been used less than anticipated and what impact it has had on access to finance for social enterprises.
Enterprise investment scheme (EIS) approved funds guidelines—draft guidelines for comment alongside draft legislation. The document will contain guidelines stating HMRC’s proposed policy and practice for approving funds. The legislation will include powers for HMRC to set appropriate conditions and approve funds.
CGT private residence relief—a consultation on the changes announced at Budget 2018 to lettings relief and the final period exemption, which extend private residence relief in capital gains tax.
We will also publish summaries of responses to the following documents, launched at recent fiscal events:
Structures and buildings allowance—a technical note on the introduction of this allowance.
“Protecting your taxes in insolvency”—a consultation launched in February 2019, following the announcement at Budget 2018 to make HMRC a secondary preferential creditor for certain tax debts paid by employees and customers on the insolvency of a business.
“Corporate Capital Loss Restriction”—a consultation on a change announced at autumn Budget 2018 to restrict, from 1 April 2020, the amount of carried-forward capital losses a company can offset to no more than 50% of the chargeable gains arising in a later accounting period.
“Stamp Taxes on Shares Consideration Rules”—a consultation on aligning the consideration rules of stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax and introducing a general market value rule for transfers between connected persons.
“Digital Services Tax”—a consultation on the detailed design and implementation of the digital services tax that will take effect from 1 April 2020.
“Amendments to tax returns”—a call for evidence on simplifying the process of amending a tax return.
[HCWS1407]
Planning: Build-out Rates and Permitted Development
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
At autumn Budget 2017 the Government announced an independent review, chaired by Sir Oliver Letwin, to examine the significant gap between housing completions and the amount of land allocated or permissioned, and make to recommendations for closing it. I sincerely thank Sir Oliver and his panel for their hard work over the 12 months that followed.
Sir Oliver’s draft analysis, published in June 2018, took an in-depth look at the rate of housing delivery on a number of large sites in high pressure areas around the country. He concluded that the binding constraint on house building rates once implementable planning permission had been granted was the “absorption rate”—meaning that homes are built at the rate at which house builders believe they can be sold at their target prices. Importantly, the review found no evidence that speculative land banking is part of the business model for major house builders. I note that there has been widespread acceptance of Sir Oliver’s analysis across the sector and a consensus has emerged that it is the market absorption rate that determines the rate at which developers build out large sites.
Sir Oliver’s final report, published alongside autumn Budget last year, concluded that greater differentiation in the types, tenures and design of housing delivered on large sites would increase the market absorption rates of new homes.
I welcome Sir Oliver’s support for greater emphasis on housing diversification within the planning system. The revised national planning policy framework has already embedded a requirement for a greater mix of housing; it explicitly requires a mix of size, type and tenure of housing that reflects the diverse needs of local communities. My Department is also committed to improving the design of new development. The purpose of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission is to tackle the challenge of poor-quality design and build of homes and places, and I look forward to its final report later this year. My Department also has a number of funding programmes specifically designed to support a more diversified housing market, such as the home building fund.
As confirmed in the spring statement, my Department will shortly publish additional planning guidance on housing diversification—to further encourage large sites to support a diverse range of housing needs, and help them build out more quickly.
I note Sir Oliver’s recommendations that authorities should further capture land value uplift by insisting on specific levels of greater housing diversification—and also note that many in the housing building industry are sceptical of this approach. I agree with the principle that the costs of increased housing diversification should be funded through reductions in residual land values. The Government are committed to improving the effectiveness of the existing mechanisms of land value capture, making them more certain and transparent for all developments. My focus is on evolving the existing system of developer contributions to make them more transparent, efficient and accountable and my Department is gathering evidence to explore the case for further reform.
I will keep the need for further interventions to support housing diversification and faster build out, including amendments to primary legislation, under review. My Department will also work closely with Homes England to identify suitable sites and will look for opportunities to support local authorities to further diversify their large sites. Once again, I am very grateful to Sir Oliver and his panel for their important analysis and recommendations, and for their hard work over the course of the review.
My priority now is to ensure faster decision making within the planning system. My Department will publish an accelerated planning Green Paper later this year that will discuss how greater capacity and capability, performance management and procedural improvements can accelerate the end-to-end planning process. This paper will also draw on the Rosewell review, which made recommendations to reduce the time taken to conclude planning appeal inquiries, while maintaining the quality of decisions. I will also consider the case for further reforms to the compulsory purchase regime, in line with our manifesto commitment.
Permitted development rights
The consultation, “Planning Reform: Supporting the high street and increasing the delivery of new homes” closed on 14 January 2019. As confirmed in the spring statement it is our intention to bring forward a range of reforms. To support the high street we intend to introduce additional flexibilities for businesses. This will be to amend the shops use class to ensure it captures current and future retail models, which will include clarification on the ability of (A) use classes to diversify and incorporate ancillary uses without undermining the amenity of the area, to introduce a new permitted development right to allow shops (A1), financial and professional services (A2), hot food takeaways (A5), betting shops, payday loan shops and launderettes to change use to an office (B1) and to allow hot food takeaways (A5) to change to residential use (C3). Additionally, to give businesses sufficient time to test the market with innovative business ideas we will extend the existing right that allows the temporary change of use of buildings from two to three years and enable more community uses to take advantage of this temporary right, enabling such premises to more easily locate on the high street. I will also shortly publish “Better Planning for High Streets”. This will set out tools to support local planning authorities in reshaping their high streets to create prosperous communities, particularly through the use of compulsory purchase, local development orders and other innovative tools.
We will take forward a permitted development right to extend upwards certain existing buildings in commercial and residential use to deliver additional homes, engaging with interested parties on design and technical details. We would want any right to deliver new homes to respect the design of the existing streetscape, while ensuring that the amenity of neighbours is considered. We will also make permanent the time-limited right to build larger single storey rear extensions to dwelling houses and to introduce a proportionate fee. I do not intend to extend the time-limited right for change of use from storage to residential. This right will lapse on 10 June 2019. Alongside this I intend to review permitted development rights for conversion of buildings to residential use in respect of the quality standard of homes delivered. We will continue to consider the design of a permitted development right to allow commercial buildings to be demolished and replaced with homes. We will also develop a “future homes standard” for all new homes through a consultation in 2019 with a view, subject to consultation, to introducing the standard by 2025.
Finally, we intend to remove the permitted development right and associated advertising deemed consent in respect of new telephone kiosks, reflecting that mobile technology has changed the way people access telephone services since the right was introduced in 1985; amend the existing right to install off-street electric vehicle charging points to allow for taller charging upstands to address advances in rapid charging technology; and will look to bring forward a draft listed building consent order which will grant a general listed building consent for works to listed waterway structures owned, controlled or managed by the Canal and River Trust.
I intend to implement an immediate package of permitted development right measures in the spring, with the more complex matters, including on upward extensions, covered in a further package of regulations in the autumn.
[HCWS1408]
Leaving the European Union: Temporary Tariff Regime
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
The Government wish to inform the House about plans to implement a temporary tariff regime in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal on 29 March 2019. The Government will bring forward the necessary secondary legislation in the light of the votes in Parliament this week.
The temporary tariff would apply equally to all countries where the UK does not have a trade agreement or other preferential agreement in place. In the event of no deal, this would include the EU.
The temporary tariff will apply for up to 12 months. At the end of the temporary period, the Government will introduce a long-term tariff regime. This will be developed over the course of the coming months following a full public consultation process.
The Government faced a choice:
We could maintain our current external tariff regime and apply it to the EU, imposing new tariffs on EU imports and driving up prices for consumers and disrupting business supply chains.
We could maintain the open trade that we have with the EU, but we would then have to extend this to the rest of the world. This would minimise disruption to EU trade but would fully open the UK to competition from other countries.
The Government do not believe either of these options on its own is the right approach. Instead, the temporary tariff would take a balanced approach to support the UK economy as a whole. It would maintain open trade on the majority of UK imports, to support consumers and business supply chains, but retain necessary tariff protection for particular sectors of the UK economy.
Under the temporary tariff, 87% of total imports to the UK by value would be eligible for tariff-free access.
The Government recognise the importance of retaining necessary tariff protection for some sectors of the UK economy. Therefore, tariffs would apply on 13% of total UK imports:
in some agricultural sectors which have been historically protected from non-EU producers through high EU tariffs. Producers in these sectors would face significant adjustment costs should these be immediately liberalised. Therefore, for beef, sheep meat, poultry, pigmeat, butter and some cheeses a mixture of tariffs and quotas will be used, with the aim of being broadly neutral in their impact on production and consumption patterns.
in sectors where tariffs help provide support for UK producers against unfair trading practices. This includes products such as certain ceramics, fertiliser and refinery products.
a set of goods, including bananas, raw cane sugar, and certain kinds of fish, where preferential access to the UK market is important for developing countries.
a number of finished vehicles will retain their tariff in order to support this sector and in the light of global market conditions.
Information on specific tariff rates that would apply under the temporary tariff has been made available through the Government website.
In developing the temporary tariff, the Government have given regard to the five principles set out in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018:
the interests of consumers in the UK;
the interests of producers in the UK;
the desire to maintain and promote external trade of the UK;
the desire to maintain and promote productivity in the UK;
the extent to which goods are subject to competition.
Throughout the temporary period, the Government would also consider exceptional changes where clear evidence is provided by stakeholders against the criteria set out in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 and would provide a mechanism to hear business and consumer feedback.
This statement should be read in conjunction with the written ministerial statement laid in parallel on the Northern Ireland border.
[HCWS1405]
Leaving the European Union: Northern Ireland Border
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
The unique social, political and economic circumstances of Northern Ireland must be reflected in any arrangements that apply in a no-deal scenario.
This Government are committed to the Belfast agreement and to doing everything in our power to ensure no return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Today we are confirming a strictly unilateral, temporary approach to checks, processes and tariffs in Northern Ireland. This would apply if the UK leaves the EU without a deal on 29 March.
The UK Government would not introduce any new checks or controls on goods at the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, including no customs requirements for nearly all goods.
The UK temporary import tariff announced today would therefore not apply to goods crossing from Ireland into Northern Ireland.
We would only apply a small number of measures strictly necessary to comply with international legal obligations, protect the biosecurity of the island of Ireland, or to avoid the highest risks to Northern Ireland businesses—but these measures would not require checks at the border.
Because these are unilateral measures, they only mitigate the impacts from exit that are within the UK Government’s control. These measures do not set out the position in respect of tariffs or processes to be applied to goods moving from Northern Ireland to Ireland.
We recognise that Northern Ireland’s businesses will have concerns about the impact that this approach would have on their competitiveness. That is why we remain determined to secure a deal and an orderly exit from the EU.
A negotiated settlement is the only means of sustainably guaranteeing no hard border and protecting businesses in Northern Ireland. This is why we are, first and foremost, still committed to leaving the EU with a deal. In a no-deal scenario, the UK Government are committed to entering into discussions urgently with the European Commission and the Irish Government to jointly agree long-term measures to avoid a hard border.
We also recognise that there are challenges and risks for maintaining control of our borders, monitoring the flow of goods into the UK, and the challenge posed by organised criminals seeking to exploit any new system. That is why we are clear that this approach will only be strictly temporary.
The specific changes proposed are set out below:
Compliance with international legal obligations
To fulfil essential international obligations, there would be new requirements for importers and exporters to declare trade with the EU on a very limited set of goods.
These are the only new processes which would be introduced in order to meet the UK’s international legal obligations. There are no other products that would require new checks or processes.
Specifically:
Electronic notifications would be required for trade in dangerous chemicals, ozone depleting substances and F-gases;
Belfast International airport would be the designated point of entry for endangered species and rough diamonds entering Northern Ireland;
Dual-use or torture goods would require a licence for exports to the EU.
Protecting the biosecurity of the island of Ireland
To protect human, animal, and plant health, animals and animal products from countries outside the EU would need to enter Northern Ireland through a border inspection post and regulated plant material from outside the EU would require certification and risk-based checks at trader premises.
High-risk plant material entering Northern Ireland from the EU would require electronic pre-notification, replacing the current EU plant passport scheme.
Avoiding the highest risks to Northern Ireland businesses
To prevent unfair treatment of Northern Ireland businesses, goods arriving from Ireland would still be subject to the appropriate VAT and excise duty as today and the UK Government would continue to collect these taxes on Irish goods in future. VAT registered businesses would continue to account for VAT on their normal VAT returns.
Small businesses trading across the border, not currently VAT registered, would be able to report VAT online periodically, without any new processes at the border.
Irish businesses sending parcels to Northern Ireland would need to register with HMRC in order to ensure VAT was paid on these goods—but anyone in Northern Ireland receiving a gift sent from Ireland would not pay VAT.
As in Great Britain, businesses currently registered on the EU excise system would register on a UK equivalent.
These measures would not require checks at the land border.
Dependent on the outcome of the votes this week, we may then bring forward a package of secondary legislation to implement these arrangements which Parliament must approve for these temporary arrangements to come into force.
[HCWS1406]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations group elements of six policy regimes: natural mineral waters, spirit drinks, food labelling, wines, genetically modified organisms and animal imports. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to make purely technical or operability corrections to ensure that these regimes continue to function as intended. These corrections deal with removing or amending references to EU directives, removing or amending EU references, converting EU procedures to UK procedures and transferring EU functions to the UK.
This instrument allows the recognition of existing natural mineral waters from the EU, Iceland and Norway to continue on a transitional provision for at least six months, thereby maintaining the status quo immediately before exit day. This instrument also provides power to the Secretary of State to withdraw recognition of existing EU natural mineral waters after a period of notice if the EU was not to reciprocate and recognise UK natural mineral waters. Of course, we hope that the EU will recognise our mineral waters in good faith, as indeed we are doing.
With the exception of the Secretary of State’s powers over recognition of natural mineral waters, this instrument makes no further substantive changes. Without this provision, existing natural mineral waters which obtained recognition in or by a member state in the EEA would not have the right to be legally sold in England, irrespective of the Secretary of State’s powers to regulate this field. That would lead to restricted consumer choice in the UK, where one in three bottles of natural mineral water are of EU origin, and changes to product prices due to market forces. We have therefore taken a pragmatic view on that matter, and it is necessary that we do so.
The statutory instrument will also ensure that we have a fully functioning scheme for spirit drinks’ geographical indications, allowing us to register and amend applications. This is particularly important for Scotch whisky, which in 2018 had a record £4.7 billion-worth of exports. Although these exports would not directly be put in jeopardy without this SI, the industry would lose the ability to amend the Scotch whisky technical file to better reflect industry practice. The technical file is the document which provides the technical specifications for products using the Scotch whisky GI name: for example, production process, geographical area, specific labelling rules and so forth. This SI amends the applicable regulation to transfer functions from the European Commission to the Secretary of State.
On food labelling, this SI transfers a series of legislative functions which are currently conferred upon the European Commission so that they will instead be exercisable here in the UK. Transferring the functions means that we can make important changes concerning how certain pieces of information can be presented to the consumer. These powers currently sit with the EU Commission and ensure that we would not require new primary legislation to, for example, update the list of allergens that must be labelled on prepacked food or change the way that nutritional values are presented.
The SI also transfers the power to make rules for the production processes used to make aromatised wines, as well as rules on methods of analysis and administrative and physical checks, and transfers powers on wine relating to GI applications from the EU to the Secretary of State. It allows us to update laws in relation to the production and analysis arrangements for aromatised wine by means of regulations. It will also enable us to consider applications for new wine GIs and deal with applications to amend and cancel wine GIs on the UK wines GI register. Without doing so, key aspects of our wine quality policy would become inoperative, which would put us in breach of the WTO provisions. It also rolls over the framework for how producers protect geographical indications for aromatised wines, as well as the mechanisms to control the production and use of those geographical indications.
For genetically modified organisms, the SI makes purely technical changes to keep legislation operable on exit. I emphasise that there are no policy changes. It makes operability changes to transfer existing powers from the EU to the Secretary of State, thereby allowing the Secretary of State to develop technical statutory guidance on sampling and testing for the presence of GMOs, to amend the threshold above which products must comply with traceability and labelling requirements, and to apply unique identifying codes to GMOs. This will ensure that we can continue to enforce the rigorous rules governing genetically modified organisms.
Finally, this SI amends animal health provisions. It makes operable provisions relating to the import of cattle semen, pig semen and horse semen, ova and embryos. These amendments are purely technical, and preserve the current regime for imports and for protecting the UK’s biosecurity. The SI also makes minor operability amendments to two other animal health provisions, one laying down a health certificate used to ensure the health status of certain imports of live animals and products of animal origin, and the other making provision for the appropriate UK authority to publish approved lists of border inspection posts relating to the movement of animals and animal products. In both cases, the amendments are minor and technical and do not introduce any new policy.
Defra has consulted the devolved Administrations on the amendments in this instrument and they have consented to its coming into force. The instrument concerns changes for the United Kingdom except as regards natural mineral waters—those apply only to England—and decisions on GMOs, which are a devolved matter for Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. As the natural mineral waters amendments apply only to England, each devolved Administration would have to provide their own equivalent amendments to their respective natural mineral waters regulations. We expect the devolved Administrations to mirror the same policy position, but they have yet to lay their respective provisions in legislation.
Amendments made to Regulation (EC) No. 1830/2003 on the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms will apply to the UK. They respect that decisions on GMOs are a devolved matter.
The natural mineral water policy decisions were subject to a public consultation, which ran from 16 October to 13 November last year. Defra engaged all major stakeholders in the process throughout 2018, from individual companies to industry bodies. We have also written to the main stakeholders to explain the implications of the instrument.
These measures will ensure that the policy regimes for natural mineral waters, spirit drinks, food labelling, wine, aromatised wine, GMOs and animal imports remain able to operate. With the exception of natural mineral waters, where we have consulted extensively, this instrument makes technical or operability corrections ensuring that these regimes continue to function as intended. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the regulations, and given my heritage—born in Edinburgh—find particularly pleasing those concerning Scotch whisky exports, which obviously boost trade for the whole country.
From my Question earlier this week, the Minister will be aware of my interest in traceability and labelling. Unfortunately, we did not have time to explore it then. I am grateful to him for setting out the thrust of the statutory instrument. He went to some length to explain that this instrument is technical in nature and makes no public policy changes, but he will be aware of the fact that the 19th report of Sub-Committee B of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states very clearly that the regulations give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House. Therefore I am grateful that we are having the opportunity to debate them today.
North Yorkshire is still smarting from the fact that Shepherds Purse Cheeses used to produce a very popular cheese called Yorkshire Feta, which, not being produced in Greece, fell foul of the GI, and so for a time was called Yorkshire Fettle. To my embarrassment, I am unsure how it is marketed now.
Can the Minister provide an assurance that we will continue to follow the Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003? I do not necessarily blame the Government for the volatility of the pound, but we have seen changes to the pound since the result of the referendum was known, and, over the last two weeks, increasingly volatility. This has huge implications for cocoa and chocolate products. The Minister will be aware, for example—without naming a producer, because other products are available—that we tend to introduce milk chocolate here with a lower cocoa content and a higher oil vegetable fat content. I am seeking an assurance that we will continue to be aligned with the European Union rules regarding cocoa and chocolate products, and in particular, their content, insofar as these regulations relate to that.
Baroness Byford (Con)
I thank the Minister for introducing the first of these amendments. I have two issues that I should like to follow up on. The first is about geographical indication. I see from the brief that the UK has some 86 product names already in being; it cites Scotch whisky, Welsh lamb and Cornish pasties. I would love to have had Stilton cheese and Melton Mowbray pork pies in there, coming as I do from the Leicestershire end. Can the Minister clarify that this will in no way restrict new products from becoming listed?
Secondly, I am grateful for what he said on the GMOs, and accept the importance of labelling. But again, looking to the future with the same rigour, I trust that new developments will not be precluded. Again, I should like some clarification, but I welcome this amendment.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his characteristically clear explanation of this SI. I have just a few queries on which I should appreciate his assurance. First, under Part 4, Regulation (EC) No. 1830/2003 concerning genetically modified organisms, Article 4 refers to amending thresholds for release of GMOs into the environment.
Do the Government intend to alter thresholds? Under what circumstances might that be done? Who will ultimately decide what future thresholds will be? I certainly do not want to preclude novel developments; I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on that.
Part 5 covers Commission decision 2009/821/EC, which refers to border inspection posts and TRACES, the Trade Control and Expert System, for notification of imports and so on. How many border inspection posts are there currently? Are there plans for any more? Can we be assured that the number is adequate to deal with any Brexit scenario?
Secondly, I understand that TRACES will be replaced by a British system. I believe it is called the Import of Products, Animals, Food and Feed System, with the natty acronym IPAFFS. When will that be operational? Will it be by 29 March?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for his introduction and for the time of his officials in the briefing. This SI was originally scheduled to be a negative instrument, but was upgraded to an affirmative instrument after Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Sub-Committee B had completed its sifting process. This was a wise decision, as some significant changes are covered in this SI—not least on natural mineral waters, but also on geographical indications and GMOs. It is all about environmental protection, food and intellectual property. The last, in particular, will have significant impacts in some areas of the UK.
As the Minister said, this is a transfer of functions and there will be mutual recognition between the UK and the EU from day one. However, unless I have misunderstood it, there will be a six-month transition period during which imported EU mineral waters will not be able to be labelled “mineral water” and recognised for sale in the UK. As the Minister said, these EU mineral waters represent approximately 30% of UK market sales. There will therefore be a gap in the market, which it is unlikely our own UK mineral water bottlers will be able to fill. Our own mineral waters are very specific to geographic areas—Highland Spring, Buxton and Glastonbury Chalice Well being three. My husband comes from Derbyshire, so my preference is for Buxton when I can get it. If the EU’s Volvic, Evian and Pellegrino mineral waters are not available, the UK consumer may find they are unable to buy an alternative as demand will outstrip the supply of our production.
At the end of the six-month transition period, an EU-based mineral water company can reapply for permission to import into the UK. It will be up to the Secretary of State to either withdraw or grant such permission. If I have understood it correctly, if any EU state recognises our UK mineral water, the Secretary of State cannot withdraw an EU water company’s permission. It will be up to his or her discretion. Is it likely that many EU mineral water companies may not bother to reapply? On the upside, if one of the EU countries recognises a UK-based mineral water, all 27 will have to do the same—so markets will be opened up. Likewise, if one of the devolved Administrations permits an EU mineral water company to import its products, the other three will also permit it to be imported.
I turn now to the question of geographical indication, or GIs, about which we have had some discussion. This is a wide classification including Scotch whisky, Irish whiskey, Cornish pasties, Wensleydale cheese and Camel Valley wines. These are extremely important to the economy of the areas that produce this fine food and drink. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that there will be no change to description and labelling. I look to the Minister to give reassurance that the status of iconic GIs will not be diminished but protected after we have left the EU.
The labelling of local produce is extremely important, especially to the farming community, where lamb and beef in particular command a high price if they come from certain breeds and areas of the country, such as salt-marsh Welsh lamb.
Food labelling is of particular interest to me as someone who reads all the labels of foods that contain more than one product. As a lifelong coeliac, I look out for wheat-based and gluten-containing products in everything. The current labelling system, whereby allergens are highlighted in bold, is extremely useful, as the allergens leap out at you and you do not have to read all the ingredients in depth. Often, there is a gluten-free, crossed-grain symbol on the front of the product; thus I can safely buy sausages from two well-known food retailers without having to refer to the small print on the back.
I am not alone in meticulously reading ingredient labels. I therefore ask the Minister to give his reassurance that there will be no watering down of the regulations once exit day has passed. As we all know, poor labelling has become a matter of life or death for some. A review of labelling will need to ensure more stringent regulations, not a watering down of existing ones.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction this afternoon and for the courtesy of meeting us beforehand. This SI covers a wide range of issues and has all the hallmarks of a hurried amalgamation of outstanding issues which have to be cleared before Brexit day. I hope that stakeholders and businesses with an interest in the content can find the relevant changes buried away in this SI, with its rather unenlightening title concerning intellectual property, which seems to cover a lot of sins that are not immediately obvious.
I also make the point that the amendments to Commission decision 2009/821/EC concerning border inspection posts, and those referring to health certificates, should have been dealt with as part of the earlier SI on the import and trade in animals and animal products. I am not sure why they have been tagged on here in this way.
Incidentally, on this subject, I am grateful to the Minister for writing a follow-up letter on the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Knight and others when we dealt with that more substantial SI a couple of weeks ago. I am aware the Government have today published technical information on imports between Northern Ireland and the Republic. However, in the case of animals crossing the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic—in other words, those being exported—the letter confirmed a rather alarming fact. Without a deal, all animals seeking to enter the EU—the Republic of Ireland—would have to do so via an EU border inspection post, with locations that are yet to be decided.
The Minister’s letter also confirmed that, while the Government continue to engage constructively with Ireland—as has been a common theme in debates on other SIs—there are in fact restrictions on the UK having bilateral discussions with EU member states. There is therefore only a limited amount of progress that can be made between the UK and the Republic of Ireland at this point. I do not want to dwell too much on this today as it is not the main subject of the SI, but it must be extremely unsatisfactory for farmers in Northern Ireland, who will face extreme restrictions on exporting to the south. I hope the Minister can provide reassurance to those farmers that urgent steps are being taken to make sure that the border inspection posts and all other means to ease exporting are put in place as soon as possible.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, the SI before us was drawn to the special attention of the House by scrutiny Sub-Committee B. I agree with her: this raises important issues of public policy, particularly as it affects consumers’ rights and choice. I had not picked up the issue of chocolate but, now she has raised it, I too would like to know whether the price and availability of cocoa and chocolate will be affected—I certainly have great interest in the Minister’s answer.
As has been said, the SI sets out new regulations for accrediting natural mineral water. As the Explanatory Memorandum sets out, the amendments will maintain the existing recognition of mineral waters from the EU, Iceland and Norway, which would ensure market stability, continued trade and consumer choice. Given that we export and import mineral water to and from the EU, this is obviously a sensible provision, but the SI also seems to contain an open threat which I have not seen before in SIs dealing with traded goods. It says that if the Secretary of State finds that there is at least one UK mineral water that is not being recognised in any member state in the EU, then all accreditation for all EU mineral waters in the UK will cease, effectively forthwith. The effect of this would be that all EU mineral waters, including some very big brands that have been referred to, would not be able to be sold in the UK as natural mineral water. Is this negotiating tactic being adopted more widely? Is this the way we are going to do our future trade talks with the EU? Have the consequences been considered and discussed with UK mineral water exporters? I understand that they do not export as much as we import, but they would no doubt find that all their export opportunities to the EU would be cut off if we were to operate such a tit-for-tat approach. Is this a tactic with which they agree?
Has any consideration been given to the impact that this would have on consumer choice? We might all say that we should not import water, particularly not in plastic bottles, from the EU or anywhere else—the Minister has said before that London tap is a very fine brand and we should all drink that—but there is an issue about consumer choice. When we ask consumers, they all have their very strong preferences and preferred brands and it is important that we are clear about the consequences. Also, he said that this is a devolved issue. In fact, this provision is an England-only provision, so could we find that, for example, Evian water was available in Scotland and Wales but not in England? I think that he probably has an answer, but it is important that that is recorded so that we are clear on the legal position.
I turn to the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks. The regulations transfer authority for registering geographical indication from the EU to the Secretary of State, as the Minister said. I think I am right in saying that there has been some sensitivity around these designations in the EU in the past. Certainly, the EU has been seen to be operating the rules in quite a stringent way, so it is not easy to get a geographical indication. That may be a good thing, but what type of objections to GI status would we be considering under the new regime? Will they be similarly stringent, in the way that the EU currently operates, or do we envisage relaxing the rules in some way? If we had different rules in the UK from those that would continue to be operated in the EU, could it have an effect on the export market of our drinks producers? If we were more relaxed about it and yet wanted to export Scotch whisky, could the EU say that, because we have not abided by the EU standards of GIs, we could no longer export to the EU?
There are obvious advantages to expanding our GIs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said—to celebrate regional and local provenance—and we all understand how advantageous that would be in many ways. What we do not want to do is to cut off our nose to spite our face and find that our exports are damaged in some way.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful for all the comments that have been made. I agree that they cover issues beyond the statutory instrument, which, as I said, enables regimes to be operable. The subject matters are very important. I can say immediately to my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that, yes, we will continue to follow the Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003. Of course, the whole proposal for beyond this afternoon’s debate is that we are not seeking, with these SIs coming through the withdrawal Act, to have any policy changes at all. We will continue with that.
On the question of geographical indications, on which a number of points were made, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lady Byford that, perhaps of the 86, Stilton was definitely most worthy of comment. However, I think that all of us, and beyond, recognise that we have some extraordinarily wonderful produce from all parts of the United Kingdom. We should celebrate them. I assure your Lordships that the GI schemes that will come into force in the UK on the day that we leave the EU will guarantee that UK GIs will remain fully protected in the UK. There is absolutely no question that suddenly these extraordinarily important products would have to share their centuries-old heritage with others.
The forthcoming GI legislation will also ensure that the UK continues to comply with these obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization, including under the TRIPS agreement on intellectual property. That is vital in empowering the UK to strike new trade deals with other countries, a number of which are due to come into force on exit day. Yes, we wish to cherish the GIs that we have, but we also see every merit—I am sure that this is the case around the world—in ensuring that there is scope for new produce to be a celebration of wherever it comes, as in this country.
A number of points were raised on GMOs. Although this is about operability, a number of your Lordships raised the issue more generally. An important point was made about the ability to make changes to allow the UK to keep pace with technological advances and labelling requirements in the international arena. It is important that we are in a position, through this SI and beyond, to ensure that we can attend to any necessary changes. The devolved Administrations may make their own amendments or, as we have often seen with these SIs—I think that this will continue—the Secretary of State may do so on DAs’ behalf with their agreement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about expertise in this area, as did the noble Lord, Lord Trees, my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. The current situation is that the European Food Safety Authority issues an opinion on an application. For the UK, the EFSA opinion is considered by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. ACRE is a statutory body of experts providing independent scientific advice to UK Ministers on potential risk to the environment caused by any GMO.
To emphasise the importance of the scientists involved, I can report that ACRE comprises nine independent scientists with expertise in a range of disciplines, including ecology, microbiology, entomology, soil biology and biochemistry, plant pathology, genetics and plant biochemistry, medical microbiology and human infection, molecular biology, genomics and systems biology and synthetic biology. The Food Standards Agency considers the application in terms of safety as food and feed. ACRE’s advice informs the UK’s vote from the environmental perspective. That is how it has been, with that statutory body of experts.
Going forward, EFSA’s opinions are publicly available, so we will continue to have access to them, and ACRE will continue to advise the UK Government on the environmental aspects of applications made for, for example, any GM crop. The final decision will now be made, as I say, in the United Kingdom, but I emphasise that the Government place the greatest importance on environmental protection, all of it based on independent scientific expertise of the range that I outlined—I am sorry that it took a little time, but I wanted your Lordships to know that the range of expertise covers almost every area that could be interconnected with these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, raised the question of inspections. On imports from the EU, we have decided that the risk will not change on day one. There may not be reciprocity but we will not change our arrangements, because we do not believe that there are any new risks to UK biosecurity. The only additional inspections that we will have for imports will apply to live animals, animal products and high-risk food and feed not of animal origin that originates from a third country and travels through the EU before arriving in the UK. We are considering options to minimise regulatory duplication for transits entering the UK via the EU, and I confirm that there will be no change to the level of expertise required at UK BIPs. We are conscious of the flow of trade, but we need to base all our judgments on biosecurity risk as well. The Chief Veterinary Office, who constantly advises me and the Government on such matters, is absolutely clear that there is no risk.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, raised a number of other points. I absolutely understand the sensitivities of the Northern Ireland issue. I emphasise that we remain focused on securing a deal that will guarantee no hard border. We have always been clear that the unique social, political and economic circumstances of Northern Ireland must be reflected in any arrangements that could apply in a no-deal scenario. In the event of no deal, we will do everything possible to avoid a hard border between the north and the Republic and to uphold the Good Friday agreement. Therefore, today we confirm a unilateral approach to checks, processes and tariffs. That approach will of course be temporary, but if there is no deal we will not introduce any new checks or controls on goods crossing from Ireland to Northern Ireland, including any new customs declarations for goods.
I obviously hope very much that the same will be reflected by the EU and the Republic but, as I said during Questions earlier this week, a deal involves two parties. In making that pragmatic decision, we have behaved correctly. We have been told that there will not be reciprocity on natural mineral water, but we took the view that we would continue to accept it from the EU. Yes, that recognises consumer choice but it is important to recognise our pragmatic approach. There is absolutely no intention to see some trade war or dispute emerge. We are clear that the Secretary of State has the ability to withdraw recognition but, in practical terms, with this SI and beyond we have seen a collaborative approach between all home countries. That is the point rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. After the guaranteed first six months of rolled-over recognition, all the home countries would need to agree—I hope that it will not be the case, but this is the provision—that there might be a time to give notice, as stated in the instrument, and how long that notice would be. Again, I say that the UK has been pragmatic and certainly does not seek anything other than a meaningful and strong relationship in this case, the drinking of natural mineral water. I absolutely endorse what the noble Baroness said: I find it curious how much water we import. Think of the imported water miles, when we have Buxton, Highland Spring and Welsh water—
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
And Harrogate Spring Water; I thank my noble friend. I do not say this to encourage a feeling that I am against EU produce, but I think that the British Government have taken a very pragmatic approach to an issue that I very much hope does not transpire and that we can find satisfactory arrangements.
On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on trade, I very much hope that EU companies would consider applying, if that were to be the case. The Government support consumer choice; that is very important. I am mindful, however, of what I have said about London tap water and other wonderful waters from all parts of the United Kingdom. Looking at the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I think of some very fine water from Northumbria. Around our country, we have these great examples. On the issue of labelling, as we know, following the death of Natasha, the Secretary of State embarked on a consultation so that people can know much more about what is in made-up food. A lot is happening, thank goodness, voluntarily, but we are having this consultation because we take very seriously the need for consumers to have all the information they desire and need.
The instrument does not amend food labelling rules—it is not intended to; it is about temporary fixes to operability. On the issue of Northern Ireland borders, only a limited range of goods will need to enter the UK, including Northern Ireland, through a border inspection post. The purpose is to protect human, animal and plant health after we have left. In a no-deal scenario, animals and animal products from countries outside the EU would need to enter Northern Ireland through a UK border inspection post, as is the case now. We will always keep our biosecurity analysed for risk.
Clearly, we are also committed as a Government to continue discussions with the Commission and the Irish Government to jointly agree long-term measures to avoid a hard border, which we strongly desire to avoid, and to limit the impact on life on the island of Ireland, which is crucial.
There may be other key points. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked about BIP capacity. It is considered sufficient. There are 25 UK BIPS. The estimate is for an extra 8,000 checks at UK BIPS. Port health authorities—I have quizzed this myself—have confirmed that they can meet that extra demand with existing food inspectors. Ports are developing more capacity to deal with it. I know that work is in progress at Calais, at Coquelles. A lot of work is going on.
I am looking for other key points that I should answer. On the issue of consultation on food labelling, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, Defra has raised stakeholder awareness of the food labelling technical notices of last September and of the amending of food labelling laws consultation, which I mentioned. Defra Ministers have engaged many times with key stakeholders externally to the consultation.
The instrument is about technical operability, with the exception of natural mineral waters. All these areas are technical, so on the precise instrument, the answer is that it was not necessary. However, I would like to say—and perhaps will write to noble Lords about this—that there are many instances of ongoing engagement on spirit and drinks, food labelling, GMOs, animal imports and working with importers. There has also been, to date, engagement with 300 stakeholders covering 50 events. Therefore, beyond these statutory instruments, a very considerable amount of consultation and working with others has been undertaken.
This may be the last point. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised a question about separate food labelling across the devolved Administrations. Clearly we have to respect the devolved arrangements and food labelling is devolved, but it is fair to say that all four parts of the kingdom are working together very closely to ensure that there is no disruption to the UK internal market in the event of a no-deal scenario, or indeed any scenario. I think that there is a recognition among all parts of the kingdom that the internal market within the UK is tremendously important and that we should work collaboratively. The evidence I have from all the SIs, on these matters and beyond, is that sense and pragmatism is prevailing.
I will study Hansard again, because there may be some points in the many questions I have sought to answer that noble Lords would like more detailed answers on.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister as he gathers his final thoughts, but it was remiss of me, since we strayed into the science of GMOs, not to have declared as interest as the chair of Rothamsted Centre for Research and Enterprise, part of Rothamsted Research, which does research into GMOs.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am a member of the All-Party Group on whisky and food, do receive hospitality, and had dinner with a chocolate company, which was not concerned by what we have discussed today.
Lord Trees
Perhaps by writing I could have an answer to the question on when the replacement for TRACES might be operational.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The successor to TRACES, IPAFFS, was launched on private beta on 14 February, for organisations with the greatest need. It will be operable for all third-country exports from the day we leave. We intend a separate system for imports from the EU, with IPAS coming into play in the summer, I think. I would not like to give a precise date, but obviously we want this working effectively, and I will write to the noble Lord—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the primary aim of this instrument and the Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 is to amend EU and domestic legislation on detergents to enable their continued operability. Both instruments amend the same EU detergents regulation and, given the close links, they are grouped for this debate. We have worked with the devolved Administrations on these instruments. The legislation amended by the draft Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations is a reserved matter. The draft Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations relate to devolved matters and the devolved Administrations have consented to that SI. These instruments make many amendments and I will highlight some of them. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that they are technical in nature.
The Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 will ensure the continuation of standards and requirements in relation to the placing on the market of detergents, while ensuring a high degree of protection of the environment and human health. These draft regulations remedy deficiencies that will arise in the retained EU detergents regulation and the implementing domestic regulation, so as to ensure that manufacturers placing detergents and surfactants for detergents on the market in the UK continue to meet all the requirements of the detergents regulation, including composition—this includes strict limits on the permitted level of phosphorous content—labelling, data sheets and testing. Restrictions or bans are imposed on surfactants on grounds of biodegradability.
Looking at the first SI in more detail, Part 2 of the Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations ensures that the domestic Detergents Regulations 2010 can continue to be enforced by the relevant authorities and that penalties for non-compliance remain in place. Part 3 amends the EU detergents regulation to remedy deficiencies including corrections to references which would have no practical application to the UK after EU exit. For example, Regulations 5 and 6 remove references to the free movement of detergents in the EU internal market and to the Union customs territory in articles 1 and 2 of the EU regulation. The detergents regulation cross-refers to a number of pieces of EU legislation, including the regulations on biocidal products, cosmetic products and classification, labelling and packaging, the REACH regulations and the good laboratory practice directive. This instrument amends many of these cross-references, ensuring they are up to date so that they will continue to work on exit day.
This instrument also sets out how the returning EU powers, including those on decision-making currently exercised by the European Commission, will return to the UK after EU exit. As the competent authority for detergents in the UK the Secretary of State will exercise those powers, taking expert advice as appropriate. In practice, the work of the competent authority will effectively continue to be undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive under an agency agreement with Defra. The HSE’s existing capability and capacity can be built upon to take on UK regulatory authority responsibility. However, additional requirements from this SI for the competent authority are minimal.
Relevant functions to be transferred to the Secretary of State include the power to consider granting a derogation for a product—regulations 8 and 9—and the power in regulation 10 to determine disputes about testing methods for a product. The derogation provision has been used only very rarely at EU level. In the case of disputes about testing methods, a manufacturer may appeal a decision by the Secretary of State to a court.
Member states are currently required to notify to the Commission the list of approved laboratories that are authorised to carry out the tests required by the regulation. Through regulation 11, provision is made so that tests required by this regulation may be carried out by approved laboratories and the Secretary of State must publish that list. In practice, the HSE will publish the list.
Regulation 12 amends Article 9 on the information to be provided by manufacturers. Article 9(3) requires that manufacturers placing detergent products on the market shall make available an ingredient data sheet and that member states may request that such a data sheet be made available to a specific public body to which the member state has assigned to the task of providing this information to medical personnel. This article is amended to specifically refer to the National Poisons Information Service or such other body to which the Secretary of State or the devolved Administrations may assign for this purpose. NPIS already undertakes this role across the UK.
The power of the Commission to adapt the annexes to the regulation in line with scientific and technical progress is transferred to the Secretary of State in regulation 16. The Secretary of State will be able to do so by making a statutory instrument.
I turn to the draft Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which amends the safeguarding clause in article 15 of the detergents regulation. Currently, member states may take provisional measures in relation to those detergents which fully comply with the EU regulation but which nevertheless pose a risk to the safety of humans or animals or a risk to the environment. Member states intending to use the safeguard clause must immediately inform the Commission, documenting their reasons. Regulation 3 amends article 15 of the EU detergents regulation. The Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations —where the matter is devolved—will have the full powers currently held by the European Commission and member states to initiate urgent, temporary safeguarding action across the UK in relation to detergents. Although there was no statutory requirement to consult on this instrument, HSE officials have engaged with industry.
In March 2018, a round of one-to-one stakeholder meetings with trade associations was held in relation to chemicals legislation generally. The main TA with an interest in detergents and cleaning products is the UK Cleaning Products Industry Association, or UKCPI. No particular concerns were expressed at that time in relation to these detergents regulations.
The JCSI did not report any concerns with these instruments. The SLSC noted that,
“HSE’s responsibilities after EU exit will expand significantly as a result of these and other instruments; it will need to be resourced adequately to carry out its new functions”.
As I set out earlier, the Health and Safety Executive currently acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, who is the competent authority for detergents legislation, and any additional requirements from this SI are minimal.
The SLSC also asked Defra about the use of the safeguarding mechanism and whether the fact that the UK will no longer have access to the EU’s information-sharing systems will mean greater health or environmental risks. The department responded that while the UK would lose access to information sharing systems such as the EU’s rapid reporting and response system, or RAPEX, in practice the safeguarding mechanism was very rarely used—just twice since 2004—and the impact was therefore likely to be low. The UK will still have access to the publicly available information on RAPEX and to the new product safety database established by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I sympathise with Ministers who have to deal with so many similar- sounding regulations; when you pick them up and look at them you are not quite sure which one you are looking at—in this case there is a variation of one word between the two of them. When I came to look at them, I thought they sound reasonably sensible overall, but one or two things came out. The Minister has touched on them already, but I will ask her to expand a little.
The Minister said that this would be a minimal expansion for the Health and Safety Executive. What exactly does that mean in this context? Is it a large expansion or just occasional greater activity? We need to know whether the executive has that capacity and whether it can do this when it happens. The last sentence of the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee Sub-Committee B asks what will happen when it loses the EU’s reporting capacity and information exchange. The Government responded, “This happens only occasionally, so don’t worry”. You would expect, if the system is at all sensible, that anything to do with safeguarding will happen only very occasionally. If the system was so flawed that you needed to use it frequently, one would hope that you would change the entire system. We need to hear something about how we are going to do this. You are not regulating something that is happening all the time—this happens when something goes wrong. A very minor variation is coming in here. Ingredients which are normally used are normally safe; in this case something has gone wrong, or some threat happens. That is a genuine concern, because you are not dealing with the everyday.
I would like a little more information about how that is to work, and on why, for instance, the 90-day period was chosen as the length of time within which it is appropriate to take action. Can we have some more information on that just to put our minds at rest? It is nothing to do with the mechanical process, but about something that has gone wrong: therefore it has to be able to respond, and quickly, and only very occasionally—a gap of decades is quite possible here. Can we find out how that will work, and make sure that that capacity is there? At the moment, the statement, “It hasn’t happened very often so let’s not worry about it”, is worrying. It could be read in that way; perhaps that is too blunt a way of interpreting it, but I hope that we can have something to reassure us that this capacity is available. If it is never needed, that is great, but it should be there.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the regulations and congratulate my noble friend on moving them. I echo the concern that was raised in the 18th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee Sub-Committee B: these echo my earlier remarks to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Henley, when he was talking about a similar statutory instrument a week or two ago, and I thank him for his letter. My noble friend Lord Gardiner was also kind enough to refer to comments about RASSF relating to food safety. I associate myself with comments from the Liberal Democrat Benches as well.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her introduction and for arranging a very helpful briefing on this SI. We accept that these SIs are necessary to ensure the continued operability of the EU-related provisions post Brexit. However, we are keen to ensure that the transfer of powers to Ministers is not used as an excuse to weaken standards and processes. One way to ensure this is for the UK to keep pace with EU standards on this matter. These SIs also raise the recurring themes, which we have debated several times now, of the potential for significant environmental impacts and the need for effective environmental governance—I suspect that that will be a running theme today and on future SIs.
They also raise the recurring issues of resources: in this case for the HSE to carry out its new functions and for the scientific advice and guidance that will be necessary. Most importantly, we share the concern of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that without access to the EU’s information-sharing systems there will be greater health or environmental risks. With this in mind, I have a few specific questions. First, as a general point, the instruments state that these provisions ensure that a high degree of protection for the environment and human and animal health can be maintained after Brexit. What does this mean in practice? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be the same level of protection that is offered now, given that some of the EU protections that have been available to us in the past will no longer be there?
In the additional information that Defra provided to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, it was stated that in the event of a no-deal Brexit the UK would lose access to the EU’s information-sharing systems, such as the rapid reporting and response systems. If that is the case, is there any mechanism for the UK to be notified about unsafe products from the EU market that are already being developed there or already mirroring products that have already entered the UK market? Is there any other system for that notification to take place, or are we simply relying on the rapid reporting and response system? A lot of these projects will be used globally; therefore, reporting on any problems that occur will take place globally.
On the other side of the coin, how will EU member states and the European Commission be notified about unsafe products from the UK market which are not UK-specific but which have already entered the EU market? How do we intend to do that, when we do not have the formalised systems in place? Does the Minister accept the point which echoed around the Committee this afternoon, that if we do not have access to the EU’s information-sharing system, there is cause for concern that UK citizens will be less safe and less protected? What guarantees can we give that this will not be the case?
In addition, the instruments state that,
“biodegradability requirements will be transferred to the Secretary of State as the UK’s competent authority for detergents, and these functions will then be exercised by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after exit”.
I would like to probe biodegradability, because it is a matter that people value and hold dear. I want to be sure that, with the Minister having responsibility, biodegradability will not be downgraded as a consequence of other trade priorities and negotiations which are taking place. You might say it is the detergent version of chlorinated chicken. We want the trade deal, but if the price of the trade deal is that we lower our standards, can UK citizens be assured that our safety and protection level will not be downgraded?
The draft detergents amendment SI states that,
“there is an option for the HSE, acting as the competent authority for the Detergents Regulation under an Agency Agreement with the Secretary of State, to charge a fee for processing derogation applications for the use of industrial and institutional surfactants”.
What is the fee? How will the HSE enforce it? Will the fee be off-putting to businesses potentially wanting to trade in this country?
Several noble Lords referred to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on resources, which said that:
“HSE’s responsibilities after EU exit will expand significantly as a result of these and other instruments; it will need to be resourced adequately to carry out its new functions”.
That is very different from the Minister saying this afternoon that the additional requirements were minimal. Therefore, we need to find some way of bottoming this out. Is she saying that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was wrong? It has obviously looked into this matter and says that it will need additional resources. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify what the score is here. What additional funding has been provided to HSE to carry out these extra functions? How many extra staff does she envisage being hired to carry out these extra responsibilities?
The regulations also state that,
“the detergents Regulation cross-refers to a number of other pieces of EU legislation, including REACH Regulations”.
I know we are not going to debate this today but I want to put on record, in case there is any doubt, that we have serious concerns about the instrument relating to REACH regulations, and which we will deal with separately. Many of the concerns about REACH are also concerns that we have here about access to important information which the EU would normally have collated and shared with us, but which will no longer be available.
Paragraph 7.5 states that,
“the Secretary of State as the competent authority for detergents for the UK will exercise those powers, taking expert advice as appropriate”.
What does that mean about expert advice? Where will this advice come from? Is it just UK advice, or will the Secretary of State consult any other European agencies when formulating a policy on this? The issue of scientific and technical progress also comes up in relation to the technical annexes. Who will provide that scientific and technical progress when the update to the technical annexes takes place? How often is it envisaged that they will be updated? Who will be consulted about these updates before they are published?
I turn to the detergents safeguarding regulations. As has been said, the EM says:
“The safeguard clause may only be used on a case-by-case basis for a specific product, not for a class of product. The safeguard clause therefore cannot be used to introduce risk management measures of a general nature”.
Can the Minister confirm that that will indeed be done on a case-by-case basis and that there will not be any attempt to extend the use of this provision for a more general policy change? What safeguards do we have that it will be curtailed to a case-by-case basis?
Paragraph 2.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Member States intending to use the safeguard clause must immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States, documenting the reasons for this decision”.
In that situation, will a devolved Administration who intend to initiate the safeguard have the same obligations to inform immediately all the devolved Administrations, the Secretary of State and the HSE, in the same way as member states currently do? What information sharing will there be within the UK to make sure that we are all aware of any safeguarding issues?
Paragraph 7.2 says:
“The Secretary of State and devolved administrations will be able to take urgent, temporary restrictive action in relation to a product through a safeguard clause”.
How will this process take place? How will this decision be made? Will there be consultation between Administrations? Will the HSE consult devolved Administrations? If Scotland decides to take action, does that mean that the decision will apply throughout the UK? It would be helpful if the Minister could say more about how that devolved responsibility will operate.
Finally on safeguarding, if there is a concern about a specific detergent, how will businesses be notified that their product is in some way being queried? If the products are already in the market, is there an arrangement for them to be recalled? What are the practicalities of detergents being identified as a risk to the health of humans or animals, and how will that be dealt with with the businesses concerned?
I have one last question, on the safeguarding measures not being imposed for more than 90 days. Why 90 days? If that product still poses a risk, can the measure be extended or rolled over, or do we have to revisit it from the start? What are the limitations on that 90 days? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. It has been a measured debate and—thankfully—fairly on topic, which is always a relief. A number of noble Lords have raised some good questions, and I hope to be able to answer them. To the extent that I am not, I will certainly write.
However, I will address one issue straight up, which is about environmental protections post exit. The Government are very clear that we will not weaken environmental protections when we leave the EU. We will instead maintain, and even enhance, our already high environmental standards. The detergents SI will ensure the continuation of standards and requirements in relation to the placing on the market of detergents, while maintaining a high degree of protection for the environment and human health. I hope that as I go through the answers to the questions today, the Committee will feel this is indeed the case.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister at this late stage but can I be clear about whether these detergents are subject to REACH regulations? Do they have to go through the REACH system as well? As she probably knows, for the majority of chemicals if more than 1 tonne is exported from or imported into the UK those chemicals are covered by REACH regulations, which lay down a large number of other provisions. Are those included or not? I am sorry if that is an unfair question. I do not need an immediate response.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
It is a very interesting question. They are subject to the REACH regulations, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I note her concerns about those regulations. As I am sure she is aware, they will be debated in due course in your Lordships’ House and were already debated in the other place on 25 February. I have a little more information on that issue, but I want to put it into proper context so I will write to the noble Lord.
I return to biodegradability and whether it would be downgraded in future. Whether these detergents and surfactants hang around in the environment for a long time is a very important issue. It is clearly a bad thing because they play havoc with water tension and so on. The Government have set out a vision for a green Brexit, in which environmental standards will be not only maintained but enhanced. The biodegradability criteria in the detergents regulations are essential in avoiding these adverse impacts on the environment. We are obviously mindful that if these are not disposed of properly, they can cause foaming and degrade or assist the eutrophication of rivers, which I believe is not beneficial to organic life.
Trade agreements can cover a range of issues and although the UK will be able to negotiate its own trade deals in the event of no deal, focusing on growth areas for our economy, the UK Government continue to be committed to high environmental standards after EU exit and to maintaining a high degree of continuity with current climate goals, green policies and wider environmental targets. I reassure the noble Baroness that, as I mentioned earlier, any changes to the technical annexes will be done by statutory instrument, and will therefore come before your Lordships’ House. Those sorts of issues would be included within that.
A number of noble Lords touched on the resourcing of the HSE—I had fair wind that this might come up. This issue was noted by the SLSC, but I suspect that it probably got to the stage where it had seen the HSE a number of times and thought, “Hang on a minute, we probably want to do something”. For these instruments, the additional administrative requirement for the HSE is minimal. However, I will commit to trying to get an understanding across the piece about how many additional functions the HSE is being asked to take on, and confirm that it is satisfied with the resources it has. That is only fair, because this one is minimal. I completely understand that but the SLSC has made that point and it is worth following up on.
The issue of fees for the HSE is an interesting one. This is only for derogations, and there has been only one derogation across the EU. The fees for derogations are agreed; there was a consultation with the industry. I could go into great detail about these fees but they are designed to meet the costs of derogations; obviously, we do not expect those to happen very often. A derogation occurs where one is using a detergent for a specific purpose which does not fall within the regulations. It would be highly unlikely nowadays with the biodegradable detergents we have for them to be frequent at all.
I move on to the issue of experts. Noble Lords will be aware that the Health and Safety Executive is a world leader in the regulation of chemicals and will continue to be so following EU exit. It also has the necessary regulatory scientific and technical expertise in-house. However, The Government Chief Scientific Adviser’s Guidelines on the Use of Scientific and Engineering Advice in Policy Making of 2010 state that,
“advice from external sources should be sought whenever necessary”,
and we would of course do so. Sources of research and advice may include: the departments’ own experts and analysts; research and funding councils; expert advisory systems such as the Science Advisory Council and the scientific advisory committees, and research and non-departmental sources. We have a great tradition of science and research in this country, and I remain convinced that we would find the right group of experts for the right problem. As noble Lords will be aware these experts will be used to update the annexes, which will go through the usual process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, touched on governance. We have been here a few times before—
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I was hoping the Minister would be able to update us.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I will not be able to accede to that wish today. I can go no further than we have been able to before with regard to the future of governance and the office for environmental protection, but I commit to the noble Baroness that we will update her as soon as we can.
Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
Organic Production and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Organic Production and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, these instruments correct technical deficiencies in legislation relating to organic production to ensure operability on exit. The instruments introduce no new policy and preserve the current regime’s organic standards. The Government are strongly supportive of organic standards, many of which were developed in the UK and adopted by the EU. The UK has a world-recognised standard of food production and labelling which we wish to see maintained. We have grouped these instruments for discussion as they both relate to amendments to organic legislation.
Early indications from the sifting committees were that SIs laid as negative but with a connection to agriculture were being selected to be uplifted to affirmative. While the Organic Production and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were not specifically recommended for uplift by the sifting committees, we chose to voluntarily uplift this SI to reduce the risk of it running out of parliamentary time. The Organic Production (Control of Imports) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 contain transfer of function provisions, and as such the affirmative procedure must apply.
These statutory instruments apply to the United Kingdom, and we have worked with the devolved Administrations on their development. The legislation amended by the Organic Production and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 relates to devolved matters, and the devolved Administrations have consented to that SI. The Organic Production (Control of Imports) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are reserved. Officials have had very helpful discussions with their counterparts in the DAs, and we are working with them on all aspects of the organics regime to form an agreement on how we all work together going forward.
The Organic Production and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ensure that organic standards remain the same as now for organic operators within the UK by amending deficiencies in the retained EU legislation: for example, references to the UK as a member state. The certification and traceability of organic food and feed products will continue. This instrument sets out minor technical amendments and lays down a time-limited period during which the UK would not require additional border checks for organic products imported from the EU, the EEA and Switzerland.
The Organic Production (Control of Imports) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations also amend deficiencies in the retained EU legislation but deal with reserved measures covering imports and trade in organic food, feed and vegetative propagating material or seeds for cultivation. The SI transfers powers from the Commission to the UK to recognise countries and control bodies that can operate for the purposes of export to the UK. It also sets out minor technical amendments and lays down a time limit for the recognition of organic products imported from the EU, the EEA and Switzerland.
The UK organics industry is currently regulated by EU law, which sets out standards for organic production. Regulations apply to the production of food, animal feed and livestock, including bees and farmed fish, and any food or feed products marketed as “organic”. They set out the requirements for organic production, processing, labelling and imports, as well as the inspection systems that must be in place to ensure the requirements are met. They stipulate that organic food must be inspected and certified within the scope of a tightly regulated framework and originate from businesses registered and approved by organic control bodies on the basis of a rigorous annual inspection. The regulations will now apply to imports at UK borders, rather than EU borders, and ensure the continued regulation and certification of organic products to the current standards applicable within the UK, and equivalent standards where these have been agreed with third countries.
In addition, to ensure we can maintain the status quo and allow UK organic importers to continue to access their goods and ingredients from Europe as now, we have added provisions which permit the UK, for a time-limited period until 31 December 2020, to recognise the EU, the EEA states and Switzerland as having an equivalent organic regulatory regime to the UK. During this period, the UK will also exempt the need for additional checks or paperwork for organic goods originating from these areas. This exemption does not apply to goods that are simply transiting through these territories. This will ensure the status quo remains immediately after exit.
These measures remain essential to ensure UK organic businesses can maintain their organic certification and thrive in this growing sector. These instruments will ensure operability and that the strict standards in place for organic production are maintained when we leave the EU.
Officials have engaged regularly with the United Kingdom organic certifiers group. Our decision to continue to recognise the EU, the EEA and Switzerland for a time-limited period has been welcomed by the group as providing certainty on imports for the immediate future. We continue to work closely with it on this and on the future implementation of the UK regulations. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing these two Motions. I am particularly pleased that there will be a smooth transfer into UK law. The organic sector is still considered a fairly small one, but a very important one. The UK sector brings in a good, healthy amount of money—£2.2 billion to the UK economy and exports worth some £200 million —so the continuation of this trade is hugely important. At this stage I declare my own family farming interest, but we are not organic. We produce very healthy, good food, but it is not purely organic.
The Explanatory Memorandum talks about there being some 6,000 operators. Many of those are small businesses. Those classified as “small” employ “up to 50 people”. That is actually quite a lot of people in an organic movement. I wondered what proportion of the smaller ones have, say, 10 or five employees. What went through my mind was: although this is not supposed to have any financial burdens, if you are a smaller business it obviously has greater implications for you and the organisation of what you have to do. I would be grateful for a response on that one. I am glad that, on the control of imports, it is clearly laid out. I smiled slightly when we had a 20-page list of individual categories, which shows how complex and varied the whole organic sector is.
I welcome the production and control amendment, because I hope it will give great certainty to organic producers. It takes up to three years to turn to become organic from having been, perhaps, commercial farmers. We have often said that farming is a long-term investment —clearly it is—but on the organic side it is more demanding, because there are certain things you can and cannot do during your term of transfer.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, returning to our discussions of these two instruments, I have just about covered everything that I wished to. I stressed the importance of the organic movement: we are now up to some 6,000 organic operators. That is worth a lot of money to farming and agriculture in the UK economy and, even more importantly, to the growth of our exports.
I am grateful for the smooth transition the Government have planned, and apart from my question on the definition of “small” and “very much smaller” businesses, I well realise that the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that there is no expected cost to them. However, I would be grateful to the Minister for clarification on that when she comes to respond.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, we warmly welcome these SIs, which are absolutely essential for the continuity of trade in organic products. We particularly welcome the fact that the Government recognise the voluntary uplift.
I declare an interest which makes me a little more passionate about the sector. I used to work for the Soil Association, albeit very many years ago. It was an interesting time to be there, as it was developing certification techniques with the EU. The sector has moved on a lot in the 25 years since.
By and large, the sector is very happy with these SIs, as are we; it did not have any concerns about them as they currently are. The sector is happy that they are being proposed and debated as a framework for certainty for organic producers and consumers.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, it is a really vibrant market. The organics market in the UK is worth some £2.3 billion, of which 8% goes abroad, mainly to EU countries. The importance of the organic sector for the UK is that it has introduced consumers to many ideas about more sustainable agriculture. So apart from being worthy both in economic terms and as an employer, it has been a flagship, introducing ideas around sustainability, the importance of soil, issues around chemical inputs and so on. It really is a sector that deserves our full attention.
The Government have taken the necessary step to ensure the continuity of trade through this SI. If there is any concern, it is really that this is a period of certainty for only 21 months. As annexe 2 mentions, at the end of that period, things will become uncertain again. In farming, 21 months is as nothing. If you are trying to make investments or change your farming methods, or if you are in conversion, 21 months is an extremely short time. Both producers and UK certification bodies would like to move as soon as possible to a period of greater certainty; I hope that the department is working on that.
The question of how the regulation will be administered, controlled and, particularly, developed in the light of future changes and challenges is something that I hope the Minister can touch on in her reply. Undoubtedly, there will be challenges from developments within other organic regulations. It is a fairly fast-moving scene now, with different products being withdrawn or coming on to the market. Of course, if we start to enter into trade agreements with the US—heaven forbid, but it is possible—that will be a massive challenge. I hope the Minister can give us some certainty about how this is going to be developed.
For consumers, it is equally important that the certification is gold-plated. Organic products command a premium price, so it is essential that consumers, when paying that premium price, can absolutely rely on the origin processing methods of that produce. Otherwise, if any doubt enters that market, it would adversely affect all those who are engaged in genuine organic production.
It would be difficult this afternoon not to mention tariffs—I heard the Minister’s caveat, so I will mention it only briefly. That will be another massive pressure on producers. I gather that tariffs are about to be published or may have been published this afternoon. That is another huge pressure on producers that I hope we will have the chance to debate in your Lordships’ House in the very near future.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these SIs this afternoon and for organising the helpful briefing beforehand. We accept that these SIs are necessary to maintain current standards regulating the UK’s growing organic sector. The continued availability of high-quality produce and sustainable food supplies, in which the organic sector plays a key role, is vital for our food industry and important for consumers. For example, the Soil Association reports that the UK organic sector grew by 5.8% in 2018, its eighth consecutive year of growth. As the EM makes clear, the industry is worth something like £2.2 billion to the UK economy. I very much take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who quite rightly said that so many people in that sector work in small businesses and make a particular contribution to the economy in that regard. Obviously, it is important that their futures are protected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said she felt that the sector did not have any concerns about these SIs. I will come back to that, but the Minister will be aware that the industry is already reporting negative impacts caused by the ongoing uncertainty of Brexit. Confidence is being undermined and businesses are warning that the consecutive years of growth achieved by the UK organic sector could be at risk. Therefore, we are looking to this batch of organic-related SIs, and to what the Minister is able to say this afternoon, to reassure the market of continued access, which the sector deserves and requires.
With this in mind, I have some questions for the Minister, the first of which is on imports. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the issue of the 21-month deadline. Annexe 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“For a strictly time-limited period of 21 months we will exempt the need for additional checks or paperwork for organic goods being imported directly from the EU, the EEA states or Switzerland except those organic goods which do not originate from but are simply transiting through these territories”.
I would like to explore what that 21-month deadline means. Can the Minister give some clarity on that? Has that amount of time been chosen to line up with the transition period? If so, what would happen if the transition period was extended? Is it an absolute deadline whether there is a deal or no deal? Is it written in blood, so to speak? Perhaps she could clarify the status of that 21-month deadline so that we are all clear on that.
Secondly, on exports, as has been touched on, future export arrangements with the EU are a matter for future negotiations. But can the Minister give us an assurance that future access to the EU market for our strong UK organic exporters is indeed a priority for the Government? Can she explain why we are giving guarantees to organic imports while no such guarantees are in place for UK organic exports? There is an imbalance there, and perhaps the Minister can explain why that is the case.
The Government have given notice that, after 29 March, importers will no longer use the EU’s Trade Control and Expert System New Technology, or TRACES, to register consignments of organic produce but must use a manual UK organic import system while a digital system is being developed. Can the Minister give the Committee an update on the progress in building the UK’s own digital system? Will it be fully functional on exit day? What work is being done to ensure that UK industry and its international partners are aware and prepared for this change? What assurances can the Minister give that the temporary manual system, and eventually our own permanent IT system, will provide the same level of certainty over origin and movement of produce as we have at the moment?
Paragraph 12.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, on control of imports, explains that there has not been an impact assessment but:
“There may be minimal familiarisation needed for businesses to set up to use the new import and export systems”.
Can the Minister say what “minimal” means in this instance? Is she assured that this rather minimal objective has been achieved, and will that give businesses the information and knowledge that they need to be able to operate under these new systems? In other words, is the Minister sure that the communication and training systems are in place, running fully and meeting their objectives?
On the ongoing issue of resources and expertise, annexe 2 to the Explanatory Memorandum on control of imports states:
“The UK will be able to accept applications from overseas control bodies to certify to the UK organic standards, and subsequently approve these bodies if the UK wishes”.
Currently, Defra has approved eight certification bodies: six in the UK and two in Ireland. Is any additional expertise or resource needed for the UK to consider and process other applications when we are basically on our own in this matter, rather than having the EU’s information scrutiny process to rely on as well? Are those eight certification bodies up to the job and resourced properly, and do we need other certification bodies?
On a small point, annexe 2 in both SIs explains that certain duties—in Articles 29 and 38 of the Council regulations—have been downgraded from “shall” to “may”. The notes explain that these duties have already been completed by the EU. Will the Minister provide more information on what these articles include and why the specific duties have been downgraded? What is the thinking behind that? If they have been fully completed by the EU, perhaps they are not needed at all and there should be no reference to “may”.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today and for giving up the time to meet me beforehand to share some of their thoughts about these SIs. I start by recognising the strength of feeling across the Committee today about the strength of the organic sector in the UK. This was touched upon by my noble friend Lady Byford, who noted that the sector is worth £2.2 billion. Our figures say £2.3 billion, but what is £100 million between friends? It is an incredibly important area of growth and we must make sure that it continues to be strong and a key sector in the future. She talked about the fact that many of these are smaller operators, often with five to 10 members of staff, if that, and they are a very important part of the UK organic regime. The control bodies certifying organic operators are on the ground and are in touch with these businesses. While they cannot coach these businesses, they can provide them with information—and that is precisely what they do. I reassure noble Lords that there are no expected costs relating to this SI for such producers.
I will come on to the minimal familiarisation slightly later, but really it is very small. Familiarisation is only for those involved in import and export; for the majority who are not involved in those areas, this SI will have no impact at all.
It is important to note that we envisage financial support for organic farmers. I look forward to working with my noble friend Lord Gardiner on the Agriculture Bill when it finally gets to your Lordships’ House; I am sure we will have some good debates on that one—but it is not with us just yet, so back to no-deal Defra SIs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about the 21 months. I agree with her: I looked at it and wondered why on earth that particular date was chosen. It was chosen for a good reason. The current EU organic regulation is due to be replaced from 1 January 2021, so it was thought appropriate to limit the recognition of these products to 31 December 2020 as those dates are commensurate. That date also happens to be the end of the implementation period, but this is a no-deal SI, and there would be no implementation period. Obviously I cannot give clarity as to what will happen thereafter; that will be up to any number of factors. However, we already have a very good idea of what those new regulations will be in 2021. Over the 21-month period, the Government will look at those regulations and aim to give the sector as much clarity as soon as we can. We recognise that farming cycles are much longer than those in other industries.
On regulations being developed in the light of future changes, the UK has always been a leader in this sector and it is our intention that we will continue to be so. We have an opportunity to be at the forefront of developments; if we do not have a deal with the European Union, we can work as an independent sovereign state and make sure that we pull others with us as we increase organic standards. We will of course work very closely with those in the industry—without them there is no organic sector at all—to ensure that future changes work for the UK and for consumers.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Miller, mentioned tariffs. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is quite right: there was an announcement on tariffs at 7 am; I listened to it as I was driving. I have not had the opportunity to go into that in great detail. I suggest she look at what was announced today; it concerned tariffs across all sorts of industrial sectors. Organic products are subject to the same tariffs regime as conventional non-organic products. There has been a bit of movement on tariffs, and the Government have tried to reach a balance between making sure that consumers and businesses are protected and reducing tariffs as much as we can within that framework. It is, however, very important to remember that this is a temporary tariff; the tariffs announced today will apply only for a 12-month period, during which we will undertake a full review such that we can adjust the tariffs going forward. If there is no deal, we will be talking about tariffs for a very long time—which will be fun.
I turn now to the issue of uncertainty. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is absolutely right. Within the powers we have, we have managed to create as much certainty around imports as we possibly can by providing this 21-month period, during which time the system will stay at is.
It is obviously not within our gift to tell the European Union exactly what to do for our exports. However, for UK products to be exported to the EU, organic control bodies will need to be authorised by the EU. There is no definite length of time that it would take for this process to happen. The Government are already in technical conversations with the EU about making sure that it happens as quickly as possible, so we are working hard on that. If there is no deal, this will obviously come to the fore. We recognise the concerns of the NFU and the Soil Association.
I will investigate the expedited process further—it is not something about which I have information—but we recognise the concerns that this is a consequence of Brexit, not of the SI before us. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that, in this case, it would be very good if we could get a deal to make sure that our exports continued in the smooth fashion that they would expect. However, the EU has equivalency arrangements with a number of non-EU countries. The UK is aiming to transition those over to mirror the current arrangements. Because our organic standards will be as high as the EU’s, we believe that it will be possible to transition them to improve the flow of exports to those nations.
I turn to the topic of choices; may I point out first that it is TRACES NT, not TRACES? TRACES NT is new technology for controlling the import of organic food and feed; TRACES is for controlling the import and export of live animals, so for the record they are different systems. Regarding assurances on the manual and subsequent digital import system which replaces TRACES NT, work has been carried out to establish the needs of all users for its electronic replacement. The interim manual system largely mirrors the system that was in place just 17 months—a year and a half—ago. Users who could use that manual system will be familiar with how this works, and we have carried out a trial to make sure that they are still able to use it. We have also refined the guidance for all users. We will communicate with and issue further guidance for the sector, including third parties involved in using this system.
Organic products en route from third countries or in transit to the UK before the UK leaves the EU will be accepted with an EU certificate of inspection. Products that leave a third country after the UK has left the EU will be required to have a UK certificate of inspection, rather than an EU one. Instructions on the introduction and use of the UK certificate will be issued shortly. This brings me to the point about minimal familiarisation, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. That process should be within recent institutional memory for many of the organisations that will need to use it.
An issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and I think by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was about the UK taking power to accept applications from third-country control bodies and to permit them to operate in the UK. They asked who would oversee these control bodies. The Commission currently has the power to recognise third countries as equivalent to the EU, and to recognise control bodies as able to operate in third countries for the purposes of the input of organic products to the EU. This power will of course be transferred to the Secretary of State. Officials are in the process of considering how they will process and consider any such application but, before the UK accepts any application from third countries or control bodies, rigorous checks will be carried out to ensure that the current high organic standards in the UK are maintained.
Concerning the additional resource challenges, the UK is taking back control of organic regulations and the powers currently held by the EU. UK organic control bodies should continue doing what they do to a world-class level. The Government are working closely with the organic control bodies to ensure that any additional burden that falls on the organic sector is properly managed so that there is no fall in standards or public confidence as a result.
Turning to some final questions, what are the consequences of downgrading the references from “shall” to “may”? When EU Regulation (EC) No. 834/ 2007 was originally drafted, a number of references referred to the Commission needing to create specific rules. These were subsequently laid down in implementing EU Regulation (EC) No. 889/2008 and EU Regulation (EC) No. 1235/2008. Therefore, there is no longer a need for the UK SI to require rules to be made in respect of these matters—they have already been made. However, these instruments retain the power for further detailed rules to be made if necessary. I might write on that one. I do have an example here, but I think it would be more helpful if I put that in a letter, so that all noble Lords can understand the difference between “shall” and “may” in that circumstance.
I wish to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about the consultation. Concerns were raised about many issues, but it was the view of the group that there were not significant concerns about this SI. The biggest concern obviously is to maintain frictionless trade with the EU and we will do everything we can to address that.
Finally, there was a question about the grace period. Labelling is not covered in this SI, so I do not have anything further on that. However, I assure the noble Baroness that organic products that are already on the market in the EU before 30 March will be able to be sold and go through the system, but any exported after 29 March will not be able to be sold as organic until we have other arrangements in place.
Organic Production (Control of Imports) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Organic Production (Control of Imports) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Rural Development (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Rural Development (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, it is appropriate that I declare my farming interests, as set out in the register. The matters in the four instruments are closely interrelated; I hope it will be helpful to your Lordships if I speak to all four together. These instruments amend retained EU law and domestic legislation to ensure that rural development payments and maritime and fisheries payments can still be made after exit day. These amendments will maintain the effectiveness and continuity of EU and domestic legislation that would otherwise be deficient following our exit.
These changes are necessary to enable rural development programmes, partially funded by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and the maritime and fisheries operational programme, partially funded by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, to continue operating effectively in the United Kingdom following exit, until their closure at the end of the 2014-2020 programming period. There will be an opportunity to consider the scheme-specific regulations for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund at a later date, as these are made operable in the Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
There are currently four rural development programmes operating in the UK, one in each Administration, providing funding for rural businesses, farmers, land managers and applicants living in a rural community with the intention of growing the rural economy, increasing productivity and improving the environment. The maritime and fisheries programme is UK-wide and promotes growth in the sector by providing funding for sustainable fisheries, marketing and processing and sustainable aquaculture, among other matters.
There are two European funds relevant to these instruments: the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. The former supports the delivery of rural development in the UK and is worth some £430 million per year over the programming period. The latter promotes a competitive, environmentally sustainable, economically viable and socially responsible fisheries and aquaculture sector, which is worth some £32 million per year. The UK Government have guaranteed that any projects funded from the 2014-2020 allocations from these funds will be funded for their full lifetime.
The changes made by these instruments are necessary to ensure that the Government guarantee can be honoured and payments can continue to be made to agreement holders using domestic funding in place of funding from the EU. They provide certainty to individuals and businesses currently receiving rural development and maritime and fisheries funding or considering applying for funding during the current 2014-2020 programming period.
The Rural Development (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend the EU regulation that provides the general rules and structures governing support for rural development, providing payments to be made to agreement holders and laying down rules on programming, networking, management, monitoring and evaluation.
The Rural Development (Rules and Decisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend the implementing and delegated provisions made under the main rural development EU regulation and four implementing decisions approving the rural development programmes for each of the devolved authorities.
The European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend the EU regulation that sets out the shared framework for all the European structural and investment funds, but only as far as applies to rural development and maritime and fisheries.
Finally, the European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions Rules etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend the supplementary provisions for European structural and investment funds for rural development and maritime and fisheries that are not dealt with elsewhere.
I emphasise that all these instruments remedy the deficiencies in the regulations to ensure that they continue to operate effectively when we leave. They do not introduce new policy, are technical in nature and preserve the current regime for supporting rural businesses, environmental land management and sustainable fisheries, among other matters. The amendments include omitting deficient references to the European Commission and member states and replacing them with references to either the UK or the relevant authority, as appropriate. The instruments also amend references to “Union law” throughout, so that the relevant EU regulations continue to operate effectively as part of national law. Provisions that are deficient because they are time-limited and under which the relevant actions have occurred have also been omitted, such as provisions relating to ex ante evaluations that have already been completed and provisions relating to prefinancing paid out when the programmes were initially set up. In addition, references to European institutions such as the European Investment Bank are also omitted.
One purpose of these modifications is to ensure continuity and clarity as to which public bodies have responsibilities towards the programmes. The obligations and discretions placed on member states will continue to be exercised after exit by relevant authorities in the UK. In this context, “relevant authority” means: the current managing authority of the maritime and fisheries operational programme, the Marine Management Organisation; the Secretary of State in relation to the Rural Development Programme for England; Scottish Ministers in relation to the Scottish Rural Development Programme; Welsh Ministers in relation to the Rural Development Programme for Wales; and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in relation to the Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme.
As noble Lords are well aware, agriculture and fisheries are devolved policy areas and are of special importance for all parts of the kingdom. We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations to produce these instruments; they place great importance on them and have given them their full support. I repeat that these statutory instruments are required for the continued operation of the rural development programmes and the maritime and fisheries programme. Without them, there would be no legal powers to make payments to fulfil the promises that these important programmes will continue. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward this little group of statutory instruments. I shall pursue what was raised in Sub-Committee B’s report—the 18th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The Sub-Committee has invited this Committee to probe for more financial information. I have a series of questions and I shall try not to repeat myself.
There will be schemes that have finished, and new schemes that will commence but end after a key date—that could be 2021-22. What advice are my noble friend and his department giving to those who may be in a position to enter a new scheme but are reluctant to do so, since they are not sure whether it will complete and what the funding will be for it? My understanding is that there are schemes that fall into that category, and concern has been raised.
Paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the rural development regulations says:
“On EU exit, the UK will seek reimbursement from the EU for all CAP payments made to beneficiaries up to 29 March 2019”.
On what basis? We are still members of the European Union, so I would just like to know what the legal basis is for that. It seems very odd, because we are committed to the EU schemes between 2014 and 2019. It says “up to”, so I just ask for clarification, because I do not understand what the legal basis is. It goes on to say:
“Thereafter, such funding will be provided by HM Treasury”.
I know this is of great interest to the farming press and the farming community generally. What is the budget from which those funds will be provided, going forward?
The paragraph goes on:
“The UK Government has guaranteed that any EAFRD projects, where funding has been agreed before the end of 2020, will be funded for their full lifetime”.
Again, it would be helpful to know where these funds are coming from. It continues:
“The guarantee also means that Defra and the devolved administrations can continue to sign new projects this year and during 2020”.
What will be the duration of those schemes? Again, where will the money come from? It goes on:
“In addition, the Government has pledged to continue to commit the same … total in funds for farm support until the end of this Parliament, expected in 2022”.
This has been exercising me for some time. The Government have consistently said that we are committed to paying money until the end of this Parliament, which is expected in 2022. It begs the question: if a general election—heaven forfend—is held before 2022, possibly this year, does that leave the door open for a newly elected Government to cease to pay those funds for those three years, from 2019 to 2022, particularly if there is a change of Government? It is just not clear and it gives us the opportunity to clarify that this afternoon.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I follow my noble friend on her various questions; she touched on some of the things I wished to raise. The question of the timescale is hugely important because, in the past, some agricultural schemes have run for 10 years and some for seven years. The timescale that she has just referred to—between 2022 and 2027—is a span of only five years, so that ongoing question needs to be resolved.
We have talked about the question of active farmers and of who receives payments in the future in many of our discussions on agriculture. I particularly wonder whether that could, in the future, include youth projects and retirement projects, or whether that is outside the particular instruments that we are looking at. It may well be so and if I am told that it is, I will perhaps be happier than I am with it not being mentioned here.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh spoke about tenant farmers and graziers, or commoners, but if I am right, I would also raise the whole question of contractors with the Minister because so many farms—as indeed ours are—are now contracted out. It was easier in the past to always refer to tenant farmers, but I think one will find that there are many more contracted arrangements now between farmers.
I, too, would like to raise paragraphs 3 and 4 of the report from the Scrutiny Committee’s Sub-Committee B. These refer to the deficiencies but the Minister has covered many of them in his presentation. If there is anything he wants to add to it, it would be good for the Committee to hear that. Also, what is happening with the financial analysis that has taken place?
Returning to the European structural and investment funds regulations, page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the,
“special interest to the Joint Committee”.
I understand that the House of Lords sifting committee did not think it was necessary to have a debate. However, the House of Commons recommended that we should, which is why we are debating it here. It would be interesting to know what it was unhappy about and what steps the Government have taken to rectify that, but overall, these instruments are obviously welcome. They are very technical, and allow systems to keep going as they are.
Moving to rural payments, we have talked about money being made available for rural development. Can the Minister say if that will also be defined as, for example, making it possible for groups of people to come together to enhance businesses and make that food chain shorter? That is not clear here. One of the big challenges that we face as a nation is how to contain the costs of producing food. The Minister, who is so knowledgeable on these things, knows very well the great advantage one has in fruit growing, or whatever it is, if there is a chain that links everything together. Money has been put aside in the past for that sort of work and I wonder whether that would fall within these regulations. It is not defined but it would be of great help.
Once we have accepted these instruments and moved on, perhaps there will be greater freedom for the UK to develop more ideas of its own as to how money could be used better to ensure that we produce food to our very high standards while reducing the chain. That way, the actual cost to the consumer could be contained in a better way than it perhaps has been in the past—it has been a bit fractioned in some areas. Pigs and poultry are not falling into that but there are some other areas, particularly horticulture, where the coming together of business would bring great benefits. However, having read through this, I am not clear whether that falls within the category of the thinking behind these regulations.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the first two of these four statutory instruments that are being taken together. I thank the Minister and his officials for their very helpful briefing session on what is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has already indicated, a very complex subject.
The European agricultural fund for rural development provides rural development programmes which run under the multiannual financial framework. This SI allows funded programmes to run allegedly unhindered after exit date, until their natural end in 2020.
Annexe 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum lists the six legacy regulations affected by the SI, two more in which deficiencies will be remedied and four where the devolved Administrations have had programme amendments approved. This will ensure that structure fund programmes continue to run smoothly. As I understand it, these programmes will continue to report in the same way as previously but will report to the rural development programmes of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as the relevant devolved Administrations, instead of direct to the EU.
The aim of these SIs is to ensure operability of schemes and the continuity of investment in rural areas, which is the key element for me—it is really important. I wish to ask about the specifics of reporting mechanisms. The EU was very stringent on the information that was required by those who had received structure funds. Being involved with an organisation that had some of their money, I am aware of just how stringent it was. Can the Minister assure us that the UK will get good value for public money? This is especially necessary now that the Exchequer will pick up the funding instead of the EU.
As someone who comes from a rural community, I have a keen interest in the effect of these SIs. Last Friday I took part in a rural conference whose chief aim was to press the Government to produce a rural strategy. The Government have produced an Industrial Strategy which addresses the needs of urban communities and their economy. Now it is time to produce a strategy to address some of the huge disadvantages that rural communities face. These include lack of infrastructure, lack of transport, significantly less pupil funding, lack of affordable housing and poor access to services. I am concerned that the lifeline of rural development funding will be cut off by 2021, to be replaced by a nebulous undertaking that this will in future be covered by the Agriculture Bill.
The Agriculture Bill as published makes some significant changes to the way funding for farming and the environment would take place—as has already been said, public money for public good—but the Bill has become stuck in the Commons after Committee. I am concerned that a large gap in funding for rural areas is opening up before us. As the noble Lord has indicated, Sub-Committee B of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee estimates that the value of EU funds that will need to be replaced is between £400 million and £450 million a year of the European agricultural fund for rural development programmes for the remainder of the period to 2020. The loss of this investment will be keenly felt by many in deep rural areas.
Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“After EU Exit, no new rural development programmes will need to be approved and from 2021 new agricultural and environmental schemes will be delivered under the Agricultural Bill”.
The Agriculture Bill will therefore need to be in place by 2021. It should have been in place by the 29th of this month, so that rural communities could plan ahead and have confidence that they were not going to suffer from a severe lack of resources. I know that the Minister understands these issues, but I am not sure the rest of the Government do.
Paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum, under “Impact”, states:
“Beneficiaries will continue to receive rural development funding as before EU exit”.
I am not confident that this will happen and am very concerned about the fate of rural communities.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I first thank and apologise to the Minister for having missed his briefing on Monday; I was election monitoring in west Africa. I left central Guinea-Bissau at the right time and the journey all the way back to Gatwick Airport was perfect until I tried to get the Gatwick Express to Victoria, when it all went wrong and I missed the meeting.
For six years I had the great privilege of being a board member of the Marine Management Organisation, a Defra non-departmental public body. I have had an awful lot to do with structural funding over the years as an MEP, in other roles locally in the south-west and a little bit as part of the MMO. The EMFF recently has been one of the best-delivered structural funds. I am particularly thankful for the good work of the MMO’s finance director, Michelle Willis, under the direction of the chief executive, John Tuckett, who managed to deliver a programme of structural funding pretty well on time and of the right quality, which is unusual in this area.
I know the Minister always likes me to be positive, so I seriously congratulate the Government on one thing in particular—there will be others: in paragraph 6.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum, for the first time ever the Government have used the term “fishers” rather than “fishermen”. I have brought this up before, and the government response on why they used that word was that they consulted with the industry and that is the term it said it wanted to be used. There is something wrong in the way that that logic works. But congratulations on that. My sub-committee’s most recent report on the landing obligation, which I cannot go on to today, also used that terminology, because that is the way that participants in this industry are described in most other English-speaking countries. I hope that that will continue in future.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the instruments before the Committee today and declare my interests as stated in the register as being in receipt of EU funds. As the Minister said, these statutory instruments are amendments to retained EU laws to allow the rural development programmes and others supported by a combination of UK and EU funding to continue to operate after EU exit for the remainder of the 2014-2020 programming period.
The Government have guaranteed that projects will be funded for their full lifetime, and have gone further by pledging to commit the same cash total in all funds for farm support, including the common agricultural policy, until the end of this Parliament, expected in 2022. All the SIs were originally negative instruments that the sifting committees of either or both Houses of Parliament have recommended be debated by Parliament.
Sub-Committee B of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in its ninth report, expressed disappointment at the uninformative nature of the Explanatory Memoranda that provided no explanation of the instruments’ discrete functions. On my analysis, the first two memoranda on rural development are the same, verbatim, except for the title. In its 18th report, the committee also commented that the provision of more financial information would have been useful to inform debate.
The second two instruments on EU structural funds are similar but more informative, providing some detail on the value of EU funds to be replaced. While it is recognised and appreciated that the Government have accepted the committee’s recommendations, why has so little information being provided in the Explanatory Memoranda?
Other than funding originating from the UK Government and several Commission roles being domesticated, will any significant changes result from the enactment of these SIs in a no-deal scenario? Although they appear largely technical, it is difficult to appreciate the amendments from the legal text.
I have some questions to clarify exactly what is happening here. First, these instruments transfer obligations or discretions from member states to relevant authorities, and these will be pertinent to each devolved Administration. I am sure the Minister will confirm that each devolved Administration—probably excepting Northern Ireland—has discussed and support the orders, and that each devolved Administration has consulted with the programme monitoring committee, which is composed of stakeholder representatives, including non- government organisations. Under the rural development regulations, no further details are disclosed. Under the structural investment fund regulations, there is further information that Defra has met the Rural Payment Agency’s industry partnership group, and these stake- holders are named.
Can the Minister clarify the extent of the consultation and the full extent of the consultees at devolved level? Have the commencement stakeholders named in the IPG UK list been consulted at devolved level—the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland representatives of farmers, consultants and agents? Although consultation may have been impossible with the Northern Ireland Office, it would be useful to know that stakeholders had been consulted in that region.
Under regulations pertinent to the European maritime and fisheries fund, the EMFF, no details regarding stakeholders are given, other than that there was “targeted engagement”. Can the Minister clarify what “targeted engagement” amounts to and specify exactly which stakeholders were involved? These details would be most informative as noble Lords prepare for the Fisheries Bill, which is promised soon.
Secondly, at paragraph 2.6 it is explained that some regulations are being addressed separately by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The split between departments leads to confusion. Can the Minister clarify whether the European structural and investment funds under paragraph 2.8 come under his department or BEIS?
Further, an explanation regarding the European Investment Bank, which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned, and its relevance to these instruments would be helpful, as it is stated at paragraph 12.1 that the UK’s involvement in the EIB will cease on EU exit. The paragraph goes on to say that,
“domestic finance mechanisms would still be accessible”.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I would be most grateful to understand what this refers to. What are these mechanisms, how will they operate in regard to these instruments, and who might those finance providers be?
Paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum for the structural funds instruments mentions that projects under both the European agricultural fund for rural development, the EAFRD, and the previously mentioned European maritime and fisheries fund,
“whose funding has been agreed before the end of 2020 will be funded for their full lifetime”.
How long will that be? I am a little confused that projects post leaving the EU, especially under a no-deal scenario, that have not yet been endorsed at EU level until 2020 will still be guaranteed by the Government—let us stick to the convenience for now that we will be leaving in March 2019. Can the Minister clarify the apparent contradiction? The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also raised queries in this regard: whose budget will be responsible and in which circumstances?
I am grateful to the Minister for the consultations he has undertaken with all Benches on these SIs. They have been most helpful, as have his written replies to our previous questions on other SIs. I apologise that it was not possible for me to meet him this week, and that consequently I was not able to give him notice of my inquiries today. How does his department intend to manage agricultural and rural development support through these exit regulations, and no doubt CAP regulations to come next week, with full funding to 2022 and subsequently to the provisions of the Agriculture and Fisheries Bills? These support measures are indeed vital across the rural economy.
His department has included features of this landscape at paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the rural development regulations. This explains that the new RDP will cease, while,
“the same cash total in funds for farm support”,
including the common agricultural policy, no doubt, will continue,
“until the end of this Parliament”,
which is still expected to be 2022—even though the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is quite entitled to reflect otherwise. The CAP is at a total funding of £3 billion per annum, and paragraph 7.7 is not entirely clear what the total or annual value of the funding of the EU commitment to scheme holders will be and for what duration. I would be most grateful if the noble Lord could give any further explanation beyond those given in his introduction. That only three lines on this are included in the financial implications is much to be regretted.
I am sure the Minister will also be aware of modulation, whereby deductions from payments under Pillar 1 are made and subsequently transferred to Pillar 2—rural development—and that these sums must be matched by the Government. Will the full administration of all these features still operate under the CAP towards rural development and be guaranteed by the Government? It looks as though there may be a gap before rural development is reinvigorated through the Agriculture Bill. Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has drawn attention to the fact that there could well be nothing for fisheries.
I may be asking for far more than the Minister can possibly undertake under the regulations today, especially if he was to answer the pertinent questions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady McIntosh. However, I am sure that his full explanation will be greatly welcomed across the industry. With that, I am pleased to approve the instruments before the Grand Committee today.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful for what has been a valuable debate and consideration beyond what are, as we all know, the technical requirements behind why we need to do this. I fully appreciate that many of us have been waiting and wanting to get on with some primary legislation, but that is not in my gift, alas. If it is my privilege to do so, I look forward to taking part in discussions, in the Chamber and beyond, on how we take forward fishing and marine interests and agriculture, and the produce we create in our waters and on our land, which is so important for domestic production and for export.
These instruments ensure that the rural development programmes and the maritime and fisheries operational programmes continue to operate effectively. As I said, the rural development fund is worth some £430 million per year and the maritime and fisheries fund is worth some £32 million per year. I am sure that, at this point, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is thinking that that looks like a big gap. It was very generous of him to raise the fact that the fund has been a good custodian of other people’s money.
I will try to give as much detail on this as possible. The Government have guaranteed that any projects funded from the 2014 to 2020 allocations from these funds will be funded for their full lifetime. Whatever is agreed up to 2020, and if thereafter those projects are to be funded, that will be honoured. My noble friend Lady McIntosh opened by asking where the money is coming from. The Treasury allocates to departments. My advice to applicants is that Her Majesty’s Treasury funding is a guaranteed cover of all rural development projects entered into before the end of 2020 for their full lifetime. I encourage those who are minded to think strongly of that Treasury guarantee.
My noble friend raised another point. I have declared my farming interests, and we all would like as much certainty as possible. That is precisely why there is a promise to, as far as is possible—I use those words deliberately, and will seek to clarify that—guarantee the same level of funds until 2022. Some noble Lords will wish completely the reverse, but I have no idea whether this Parliament will go on until 2022, and, as we all know, no Parliament can bind its successors. But this is a promise to the rural community, while this Government are in office and have that responsibility, to honour the level of funds until the end of this Parliament. None of us here is in a position to know precisely when that Parliament may conclude.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised the legal basis for reimbursement and the date. It is because the EU is bound by the regulations while they apply to the UK as a member state. Any commitments that the UK has entered into prior to exit are commitments made from the EAFRD. That is the basis, and it was why that was the date in Article 50 and why precisely the Treasury guarantee kicks in for anything after the date of us leaving.
Several noble Lords raised the issue of the link to the Agriculture Bill, including my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. These SIs are made under the withdrawal Act; they allow us to correct deficiencies. The purpose of the Agriculture Bill, for which we are waiting, is obviously to provide the opportunity to redesign our approach to agricultural support, so that if we wish to we can amend retained EU law. Therefore, any amendments that we make are, yes, probably for the short term, and they will probably be to see how we might improve the current arrangements and give better experience to agreement holders.
Under Clause 1 of the Agriculture Bill, the Secretary of State may provide financial support for managing land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment. Of course, as we design our agriculture policy, we will look to see—and this is a point that I would like to put to my noble friend Lady Byford—how we can support bringing together groups who work together in the agricultural sector. Clearly, as we look at how we can enhance the environment and how we deal with landscape, it is with clusters and the concept of catchment areas. I think of Slowing the Flow at Pickering, in regard to my noble friend Lady McIntosh. All this is where working together in schemes is going to be very rewarding in terms of enhancing the environment and producing very good food as well in that context.
To my noble friend Lady Byford, I say that I am delighted that the House of Commons said that we should have a debate on this. My understanding is that future funding is important to rural and marine communities. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that on 10 December 2018, the Government committed to providing £37.2 million of extra funding for the UK seafood sector for projects approved for 2019 and 2020 to boost the industry as we become an independent coastal state.
On the Agriculture Bill, rural growth, which includes the LEADER scheme, is currently included in the rural development programme and will continue under the government guarantee until the end of the programme period. Beyond that, the expectation is that rural growth initiatives will be supported through the UK’s shared prosperity fund, which is intended to deliver for all parts of the country. Wearing the rural-proofing element, which is a strong one, I say that Defra is working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop the ways in which it will support the rural economy.
Perhaps I can immediately say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on the rural strategy that I was fortunate enough to give evidence with the Secretary of State, and he has said publicly that he was looking forward to the report of our Select Committee and that it might be an occasion to respond. I think he was generously saying, as noble Lords who were in that committee will have heard, that this was something that was raised. I know that he and I will be very much looking forward to the rural economy report whenever it comes out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked for reassurances about reporting. I assure your Lordships that the level of rigour currently applied to ensure that the rural development programme achieves value for money and overall public benefit will continue. Inspections will still take place. Annual implementation reports will continue to be produced and approved programmes can continue to be evaluated administratively by relevant authorities. The National Audit Office will continue to be involved to maintain existing levels of scrutiny and good practice. We have put in place arrangements to ensure that the Commission’s functions are now taken up by each devolved authority or the programme monitoring committee, which is composed of representatives of environmental, rural and agricultural stakeholders, including non-government organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised the question of EMFF and how new replacement work schemes will work. In the Fisheries Bill, we propose a power to replace, modernise and broaden the existing grant-making powers in the Fisheries Act 1981. This will provide greater flexibility and ensure that new grant schemes can deliver value for money. Fisheries are devolved and once we leave the EU and on the closure of the EMFF grant scheme, devolved Administrations have indicated that they would want to run their own grant schemes targeted on their national priorities.
The noble Lord asked about fishing support after 2020. The Government have committed to replace EMFF from 2021 across the UK for the next two years, as I said. It was announced that that extra EMFF will be available to UK-licensed vessels.
The European Investment Bank was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Teverson. It currently has no involvement in UK rural development programmes or the maritime and fisheries programme. Treasury funding will still be accessible to those seeking it. The impact on agreement holds will therefore be negligible. I am bound to say that the loss of access to the EIB is a result of exit, not as a direct result of the instrument.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, may I say that my fishers friends in Mevagissey did not have the European Investment Bank highest on their priorities, but I am glad he clarified that.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I thank the noble Lord. I have dealt with the issue of further financial assistance.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised areas where different Governments are engaged in regulating the same area. We are working closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in developing the instruments. The European rural development fund and the European social fund have domestic power to continue making payments following exit. This is not the case for the European agricultural fund for rural development or the European maritime and fisheries fund, which rely on the spending powers in the EU regulations. That shows the distinction. A different approach is therefore necessary to allow funds to continue operating under the Treasury guarantee.
The noble Lord also asked why the provisions do not apply to the European rural, development, social and cohesive funds. They are being addressed in a separate SI by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. That SI and others will be developed in your Lordships’ House on 14 March.
Lord Grantchester
I press the Minister to clarify that a little more. Is he therefore saying that it was the devolved Administrations’ responsibility to consult with their stakeholders rather than that of Defra, with its wider powers of consultation?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Defra has very good relations and dialogue with a number of rural and fisheries organisations across the devolved Administrations. It is right to say that there is sensitivity, if the responsibility is a devolved Administration’s, in that to appear to be overhauling that would not reflect well. It is a matter for the devolved Administrations, but clearly we wish to work collegiately.
Lord Grantchester
I ask the question only in terms of how it relates to how it is reported to us in explanatory memorandums, so we know that there has been full consultation in all the regions as well as on a UK-wide basis.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
If I have any specific details, I will let the noble Lord know precisely. It may be helpful if I can glean some information on devolved consultations with stakeholders. I would say that when we have been engaged with key stakeholders, on fisheries, stakeholders we have been engaged with were supportive of the work being undertaken. On rural development, no concerns were raised by stakeholders, who expressed their appreciation of the work being undertaken.
I shall read Hansard, because my noble friend Lady Byford asked a number of points about youth and retirement projects, issues to do with contractors and other matters. All I would say is that the order is designed to continue with the arrangements that we have, but with the payment after we leave by our guarantee that we will fulfil the funding of any schemes that are applicable at the moment. Obviously, as my noble friend knows, this is not about future schemes, on which we will have all sorts of discussions. Whatever is appropriate now under these funds, people can apply for until the programme ends, and so forth. If there is anything further that I think would be helpful, I will inform your Lordships, but I recommend the instruments and I beg to move.
Rural Development (Rules and Decisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Rural Development (Rules and Decisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions Rules etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions Rules etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
House of Lords
Maritime 2050 Strategy
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mountevans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to implement their recently published strategy Maritime 2050: Navigating the Future.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing under my name, I declare my interests as recorded on the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, following the successful launch of the Maritime 2050 strategy, the Government’s focus is now on harnessing the enthusiasm and momentum generated and on implementing the recommendations at pace. That is under way through themed route maps, two of which are already published, with more following throughout 2019. The Government’s continued strong partnership with industry will be crucial, and we are enhancing the governance arrangements, which bring government and the sector together, to ensure that we deliver this ambitious strategy.
Lord Mountevans
I thank the Minister for her response and commend the Government for the considerable work and support that the strategy demonstrates for this key sector. Trade, and our relationships with other countries, have clearly come into sharp focus. The maritime sector enables 95% of Britain’s exports and imports, contributes over £37 billion in GVA—bigger than aerospace—and supports almost 1 million jobs, more than aerospace or motor manufacturing. The strategy acknowledges the impact that new technologies will have on the maritime sector and the huge opportunities that will arise. What assurances can the Minister give that the Government will support and join MarRI-UK—in the light of leading maritime businesses, including SMEs, universities and other expert organisations, coming together through this national research and innovation body?
Baroness Sugg
I thank the noble Lord for his Question, for his support of the maritime industry and for the important role he played when chairing the Government’s Maritime Growth Study. The Maritime 2050 strategy makes it clear that new technologies can help transform the industry and provide significant economic benefit. MarRI-UK will bring together expertise from a range of businesses and other organisations, and I assure the noble Lord that the Government strongly support the work of MarRI-UK. We hope that the organisation will become a key partner in delivering our strategy as set out.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this report but does the Minister understand the importance of shipbuilding? The report states that the Government will,
“further develop the UK shipbuilding and maritime engineering industry, building on our global reputation for design, innovation and quality”.
All that applies to Appledore, which is due to close this Friday. What are the Government doing to make sure that they get more orders and find an operator for it?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we published the National Shipbuilding Strategy in 2017, which will help transform naval and commercial shipbuilding. In relation to Appledore, the Government have worked hard with Babcock to identify defence opportunities that could protect the yard. However, regrettably, we were unable to identify any potential solutions. The South West Business Council has created a task force to help to ensure a future for the Appledore yard and negotiations with potential proprietors are ongoing. I know that the noble Lord has made representations on this matter to the Maritime Minister, who has responded and is working closely with local stakeholders.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, last week we celebrated International Women’s Day, but women are still extremely underrepresented in the transport sector. Only 4% of UK maritime certificated officers are women. This is a shocking statistic. What will the Government do to encourage diversity in the maritime sector?
Baroness Sugg
My noble friend is right to highlight that women are badly underrepresented in the maritime sector and across the transport sector. The Women in Maritime Taskforce, which is supported by the Maritime Minister, Nusrat Ghani, has been working to address the issue. More than 100 organisations have signed the Women in Maritime Charter, which commits maritime companies to building an employment culture that actively supports and celebrates gender diversity. We have also recently funded the 1851 Trust’s maritime roadshows, which will promote maritime careers to girls across the country.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, under the heading of “competitive advantage recommendations”, Maritime 2050: Navigating the Future recommends that the Government and industry should work together,
“to maintain and enhance the attractiveness of the UK’s regional maritime clusters and London as a global maritime professional services cluster”.
Can the Minister explain to the House how the Government propose to do that in the context of Brexit and whether the Secretary of State for Transport is really the best person to be navigating our future?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we are working closely with the maritime sector to ensure its continued success regardless of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. Much of the maritime sector is governed internationally and the UK plays a prominent role in the International Maritime Organization, which is based just over the river from here. We will continue to play a key role regardless of the outcome of the negotiations.
Lord Greenway (CB)
My Lords, while I welcome the Government’s strategy, I ask them to do everything in their power to expedite the re-emergence of coastal shipping. This sector is of great importance to some of our coastal communities, which have been suffering from economic decline. The adoption of new propulsion techniques such as gas or even hydrogen would benefit the environment and new ships would reduce the number of heavy goods movements on our increasingly congested roads.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we have the excellent Maritime Growth Study, which was led by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, with a review published last year. I agree with the noble Lord that we must do what we can to support the ports around our country. We have made great progress in ensuring that the UK has a strong maritime sector, with several billion pounds-worth of investment having been made across UK ports in recent years. The technology factor which the noble Lord has highlighted is something that we focus on in the strategy.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this document but it is rather light on action. I am delighted that the Minister has said that it is harnessing my enthusiasm to try to do something about it—I would like to try to show that I have some enthusiasm for it. My question relates to shipbuilding and ship repair. There is no doubt that that is a crucial part of all of this. We have heard mention of Appledore already. We are about to go for competition for what I hope will be three solid support ships for the Royal Navy. Surely those ships should be built in the United Kingdom so that we can get the full benefit of maintaining high-level, high-tech jobs. We would not have to close shipyards or make people redundant. We can use British steel and there is absolutely no reason that we cannot build such ships in this country, because there is no requirement to put them to open competition.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I believe that a global competition is running on that, but a British consortium is bidding. As I said earlier, we published the National Shipbuilding Strategy in 2017 which will help transform naval and commercial shipbuilding and the related procurement process. It details a new and competitive approach to the delivery of shipbuilding in this country.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, there seem to be more than 100 recommendations in the report, along with 143 references to the Government. Just how much resource is the Department for Transport going to put into this project?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to highlight the many recommendations in the strategy. It contains commitments on how we are going to take action across the seven themes addressed in the strategy. Our priority is to ensure that the recommendations are implemented, with a focus on the next five years. I referred earlier to the publishing of road maps which will set out the plans, milestones and timing for the implementation of the recommendations. We have resources in place to deliver the strategy and of course we are also working closely with the industry to help deliver it. In terms of future funding, we are putting together a bid for the upcoming spending review which reflects our ambitions and the commitments made in Maritime 2050.
Commonwealth
Lord Chidgey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made on building a fairer Commonwealth since the Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 14 January (HCWS1247).
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the Government continue to work with Commonwealth partners to build a fairer future for our citizens. Highlights include, first, the platform for girls’ education, co-chaired by the Foreign Secretary, which published its first report in January, examining the state of girls’ education. Secondly, over 30 highly qualified women peacebuilders have joined the UK-funded women mediators initiative. Just this week, my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon hosted a reception for Commonwealth Ministers in New York to drive forward the women, peace and security agenda.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
I thank the Minister for her reply. I commend the Government for their endeavours as chair-in-office of the Commonwealth as we approach the Rwanda CHOGM. The £500 million allocated to the project set out in the ministerial Statement is significant including, as it does, a promise of £212 million to deliver 12 years of quality education to girls across nine Commonwealth countries.
However, we need assurances that these funds are being spent wisely and effectively. What monitoring and oversight procedures, and what management structures, are in place to ensure that the funds expended are targeted effectively and provide a sustainable investment over the longer term? Where does accountability lie?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord for raising an important question. Each of the four thematic areas identified at CHOGM—fairness, sustainability, prosperity and security—is overseen by the UK Commonwealth envoy. Quarterly steering board meetings assess progress and beneath that is a raft of other structures. I reassure the noble Lord that the matter is under constant review and a structure ensures that the money reaches where it is intended to go.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest, as in the register. Does my noble friend agree that the modern Commonwealth is not just about governance and is not a treaty organisation at all? Today, it is just as much a vast network of professions, civic agencies, universities, schools and every kind of professional and scientific or medical interest. This side of it is, in many ways, more important than the headlines we read about treaties, communiqués and so on. As we are the chair in office, does she undertake that we will do all we possibly can to strengthen this side of the Commonwealth, because it is a terrific and major transmission mechanism for Britain’s influence and soft power in a fast-changing world?
Baroness Goldie
I suspect everyone in the Chamber will entirely agree with my noble friend. The Commonwealth is an extraordinary organisation. With over 2.4 billion people, it is home to one-third of the world’s population, 60% of whom are under 30, so my noble friend is right to talk about the potential for influence and opportunity. Underpinning it all is the important component that its people are united by a shared history, language, values and legal system. It is a very relevant, strong and commendable structure.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
To pick up the Minister’s point about shared values, before the last CHOGM in London, the Prime Minister quite rightly apologised for the colonial legacy of criminalising homosexuality. The Government have promised to fund and support those countries that wish to change those laws and get rid of that legacy. What progress has been made and can we anticipate other countries decriminalising homosexuality?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord makes a very important point. The Prime Minister’s declaration was very positive and well received. The noble Lord will be aware that the Commonwealth Secretariat and associations work with member states to raise general standards on human rights. On his specific issue, it was interesting that the 2018 Commonwealth summit saw the largest ever number of visiting LGBT activists from around the Commonwealth attending all four official forums. Using UK funding, the Equality and Justice Alliance is working to create a fairer, more equal and more inclusive Commonwealth for women and girls and for the LGBT community.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I congratulate Her Majesty’s Government on the usefulness of the programmes outlined on 14 January, not least in education. What steps do the Government of Zimbabwe need to take to secure the support of Her Majesty’s Government for an application to rejoin the Commonwealth?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. He will understand that it is not for the UK to decide whether Zimbabwe is to rejoin the Commonwealth; the final decision is for all Commonwealth members. The UK would support readmission only if Zimbabwe meets the admission requirements, complying with the values and principles set out in the Commonwealth charter. I must say, the disproportionate use of force by its security forces, as seen in January, is inconsistent with the charter.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, there is disquiet in trade policy circles about a lack of co-ordination over how the Commonwealth fits in the overall constellation of EU-UK FTAs. Will the Government set a time limit for improving the unilateral preferences it grants to the Commonwealth in the longer term, with more clarity on the level of access to be provided to less-developed countries?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Viscount. He will be aware of our healthy trading relationships with our Commonwealth members; indeed, he will be aware of what is called the Commonwealth advantage, which is a very important component of those relationships. I do not have any information on the specific issue he raises but I undertake to investigate it. If I find anything out, I will write to him.
Lord Marland (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair-in-office of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council. Does the Minister agree that it is all very well having these initiatives, but unless the Commonwealth institutions are strengthened to deliver them, they are all for naught? What steps are the Government taking to strengthen those institutions?
Baroness Goldie
At CHOGM, leaders emphasised that the full social, economic and political participation of all—irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status—is essential for a healthy Commonwealth and for democracy and sustainable development to thrive. He may be aware that the UK provided additional funding to the Commonwealth Secretariat to conduct its class-leading electoral observations and engage with Commonwealth electoral management bodies to advise them on improving democratic processes in the Commonwealth.
Aircraft Carrier Task Force
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what they consider to be the minimum size and composition of a United Kingdom aircraft carrier task force when deployed to the Pacific.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom carrier strike group will achieve initial operating capability in December 2020 and deploy in 2021. The size and composition of that group is set by the deployment requirements as determined during operational planning.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I thank the Minister for that non-Answer. Can he confirm that the normal aircraft carrier task force requires two, three or four frigates, one or two submarines and a couple of support ships, and that to maintain a task force of that size in the Pacific requires at least as many ships at home, in maintenance or on their way in and out? Does he recall the Secretary of State for Defence’s speech at the Royal United Services Institute some weeks ago, in which he promised that we intend in our future global deployment to keep six ships permanently in the Gulf and maintain a permanent presence in the Caribbean and the Asia-Pacific? He said:
“Our vision is for these ships to form part of 2 Littoral Strike Groups complete with escorts, support vessels and helicopters. One would be based east of Suez … and one based west of Suez in the Mediterranean”.
Is the Minister confident that the Navy is capable of supporting all these parts of the Secretary of State’s vision?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we will always have a sovereign task group capability. As I said, the carriers will operate as part of a maritime task group, which will be tailored to meet the required tasks in a particular case. The precise number and mix of vessels deployed would depend on operational circumstances. As the noble Lord knows, we will be able to draw on a range of modern and highly capable vessels to support the carriers, including Type 45 destroyers, Type 23 frigates, Astute-class submarines and, in due course, Type 26 frigates. We will also work routinely with ships from allied navies.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, is this sabre-rattling in the Pacific intended to give our friends in the region confidence, or to make the Chinese tremble? When the Americans deploy a carrier they provide an escort of a cruiser, four destroyers, a carrier wing, a submarine and 7,500 sailors. Can we do that?
Earl Howe
My Lords, this is not about sabre-rattling. Indeed, it is not about antagonising China in any way. My right honourable friend the Defence Secretary announced that the first operational mission of the “Queen Elizabeth” would include the Mediterranean, the Middle East and the Pacific region, thereby enabling the Royal Navy to maximise the opportunities we have to exercise and interact with our key regional allies and partners, and to make a statement about upholding the international rules-based system, including freedom of navigation.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one must be careful not to get seduced by the destroyers and frigates—much as I would like to see a bigger destroyer and frigate force? The Royal Navy consists of other vessels—for example, the important role of mine counter measures vessels in the Persian Gulf, and what our great RFA ships can do. They will all contribute to that statement that the Secretary of State made at RUSI. One should not focus purely on destroyers and frigates, much though I would like to do so on a day-to-day basis.
Earl Howe
The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right. Of course the number of platforms matters, but I would say to noble Lords, look not only at the number of warships; look also at the breadth of capability that the Royal Navy possesses. There are few navies in the world that can match the Royal Navy for the range and quality of the defensive, offensive and deterrent effects that it can deliver.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Does the Minister not agree that we talk about this as if the carriers were vulnerable, whereas they can go 500 miles in any direction in one day, and are extremely difficult to find? Certainly, terrorists cannot get at them at all when they are at sea, unlike a static air base, which is very easy to find, as we know exactly where it is. However, if we deploy a carrier group east of Suez into the Indo-Pacific region, does the Minister not agree that it would be foolhardy—historically we have never done this—not to have within the region, because of the transit times, at least one SSN, one destroyer, two key ASW frigates and the support ships involved? Doing that will put huge pressure on the other tasks the Navy does day to day, because we have insufficient frigates and destroyers to do all those tasks as well.
Earl Howe
The noble Lord, with his immense experience, is almost certainly right about the kinds of deployment that we will see the carrier perform. The first operational deployment is still in the planning stage. As recently announced, it will involve our Dutch allies: it will be a joint deployment with US Marine Corps Lightning squadron. The precise composition of the group is being worked through at the moment. We should emphasise the noble Lord’s first point: this carrier represents an extremely capable strategic deterrent for the nation. Let me stress that it will be robustly protected by air and sea assets against threats of all kinds.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish to challenge the principles set out by the Secretary of State in his recent speech, but is it not better not to go into too much detail on these occasions, for fear of challenging the safety and security of the units concerned?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has on several occasions talked about working with our allies, as he has in the past in the context of the escort ships alongside the Queen Elizabeth class. What additional work are the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence doing to ensure that we have stronger bilateral co-operation, particularly in the context of Brexit, to strengthen our resilience?
Earl Howe
There is a great deal of interest on the part of our European allies, in particular, in working more closely with the Royal Navy once the carriers come into service. The carriers will enable the UK to make an unparalleled contribution to NATO, not only through the carriers’ own capability but also as a means of coalescing European naval effort alongside that of our close partners the United States.
Knife Crime: First Aid in Schools
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of schools offering pupils advice on what first aid to deliver, and how to communicate clearly with emergency services, when someone has been stabbed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, we know that first aid saves lives. That is why life-saving skills are part of health education, which we are introducing in all state-funded schools. Pupils will be taught first aid, how to make efficient calls to the emergency services and, in secondary schools, CPR. We are also introducing relationships education in all schools. That will help pupils to form and maintain healthy relationships, manage conflict and get help when it is needed.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Children are learning in school how to deliver first aid to knife crime victims because they increasingly find themselves affected by violence. I commend the important work being done in schools by the charity StreetDoctors. Last week, the Prime Minister denied that there was a direct link between reduced police numbers in communities and increased knife crime and, although that was widely refuted, not least by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, many usually linked causes contribute to knife crime. One of them is permanent exclusions from school, which have risen sharply in recent years; there is a shortage of registered provision for excluded children, some of whom are thus unsupervised. Exclusions are a necessary and important sanction, but does the Minister agree that it is not acceptable or indeed legal to exclude without due regard for the impact on and risks to the child being excluded?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important point on exclusion. It is always a last resort to use a permanent exclusion for a pupil. Just to give some context, the percentage of permanent exclusions last year was actually less than it was 10 years ago. In 2006-07, it was 0.12% and last year it was 0.10%, so we need to keep that in perspective. We are pretty confident that there is no causal link between permanent exclusions and knife crime. However, we are alert to the need to provide better specialist provision for children who are permanently excluded. That is why we announced a number of initiatives in October, including an extra £100 million in capital for special provision for schools.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, it is sad that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, had to ask this Question, but the bigger question is why young people are being stabbed. After a decade of austerity, we have seen youth services decimated in our towns and cities and positive activities for young people are almost gone. What will Her Majesty’s Government do about knife crime, not in terms of the narrow criminal issues but in terms of creating healthy community activities?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that the causes of knife crime are complicated. We must be honest about not fully understanding them. I accept that austerity is one reason offered, but I am not certainly convinced. We have done a number of things to support young people in terms of ensuring that they have a good education. One priority of the Secretary of State is what he calls the five foundations of character—sport, creativity, performing, volunteering membership and the world of work. I commend to noble Lords a particular initiative that I am always keen to promote called OnSide Youth Zones. Nine of these are now open and six more are planned, mostly in London. They provide an avenue for young people between what are considered the danger hours after leaving school at around 4 pm until 6 pm.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied that the police are liaising closely enough with schools as and when the need arises? Are the Government making more resources available to the police generally to help combat this terrible scourge?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My noble friend asks a good question. In fact, about a month ago, I wrote to the head of Counter Terrorism Command in London to broker a meeting between him and some heads in London so that schools and police work together. We have introduced a number of initiatives over the past couple of years to support these areas. For example, the Big Lottery Fund invested £80 million towards the #iwill fund and £40 million to the Youth Investment Fund. In addition, in October this year, we announced the new £200 million Youth Endowment Fund to provide support over the next 10 years for young people most at risk of serious violence.
Lord Laming (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the reduction in funding for local government of more than 30% during the austerity programme has resulted in all the preventive services being clawed back, and in those services being crisis driven? This has resulted in young people not having the alternative support services that we had become used to providing.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I do not think that is the case. I mention two initiatives that we have introduced in the past couple of years. In terms of education, we are reforming training through the early education framework to make teachers more aware of how to effectively manage behaviour. We have recently changed the guidelines on keeping children safe in education, which again involves training and alerting teachers to be more aware of emotional problems that might arise in children. There is great need for wider awareness.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the House might have been surprised to hear the noble Lord say with such confidence that there was no causal link between permanent exclusion and knife crime. Does he at least accept that there is a correlation between permanent exclusion and involvement in various kinds of criminality, including knife crime, and that one of the reasons why this is serious is because the alternatives to conventional schooling for those who have been permanently excluded are far from adequate and need serious review?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, as I said in reply to an earlier question, we are conscious that specialist provision for children who are permanently excluded needs to be improved. I completely accept that, which is why we have introduced additional funding. We are encouraging local authorities to bid for specialist additional-provision free schools to ensure that that provision is available.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
Does the Minister not think that knife crime and so on goes beyond the police? It goes to communities, as mentioned earlier. The communities that we used to belong to when we were young and the organisations are no longer there. Youth clubs have closed in many places and youngsters are looking for alternative ways of acting together. Is it not time that the Government paid much more attention to trying to build our communities, not only in the countryside where we are losing them, but in the cities?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Lord is right to say that this is an entire community endeavour; it is not down to just the police or schools. I refer him to a recent report published by Action on Violence, which looks at the case study in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, will be interested in it. A decade ago, Glasgow was considered the murder capital of Europe but now knife crime in Scotland is at a 42-year low. That has been approached through treating it as a public health issue, which meant that the police, social, health and school sectors all worked together. It clearly has worked.
Trade Bill
Wednesday 13th March 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Trade Bill 2017-19 View all Trade Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 127-R-II Second marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (11 Mar 2019)
16:36 - Division on Amendment 22 - Ayes: 285 / Noes: 184 - Amendment 22 agreed.
17:36 - Division on Amendment 24 - Ayes: 254 / Noes: 187 - Amendment 24 agreed.
19:22 - Division on Amendment 34 - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 34 agreed.
“Continuation of North-South trade and prevention of customs arrangements at borders
An international trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union may not be ratified under sections 20 to 25 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the agreement—(a) is compatible with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and(b) does not—(i) negatively affect any form of North-South trade in goods or services or the operation of the relevant North-South implementation bodies, or(ii) create or facilitate customs arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature—(a) physical infrastructure related to customs checks,(b) a requirement for customs or regulatory compliance checks,(c) random checks on goods vehicles, or(d) any other checks and controls related to trade, that did not exist before exit day and which are not subject to an agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of Ireland.”
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment stands also in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Bruce, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. This amendment, which has cross-party support, is consistent with the previous amendment carried by your Lordship’s House, and which the Government accepted when the European Union (Withdrawal) Act was adopted last summer. However, it is vital that those provisions in Section 10 of the withdrawal Act are reflected in this Bill, which concerns not our divorce deal, as that Act did, but our long-term trading relationships.
In principle, the UK has joined Ireland and the EU in a shared objective of avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland in order to help protect the hard-won peace process delivered by the Good Friday agreement—a peace process that is still just that: a process that, in my view, has dangerously reversed these past couple of years. The border is often described as the Irish border, a description which seems to absolve the UK of any ownership of it, but it is a UK land border with Ireland. If we leave, it will be a border between the UK and the EU, so it is our responsibility as much as it is Ireland’s and the EU’s responsibility under any circumstances.
Only last week, the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, David Sterling, warned of potentially grave and profound consequences of a no-deal Brexit—including a sharp rise in unemployment, the collapse or flight of businesses and potential unrest—for Northern Ireland, which, lest we forget, voted by 56% to 44% to remain in the European Union in 2016. Senior civil servants do not usually speak so candidly and compellingly. Advocates of a kamikaze Brexit might take notice and might also take notice of the strong words of the 50 or more Northern Ireland businesses which wrote to MPs in similar terms over the weekend.
The extent of trade and traffic over the Irish border is huge: 110 million person crossings take place every year; Northern Ireland, with its population of 1.8 million people, exports £3.4 billion over the border, by far its biggest export destination outside the UK and the first export destination for new and growing enterprises; at least 5,000 Northern Ireland companies trade with their neighbours over the border with Ireland; tens of thousands of people live on one side and work on the other; supply chains operate across the border without impediment; more than 400,000 lambs and 750 million litres of milk are exported across the border to Ireland for processing; and 177,000 heavy goods vehicles and 208,000 light vans cross the border every single month, which is 4.6 million crossings a year, and there are 22 million car crossings, and they take place all along a 300-mile border with nearly 300 crossing points.
By way of comparison, the Norway-Sweden land border is 1,000 miles long with only 57 crossing points. That is a hard border accompanied by infrastructure at the frontier, yet it is the very one most cited by those Brexiteers who seek to brush aside our border with the Republic as something which can be solved with a few cameras and some online programmes.
There are unique arrangements under the Good Friday/Belfast agreement for north-south co-operation. The Department for Exiting the European Union lists no less than 157 different areas of cross-border work and co-operation. Many of them have been facilitated by the common legal and policy framework provided by Ireland’s and the UK’s common membership of the EU since 1973. These areas are the things of everyday life—the precious signs of normality in the post-conflict border region—and there must never be new barriers or controls erected to block or discourage them. They include: food safety; tourism; specialist schools; fighting crime; tackling environmental pollution; water quality and supply; waste management; bus services; train services; cancer care; blood transfusions; and gas and electricity supply. We must never disrupt these arrangements, either through a divorce deal or—the amendment is directed at this—any new trade agreements.
WTO rules, which primarily remove barriers to trade and prevent unfair discrimination, will not allow these areas of north-south co-operation and everyday cross-border movement to be maintained. WTO rules and the obligations of an EU member state would strictly limit the kind of bilateral co-operation between the Republic and the UK as an EU member state which has made the border invisible in everyday life.
Some find all these essential facts to be tiresome obstacles to their Brexit dream. They argue that the border in Ireland will never need any new barriers, that the UK will never erect any on its side and that somehow Ireland, which by law has to obey EU and WTO customs and regulatory rules, will not do so either. The same people go on to use the word “technology” as a magic solution, repeatedly citing reports by one or two alleged experts on how, maybe, such solutions might work and might be ready someday, somehow.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My name is on the amendment but I have very little to add to the authoritative introduction from the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I agree with him that we should be pressing at an open door here. At the start of Report, the Minister, in responding to me on what the tariff regime would be in the event of no deal, indicated that we would be told in due course. Such is her power that I understand that the schedules were published this morning—conveniently for our debate. I am sure that that was the only reason for their publication and I am sure that we owe it entirely to the Minister, because the timing is so apt.
I myself have seen nothing from the Government but, according to the press, it is made clear in today’s announcement that temporarily at the outset—I do not know how long that means—if a tariff regime is required on 30 March because we leave with no deal, it will not be applied at the inner Irish border. There will be no tariffs and no customs checks, and imports will be exempt from quotas, although, for imports from the EU other than across the Irish border, tariffs will be charged—10% on motor cars and quite a high tariff on agricultural products of various kinds. I am not quite sure how long such an arrangement can last. It will be a breach of WTO rules, but I guess that the WTO will live with that for a bit. Although I have never wanted a BMW, if I did want to buy one, it would be 10% cheaper if I imported it via Dublin and Belfast, which would be slightly odd. I cannot see that lasting on a permanent basis.
However, my point is that the Government are quite right to exempt the inner Irish border—it really matters. It therefore seems obvious that it should be easy for the Minister to accept Amendment 22, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. The Government have already accepted it in another context, as he explained, and today’s announcements show that they would intend to apply it to the inner Irish border anyway.
The other night, in his reply to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, said:
“The whole point of the present withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol is to ensure that we adhere not only to the terms but to the spirit of the Belfast agreement”.—[Official Report, 12/3/19; col. 978.]
I applaud that. The withdrawal agreement is dead, but we must uphold the spirit and letter of the Belfast agreement, whatever the future regime, and this amendment would permit us to do that. Since it seems to be in line with the Government’s actions and words—in today’s tariff announcements and last night’s speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen—I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, speaking from a Northern Irish position, I urge the House as strongly as I can to support this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain.
As the debate over the entire Brexit situation has come and gone in the past few weeks, there has been growing concern across the business community in Northern Ireland about the hidden implications of what we are debating. They will affect every strand of the Northern Ireland business community, which is finding itself thrust on to the knife edge of Brexit.
The whole border question has obvious but also hidden implications. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, rightly referred to the Belfast agreement. While it is all too easy to raise the worry about an increase in violence and the breakdown of relationships—and to overplay that card—it is equally dangerous not to mention it. The subtlety of that situation is such that, with the words of this amendment, we are not only strengthening the spirit of the Belfast agreement but recognising that it is an integral part of the whole vista of trade.
Across the border counties, the links between the Republic of Ireland and the Province of Northern Ireland, there are numerous small businesses which are absolutely identifiable as Irish, in a sense. They are small and may not employ many people, but they are the absolute breath of the local community. Those businesses—as well as the major BMWs of this world, if the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, will forgive me—are not only the heartbeat of our community but are indicative of why Northern Ireland will probably be the greatest sufferer if what we fear in the light of yesterday’s events down the Corridor comes to pass.
So I urge noble Lords to take seriously the thinking behind this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, is ideally placed to speak about the situation from his years of experience in dealing with us in Northern Ireland and seeing something of what makes that community tick. While I am introducing an element that is not about detailed trade negotiations or principles, I believe that it is a genuine, real reason why this amendment must be passed.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment, to which I have put my name. Sadly, we have arrived at a point where a deeply divided Conservative Party has deeply divided the nation. The irony of that is that it is the Conservative and Unionist Party that currently presents the biggest threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom. Just over two weeks—15 days—before we are due to leave the European Union, the Government, if they do not take action or accept this amendment, present the greatest potential threat to the Good Friday agreement. This hard-won agreement was forged in the understanding that the UK was and would remain in the European Union, and that the UK and the European Union would be its joint guarantors. We are now moving into a new situation where it is unclear who the guarantors would be.
People talk about a deal, but there is no deal. There is an agreement, twice rejected, on how we leave the EU. The deal comes afterwards and has to be negotiated: we have not even begun to address that. Yesterday the Government published two guidance statements on trade and tariffs—one of them specifically for Northern Ireland. Yet this guidance acknowledges only what the UK Government can or will do. It cannot by definition legislate for any EU measures.
The Northern Ireland guidance states:
“Because these are unilateral measures, they only mitigate the impacts of exit that are within the UK government’s control. These measures do not set out the position in respect of tariffs or processes to be applied to goods moving from Northern Ireland to Ireland”.
So will the EU impose tariffs on agricultural products from the UK to Ireland or to the rest of the EU, just at the beginning of the lamb sales? Is that what we would be facing? And that is just one sector and one example.
That is why this new clause is needed. It is a clear and unequivocal statement that nothing can be done and nothing should be done that undermines in detail the terms of the Good Friday agreement. As long as the Government stand by their position, there is no agreement that conforms to this clause—because the House of Commons has rejected the agreement twice. So we are in danger of being in default. Parliament either has to accept the backstop, which was the means of securing acceptance—twice rejected by the House of Commons—or the Government have to abandon the red lines and seek more time to pursue a softer strategy built around the customs union. Better still, in my view—I guess my colleagues on these Benches will agree—we should suspend Article 50 and put the deal, which would have to come with a backstop, to a vote of the people, with the option to rescind Article 50 altogether, on the basis that there is no agreement that either commands a majority in Parliament or is consistent with the Good Friday agreement. Currently there is no such agreement on the table.
I commend this amendment to the House on the basis that adopting this new clause would give the House of Commons a building block for squaring the circle, which the Government and the House of Commons have so far utterly failed to do.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, my name is also on this amendment and I echo every word of the excellent speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. We have an international obligation. We have signed the Belfast agreement—a long-standing, deep and binding international agreement—and somehow it seems to have been forgotten or overlooked in the frenzy of focus on some kind of “pure Brexit”, as it is called. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, called this the “hidden element”. It has become frighteningly clear that the Brexiteers did not understand Brexit properly. They imposed impossible and inconsistent red lines which have left us in the position we are now.
While the economics imply that staying in the customs union and single market will protect frictionless borders and supply chains and our manufacturing industry and services, it makes us a rule taker, and forces us to have some connection with the ECJ. On the political side, this has led to the drive towards dropping the backstop, as if it was a problem we should not care about—actually, we should care about it deeply—or even considering no deal, which clearly leaves Northern Ireland high and dry.
Leaving the customs union and single market cannot support an open border. Nor can no deal, or Canada-plus-plus. It saddens me that so many of our colleagues on these Benches are willing to countenance playing fast and loose with the hard-won peace achieved in Northern Ireland, for the sake of some kind of trading advantage which may or may not occur. I appeal to my colleagues on the Front Bench, and to my fellow Peers on the Conservative and Democratic Unionist Party Benches alongside me, to accept this amendment. It has already been accepted as part of the withdrawal Act. Surely we cannot, and must not, abandon the frictionless border in Northern Ireland, or cut Northern Ireland off from the rest of the UK.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I want to address something in this amendment that is important, but which has not been picked up so far. In saying so, I support the amendment, which proposes to support the Good Friday agreement. People tend to think of that in terms of the structures within Northern Ireland and between north and south. However, a key part of the agreement was the arrangement of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. For 10 years, it did not meet. The British and Irish Governments were in default of the Good Friday agreement for a decade. The European Union supported the Good Friday agreement, as did our friends in the United States.
In the context of the Good Friday agreement and addressing our difficulties, the suggestion that Ireland should be with the 27 countries which are negotiating with the UK, or having negotiations on their behalf, actually ignores the Good Friday agreement. If Britain and Ireland were not fulfilling it, the European Union should have been pushing the British and Irish Governments to come together to reach agreements that they could bring to Brussels together. There have been suggestions that this would be a breach of European Union understandings; it would not. However, not doing it is a breach of the Good Friday agreement.
If the British and Irish Governments have already agreed, or would agree over the next few months, on the main north-south economic and transport issues—agriculture, agri-food business and electricity—and agree that they would approach Brussels and request that these issues be dealt with on an all-Ireland basis, because they already largely are, it is highly likely that Brussels would accept that, whatever the other issues. It would not require a backstop; it would be a frontloading. The key thing is that the British and Irish Governments need to work together on this. That is what the last clause in the amendment says. In some ways, this ought to be the first clause, and the first stop, not a backstop: that the Governments come together and propose something.
People have repeatedly said that it is not appropriate for Ireland and the United Kingdom to negotiate together, because this is something between the UK and the EU as a whole. However, that simply does not work if people believe that they and the EU support the Good Friday agreement, which requires and mandates direct negotiations between London and Dublin on all joint issues. This has not been happening and I appeal to the Minister, as I appeal to Ministers in the Republic of Ireland, to come together on this issue. Ireland should be a bridge between the UK and the EU, not a bulwark for the EU against the UK.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend, who speaks with great authority on this issue. In following him, I will use one example to highlight the importance of this amendment in maintaining the spirit and including the contents of the agreement. I use the example of today’s announcements on the proposed tariffs that may be applied on a no-deal Brexit and the Written Ministerial Statement on how that will impact on the Northern Ireland border, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I was grateful for an opportunity to have a conversation with the Minister about this today.
The proposals for the tariff regime, which would be an increase of 489 tariff lines on goods from the European Union and would have to have some form of mechanism across the border of Northern Ireland, need to be seen in the context of operating within a year. This is not simply an emergency or temporary proposal, and a year is a long time in the context of some of the statistics referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. There were 46 million vehicle crossings at the 15 Northern Ireland border locations in the last year, according to the Northern Ireland statistics agency—3.8 million of those were goods vehicles, nearly three-quarters of deliveries involve small businesses, and two thirds of cross-border trade is bilateral agri-food and intermediate trade. That means these are small businesses—as already referred to, 80% are low-value—and often individual businesses trading on a self-employed basis, but every one of those people will have to be registered with an economic operator’s index number, or EORI. Only one-sixth of all businesses have so far registered, so the system, even as published today, is not operable, but new processes and procedures have to be carried out. The Government are giving no advice to Northern Ireland businesses on that. They believe a unilateral action, against the spirit of the Good Friday agreement and the spirit of an all-island economy, is the way forward.
How can it be a unilateral approach if tariffs will not be applied to goods coming from Ireland, but will subsequently be applied if those goods are part of intermediate trade with Great Britain? Liz Truss, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was asked at lunchtime where the checks would be carried out. She said that she believed it would be at “a border in the UK”. This is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury today. What does that mean? If one is tolerant, one may forgive her not knowing the terminology of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, but that is unforgivable, given that she said she will vote for a no-deal Brexit in the other place this evening. What kind of consultation is being carried out, not just with the Irish Government—which, as my noble friend indicated, is urgent—but with businesses on both sides of the border that will be operating?
Linked with the long-term basis is the fact that the unilateral approach is not WTO-compliant, unless the Government trigger one element in WTO processes on public morals. There are some dispensations that can be provided, in extremis, on the basis of public morals that can set aside a system where we will not apply tariffs from one country, if we have no intention of applying them to the rest of the world. It would be a retrograde step if the Government activated a public morals clause at the WTO on a situation as delicate as that on the Northern Ireland border. The Government are setting aside security and border integrity as the basis of the unilateral no-deal proposal. The Government should see sense and support this amendment, because it provides the framework for these consultations to be carried out.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a short but poignant and moving debate. We have reached back into history and tried to articulate fears and concerns.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
If the noble Lord would allow me, I entirely agree with the difficulties associated with the border, and the need for a soft border, but I am not sure that this amendment achieves that. It would not directly affect the no-deal situation at all. It describes what I regard as a soft border; it is what I would like to see and what the Prime Minister’s deal, with the backstop and so on, is intended to do. But we are now dealing with a different situation. I would love to see a secure, soft border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, but I am not at all sure that the amendment secures that in any way whatever, although I would be glad to have help on that. It would not be as a result of an agreement between the European Union and the UK if there was no deal; no deal is the very opposite of an agreement between the EU and UK.
The other problem is that Ireland’s relationships with countries no longer in the EU would be regulated by the EU. I should be glad of some explanation from the people who know all about this of exactly how the amendment achieves the result I and they wish to achieve.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, that is a well-made point. It is probably better if the mover of the amendment, my noble friend Lord Hain, responds to it in detail, but I think the wording is clear. Indeed, as my noble friend said, this takes us beyond the no-deal exit problem because it is for the future. It is meant to govern future arrangements across the border between the UK and Ireland. My noble friend might have more detail on it. I do not think the noble and learned Lord’s point destroys the arguments that have been made. I understand where he is coming from, but the issues we are talking about are for all time. They are important to build on our history and practice up to this point.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, spoke very powerfully, getting across the idea that if there is an opportunity for this House and, indeed, any other place to strengthen the spirit of the Belfast agreement, it should be supported. This is an opportunity to do so. He said that it was about not just the history, but the future of those who work and operate in Northern Ireland and Ireland, and about trade and opportunities. The combination of peace and prosperity, which, after all, is what we all seek at all times, surely is not something the Conservative and Unionist Government will really whip their members to vote against. I hope the Government will be able to accept the amendment and allow us to move forward.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short but very profound debate. In particular I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for moving the amendment. I think the whole House recognises the important role he played while Secretary of State to help that process gather ground into fruition. It has been a proud part of successive Governments that we cherish and nurture that hard-won peace. It is why we said right at the outset in the future relationship White Paper that the prime objective would be that,
“the UK and the EU meet their commitments to Northern Ireland and Ireland through the overall future relationship: preserving the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK; honouring the letter and the spirit of the Belfast (‘Good Friday’) Agreement; and ensuring that the operational legal text the UK will agree with the EU on the ‘backstop’ solution as part of the Withdrawal Agreement will not have to be used”.
That was very much at the heart of our objective. We are absolutely committed to the Good Friday agreement and that part of it.
I do not take the point the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, made about division out of context, but I am sure he would recognise that the whole thrust of the Government’s and the Prime Minister’s negotiations, and what the withdrawal agreement is about, is seeking to secure the type of border arrangements that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay referred to and that the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Alderdice, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and others seek to work towards. Peace on the island of Ireland between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and the Good Friday agreement—the partnership between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in this context—surely must be the red line above all red lines that we need to preserve.
That is why there is the amendment in the EU withdrawal Act making that explicit, which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was instrumental in securing. That has been a key part of what Her Majesty’s Government have done when engaging in negotiations on these matters, which was brought to fruition in the withdrawal agreement. Were the withdrawal agreement passed yesterday in another place, we would not need this amendment or this discussion. These are matters for the extremely unwelcome event of no deal.
Some specific points have been raised, which I will try to address. I hope that will help noble Lords in deciding what to do with this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said that this has been emerging over 12 months—an increase of 480 in the current position with the EU. The Government have had to find a way of ensuring that there is no border, from the UK perspective, in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. Any checks that must be carried out for non-revenue purposes will be done away from the border. HMRC is very familiar with carrying out such checks on that basis.
My noble friend Lady Altmann asked how the plan works to supply work with suppliers. These are unilateral measures—they are not for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, which would be subject to the EU’s common external tariff and single market rules. The only way to avoid a hard border is to commit to entering into discussions with the European Commission jointly to agree long-term measures to avoid one.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked whether there will be a border in the UK. The Government do not intend to construct infrastructure at the Northern Ireland land border. We will also not carry out any new checks on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. HMRC will assess the risks and take a risk-based approach to investigating allegations of breaches of those rules. The noble Lord also asked about the status in terms of the WTO—whether it breaches the MFN model. We are confident that the policy is in line with our WTO obligations, taking into account the unique set of social, political and economic circumstances of Northern Ireland. In developing our policy alongside WTO rules, we have also had to take into consideration a broader set of our international obligations, including those under the Good Friday agreement. Furthermore, as we have set out, these arrangements are strictly temporary. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked us the meaning of “temporary” in this respect; it is a period up to 12 months.
I will come to the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, because it is material to what we have been discussing today. He made the important observation that the amendment as worded seeks an agreement between the UK and the Government of Ireland. Of course, because the Irish border is, as he rightly said, a border between the United Kingdom and the European Union, it would need an agreement with the EU. I think that is the point my noble and learned friend was making. In that context, the way in which the amendment is currently worded would be unlawful because it refers to the Government of Ireland as opposed to the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, said that this amendment does not put the Government in a straitjacket. It would seek to limit flexibility—no “facilitations”, for example, would rule out future technologies, which is something the EU has specifically agree to look at as a priority once the withdrawal agreement has been agreed. In terms of EU imports into Northern Ireland, not across the land border, the answer to the question of whether tariffs apply is yes. The waiver applies only to goods moving from Ireland to Northern Ireland. This is a temporary measure that would need to be implemented.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about potential arbitraging in terms of pricing. Many things affect the price of cars, in terms of tax and currencies, and an individual car from Dublin, driven across to Belfast, would be exempt from the 10% tariff. It would not necessarily be cheaper, but these measures would be temporary. Surely this breaks most favoured nations status, which I have addressed.
I hope that noble Lords will feel that I have addressed a number of the points that were raised. I thank all noble Lords for raising these matters and assure them once again that this has been absolutely up front and central, at the heart of the Government’s strategy to preserve that hard-won peace and that special relationship. This is something that needs to be there only in the event of no deal, which we are all working tirelessly to avoid. I invite the noble Lord to address the point on the wording regarding the Government of Ireland and the European Union, which, on our reading, means that if the amendment were passed, it would be unlawful. If he could address that specifically, I am sure that it would be helpful to all noble Lords.
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I have been waiting for a voice to appear during this debate—and it has not. That is the voice of the people of the Republic of Ireland. I live there and would like to get across to your Lordships the incalculable level of anxiety that has been caused to the people of the Republic of Ireland by our apparent indifference about what happens, for example, in the event of no deal. I cannot stress that enough. When noble Lords decide how they wish to vote—I am sure that it will go to a vote—I beg them to consider my neighbours, in particular, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, mentioned, small farmers on both sides of the border who are terrified about what will happen should we, by some ridiculous accident, crash out. I beg the Minister to try to add the voice of the people of the Republic of Ireland to this debate, because they do have a voice in this.
Lord Bates
I recognise that and know that the noble Lord is passionate about the Republic of Ireland—as he said, he resides there. There is a fundamental point here: that anxiety would not be necessary if the withdrawal agreement, which was agreed in December, had been passed in the other place last night. That must be the best solution to remove the anxiety to which the noble Lord refers. He also alludes to a very important piece of work, which needs to start immediately—namely, rebuilding those friendships and links, and that partnership, which have served us so well in recent decades, to ensure that the progress that has been made has not been lost. That needs to start immediately. As I say, I take on board very much the point that he has raised.
Lord Hain
I thank my noble friend Lord Puttnam for the point he made. I have lots of friends on the island of Ireland, on both sides. I know that there is a real feeling of hurt among citizens of the Republic, given our tangled history—our colonial history, going back centuries—which created enormous distrust and suspicion from Dublin towards us. It was overcome by building trust almost day by day, week by week, over the last 20 years, by Governments of all colours—in particular, those led by John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and subsequently. That sense of pain is very deep.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for his generosity towards me. What I feel very strongly goes to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, whose interventions are always interesting and intellectually testing; I often agree with them. The point is this: we have no idea what sort of future awaits us. We do not know whether we will have an agreement with the European Union at all. There are vociferous voices, some in this House but particularly in the House of Commons, that do not want a deal with the European Union. Therefore the terms of the amendment are absolutely right. The default position that we can fall back on is that we need at least to agree with the Irish Republic in the terms of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement how the border issue is to be managed. I do not see that that is the obstacle in the terms of the amendment that the noble and learned Lord and the Minister have suggested.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, not least because I confess that I am almost certainly behind the curve here and may well be about to ask a very inept question. But this amendment is directed solely to an international trade agreement between the UK and the European Union. In the event of a no-deal exit, I am unclear whether any future trade agreements that are going to be reached will be with the European Union as opposed to, for example, individual EU countries such as Germany and France. If that were to be the position—I may well be barking up a most irrelevant tree—and there were a future agreement with Germany, as I understand it, the proposed clause would not bite. Is that right?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
It could be that the Germans are planning to leave the European Union, but while they remain their external trade will be conducted by the European Union.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I would love to vote for this amendment if I thought it would achieve what the noble Lord, the Irish people and indeed all of us want. Unfortunately, it outlaws agreements between the UK and the European Union only in the circumstances narrated. My belief is that if this happens, it will not be as a result of any agreement between the EU and the UK but because there is no agreement between the EU and the UK. This is possibly my blindness, but I do not see how this goes anywhere towards preventing the evil that all of us—I cannot speak for anyone but myself, strictly speaking, but certainly most of us, judging from what I have heard—want to avoid. We want a soft border whatever happens between Northern Ireland and the Republic. I am sure that people in the Republic want that and the Northern Irish people want that—and certainly I and all who love them want that.
Lord Hain
Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord that, while we may all want it—in fact, we all say we do—unless we will the means we cannot actually ensure and guarantee it. That is what the amendment does in respect of future trade agreements. The same wording was accepted by this House and by the Government in the other place, and has become part of the withdrawal Act—but that is part of, if you like, the divorce settlement. What we need to do is ensure that the same principles apply to our future trading relationship.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, with apologies to the House, we are on Report and we should get on with it.
Lord Hain
Perhaps I may conclude with something that might help the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. It is what this amendment does not say that is important. This amendment does not tie the Government’s hands, except in terms of the exact requirements for the future, because that is not appropriate in a clause of this kind, which I hope will be accepted and put into the Act. It spells out for new trade the principles that the Government have already accepted in the withdrawal agreement. So it is already in statute, and I am therefore puzzled as to why the Government are not accepting this agreement by approbation.
Lord Bates
My Lords, it may be helpful to the House if I explain our hesitation on precisely that point. Section 10(2)(b) of the EU withdrawal Act prohibits regulations creating new border arrangements —that is, arrangements that did not exist before exit day—unless they are in accordance with agreements between the UK and the EU. This amendment would prevent any arrangements unless they were subject to an agreement between the UK and the Government of Ireland. Such an agreement, in our view, would be unlawful for Ireland to enter into, as customs and a common commercial policy fall within the exclusive competence of the EU. I want that point to be clear on the record.
Lord Hain
I understand that point. However, under the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—we are bound and obligated, including with the approval by treaty of the European Union, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, to agree things with Dublin. That is the way it works. That is part of the Good Friday agreement that has the blessing of the European Union.
I repeat that we have no idea as yet of our future trading relationships with anybody, including across the Irish border—no idea at all. This amendment spells out the principles that have already been accepted in the withdrawal Act, and agreed in statute by the Government. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“Publication of trade agreement progress register
(1) For the purposes of subsection (2)—(a) the first reporting period begins with the passing of this Act and ends one week afterwards;(b) each subsequent reporting period is—(i) the week beginning with the end of the previous reporting period, or(ii) if the condition in subsection (4) is met, the month beginning with the end of the previous reporting period.(c) the last reporting period is—(i) the reporting period in which exit day falls, or(ii) if the condition in subsection (4) is met, the reporting period in which any transition period provided for in the negotiated withdrawal agreement expires.(2) Before the end of each reporting period, a Minister of the Crown must publish a report relating to the continuing application of EU trade agreements after exit day.(3) A report under subsection (2) must—(a) specify the trade agreements the United Kingdom is party to as a member of the European Union (the “existing agreements”),(b) for each of the existing agreements, specify whether the United Kingdom intends to sign an agreement that replicates the effects of the existing agreement (the “continuity agreements”),(c) for each of the continuity agreements, specify—(i) whether the agreement has been signed, and(ii) if the agreement has not been signed, what progress has been made towards signing the agreement, and(d) for each of the continuity agreements that has not been signed, specify—(i) the likelihood, in the Minister’s opinion, that the agreement will be signed before exit day, or(ii) if the condition in subsection (4) is met, the likelihood, in the Minister’s opinion, that the agreement will be signed before the end of any transition period provided for in the negotiated withdrawal agreement.(4) For the purposes of subsections (1)(b)(ii), (1)(c)(ii) and (3)(d)(ii) the condition is if the United Kingdom has signed a negotiated withdrawal agreement with the European Union.(5) In this section, “negotiated withdrawal agreement” has the same meaning as in section 13(16) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, this feels like an intermission between two parts of the main feature this afternoon, so I shall be brief. The amendment is even more important given the vote in the Commons last night and the votes likely to come up in the other place. It would provide for a duty on the Government to update the information that they published on 21 February.
I signed up to a weekly trade newsletter from the European Commission at the start of this Bill’s consideration. It includes a weekly digest of the latest news on EU trade, new trade negotiating texts, reports and studies about ongoing discussions, upcoming events and consultations and the EU Trade Commissioner’s statements on related topics. That is the type of information available through the Commission that should be the benchmark by which our Government provides information, not only to Parliament but to civic society and interested groups across the country. But unfortunately, it is in stark contrast with the kind of information that the UK Government publish to date. It is appropriate that we have information on the status of discussions and highlight areas where there are justifiable public differences in approach or policy between our Government and other Governments.
The amendment is not asking for commercially sensitive information or for information that would diminish the ability of negotiators to carry out a set mandate or agreed policy objectives. It is necessary for continuity in the areas that we are discussing.
Also, as we discussed in the previous debate, if there is no deal, we have unilaterally decided to engage in a different trading relationship with countries we currently have arrangements with, and possibly add new tariff lines on goods that are not in place in the current FTAs. The Government seem to think that it is rational to discuss continuity agreements with other countries if there is no deal, apply a new tariff regime with nearly 500 extra tariff lines to businesses trading from those countries and roll over agreements, thereby reinstating the zero tariffs we currently enjoy with those countries by virtue of our membership of the European Union. It is a bizarre approach that the Government think will be beneficial, but it stretches credulity.
At the start of proceedings on the Bill, the Government said that the whole process of moving over agreements would be easy. The noble Lord, Lord Price, the Minister’s predecessor, said that all countries had agreed to roll over agreements but, in fact, they had not. Ministers said repeatedly that all the agreements would be in place by 29 March but many of us knew that that would not happen. The Government denied that there was a problem when it was apparent to everyone that there was, and we knew that those agreements were not going to happen for a number of reasons. Only after frustrated officials leaked information did the Government demur and publish a one-off statement admitting a degree of reality. That is not sufficient and we need to move away from that approach.
The amendment addresses a way forward. It would lead to more information on the trading relationships with the countries we have an agreement with through the EU, but will end if we crash out. The amendment calls for a weekly update before we leave the EU—if we leave—and a monthly update that will form the basis of reporting until the texts of the agreements are shared with Parliament. Unless we have a consistent mechanism, we will have a bizarre situation involving two reporting systems from the Government: one on the progress on continuity agreements and the other on successor or new agreements.
For example, the Government intended to have a continuity agreement with Japan but no reporting undertakings. However, the Japanese have now said they want a successor agreement, which would be covered by undertakings in the Command Paper. But the underlying policy intent has not changed and there will be nothing to stop discussions with a country such as Canada on a continuity agreement then becoming a successor agreement—and there will be two parallel systems of reporting. That is not helpful for clarity or transparency.
Finally, we heard clearly last week from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others who have been at the highest level of negotiations on behalf of the UK, that greater transparency and the involvement of Parliament in approving mandates actively strengthen the UK’s position, not weaken it. In order for Parliament to do its job correctly and engage with civil society groups and those with an interest in trade, or who will be impacted by decisions made in the negotiations, we need a high level of information on progress, rather than simply a descriptor such as “engagement ongoing”, as referred to on 21 February.
That is why I hope that the Government will look favourably on the amendment and, if they cannot accept it, at least establish some principles whereby reporting mechanisms can be more up to date, regular and meaningful than a one-off publication on 21 February. I beg to move.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has outlined the reasoning for and detail of the amendment. I intend, therefore, to be brief as we have a number of amendments of greater importance.
It is a shame that the Government will not accept the amendment or work with noble Lords on this side of the House to bring more detail and clarity to the reporting mechanism and progress analysis on rollover agreements. Suffice it to say, Her Majesty’s Government are woefully behind on negotiating, securing and signing agreements that will need to be rolled over. Only a handful of deals are close to completion. Ministers have admitted that they are struggling to make progress with the other trade agreements that Liam Fox has a number of times promised would be ready for the day after Brexit.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for moving Amendment 23, and the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, for building on it. The Government agree with the spirit of the amendment that providing updates on negotiations is necessary. It is fundamental to our approach that Parliament remains informed. It is something the Government have always sought to do and we will continue to do so.
Your Lordships will recall that, following concerns raised in Committee in this House, the Government published a paper on 28 February providing comprehensive proposals for the scrutiny of future free trade agreements. Many of your Lordships will also recall the debate last week on future trade agreements. The noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Hannay of Chiswick, tabled amendments which facilitated a full debate on the scrutiny of future free trade agreements. In that debate, I again confirmed that, for future free trade agreements the Government will publish their outline approach to negotiations, including objectives, and that that would be accompanied by detailed economic analysis. The EU reports to which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred are on future EU agreements.
We have committed to publishing progress reports after each negotiating round and annual trade reports across all live trade negotiations. In terms of Parliament’s role in this, I confirmed that in future free trade agreements the Government will work closely with a committee of both Houses or a committee in each House, and will provide information on a confidential basis to ensure that Parliament can scrutinise negotiations effectively from start to finish and throughout.
In relation to our trade continuity programme—the agreements that are the subject of this amendment—noble Lords will be aware that the Government published a Written Ministerial Statement on 21 February 2019. It provided an update to Parliament on the status of the continuity agreements. I hope it clarified a number of the points that the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, raised. I also trust that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will welcome the approach the Government are taking of informing Parliament each and every time a continuity agreement is signed. There have been seven free trade agreements so far and we will continue to take that approach.
These agreements have been accompanied by a signed or initialled report outlining the material changes between this agreement and the existing EU/third country agreement. These reports provide important transparency and inform not just Parliament but businesses and consumers. We will discuss three of the agreements and the reports later today. However, some of your Lordships may not be aware of what the Government have done above that over the past six months to keep Parliament informed more generally. For example, we have provided five oral evidence sessions to Select Committees by Ministers or senior officials, given 10 written updates to the International Trade Select Committee or the European Scrutiny Committee on trade agreement continuity, and answered seven Oral Questions and 53 Written Parliamentary Questions. I hope that those elements are further tangible proof of the Government’s commitment to keeping Parliament informed. However, while the Government agree with the intention of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I am concerned that having this obligation in statute could have unintended consequences in making it more difficult to keep Parliament informed.
The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, asked what the issues were. They are the kinds of obligations that might arise while we are in the middle of negotiations with our partner countries. For example, if we were to say that an agreement discussion was progressing well and that all the key issues had been addressed, that might cause a negotiating issue on the other side. Equally, if we said we thought that it was performing poorly or that there were issues, that might expose issues that our partner countries were ill prepared to address. If negotiations were going badly, a public statement to that effect would likely prejudice them further, resulting, we believe, in a worse outcome for the UK. Our approach is to provide Parliament with as much information as we can, consistent with managing those risks. It genuinely is about getting the balance right between openness and transparency with Parliament and managing often delicate international negotiations.
I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, takes reassurance from this explanation and, most importantly, from our continued commitment to ensure that Parliament is kept up to date on the trade agreement continuity programme. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, and for the support of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. He highlighted that we are likely to have seen only 13% of UK exports represented in the agreements that we have, so there is quite a long way to go. The issue then is whether a one-off published statement would be sufficient. However, I take on board what the Minister said about the other areas, on which there is ongoing engagement with Parliament; that is to be welcomed. I also welcome that in the Command Paper the Government have committed to publish material and to have an ongoing dialogue, both in public and in private, with committees that could well be established. I hope very much that the dialogue will also involve discussions about what type of information is appropriate to be released into the public domain and about doing so in a timely fashion.
On the basis of the Minister’s comments and on the understanding that, if we are to be secure in the information that I think we need on the continuity agreements, we will continue to be persistent on the Written Questions and on the opportunities in Parliament, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Trade agreement with the EU: mobility framework
It shall be the objective of the Secretary of State to take all necessary steps to secure an international trade agreement with the European Union which includes a mobility framework that enables all UK and EU citizens to exercise the same reciprocal rights to work, live and study for the purpose of the provision of trade in goods or services.”
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, on Report your Lordships have already voted through an amendment that creates a process for Parliament’s involvement in setting a mandate for future trade deals and for helping to approve a final deal. Separately, your Lordships have made clear a strong preference for the UK remaining in a customs union. In part, this amendment is the third part of that and is intended to set the scene for the long-term future relationship between this country and the EU. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for their support for this amendment.
The amendment sets out an objective for a future EU trade deal: a mandate to include,
“a mobility framework that enables all UK and EU citizens to exercise the same reciprocal rights to work, live and study for the provision of trade in goods or services”.
That reciprocal nature recognises one important fact: not allowing or enabling EU 27 people to work and trade in the United Kingdom will mean no such rights for UK people in the EU. By voting for this amendment, your Lordships would create the best possible chance for talented men and women in the UK to work, and continue to work, and offer their services within the EU 27, and of course it would be a win-win scenario. On the other side of such an arrangement, we would continue to welcome into this country people who contribute positively to our economy and our social fabric. Their skills make a positive difference.
In Committee, I outlined at some length, and according to the Government’s own advisers, the positive role that people from the other 27 EU countries play in this economy. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that I will not replay those arguments today, in part because in no measure were those facts challenged during that debate. There has been a net benefit to the UK from the activities of EU 27 citizens here. My speech also acknowledged that issues were thrown up by migration in some communities and that those issues have not been sufficiently recognised and dealt with by successive UK Governments. The benefits of those EU citizens working in the UK have also been insufficiently recognised publicly by successive Governments.
In Committee, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, spoke about the appearance rather than the reality of unbridled immigration, and that refers back to the point that I have just made. Although I recognise that this perception is very important and that Governments have to do something about it, I do not believe that we should be put off from doing the right thing and supporting the amendment. I hope that, by doing so, we will demonstrate the value that we place on mutual agreement and on the mutual opportunities that we can create for our people, our businesses and our communities.
As for the Government, I did not notice a great warming to my argument in Committee, although I always foster hopes. However, I appeal over the heads of the Front Bench to your Lordships to see the value in this amendment. Supporting it would be a major step towards setting out the mandate for UK negotiators. It would signal what sort of country we want to live in and it would reject one of Mrs May’s red lines. Opposing the amendment or sitting on one’s hands would pander to the false picture of the role of immigration in our society and would impair the UK in so many ways, not least in trade. I beg to move.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because I believe that it is vital to preserve mobility rights and, in doing so, protect some of the UK’s most productive sectors.
I have noted before the relative silence on trade in services in the Brexit conversation. Attention has been focused on the at-the-border issues associated with trade, rather than the more complex behind-the-border issues of domestic rules, regulations and qualifications, which are germane to trade in services. As I have said before, this silence is particularly hard to understand, given services’ contribution to the UK. They account for over 40% of total exports, 80% of the UK’s GDP and four in five jobs across the country. The largest single destination for UK services is the EU, worth £90 billion annually.
If services have been treated like the second son, mobility has been the Cinderella of the story, pushed from the start to the wrong side of what some of us see as a wrong-headed red line. There is, of course, an inextricable link between mobility and services. Services provided in this country, such as tourism or higher education, depend on inward mobility. Service packages linked to goods, such as maintenance contracts, depend on outward mobility. Services delivered in the consumer’s country are often provided on a fly-in, fly-out basis, and the scale of this trade is significant. The CBI reports that employees of just one firm undertook 17,000 trips from the UK to the EU and 10,000 in the opposite direction in a single year.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to this important amendment and I will speak briefly about services in relation to free movement.
The recent no-deal impact statement says that free movement of people supports services. It would be more correct to say that free movement is intrinsic to services. This is certainly true of the creative industries but also of many other areas of the services sector. As a British IT worker said, “We freelancers export ourselves”. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said in Committee, “Trade is people”. Yet, despite their massive importance—the noble Baroness has given us the figures—the services sector is, as Sir Ivan Rogers said at the University of Liverpool in December,
“the dog that has largely failed to bark”—
an observation that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also made in Committee. And services continue not to bark. This is deeply worrying.
Of course, Brexit has not yet happened and may still not do so. But it is happening now for British workers who provide services in Europe. One is tempted to call them the canaries in the mine—except we are talking about the endangering of people’s livelihoods. More reports are coming in of projects put on hold and of individual freelancers being told not to bother applying for a job unless they have a European passport, irrespective of the level of qualifications they possess. It is becoming a precondition. For many European companies it will make no difference what kind of Brexit we end up with if it is a Brexit without free movement.
I urge the Minister to look at a video blog doing the rounds on social media. It was recorded in English by an IT agency based in Rotterdam and makes it clear that neither the agency nor their clients can work with you if you are not in Europe—“Europe” of course meaning the single market. The impact statement says that the effects on services will be mitigated by a reciprocal mobility framework. However, in reality, the mobility of British workers abroad will be restricted by the severity of the immigration policy outlined in the White Paper and coming our way in the Immigration Bill—a policy which completely ignores the effect it will have on our service industries and on British workers in Europe. Sir Ivan Rogers said:
“UK service industries’ needs have been sacrificed to the primary goal of ending free movement”.
The amendment also refers to study. Unless we have free movement, I am pessimistic about our membership of Erasmus+ beyond 2020. Look at what happened to Switzerland, which was thrown out of Erasmus when a referendum voted against free movement. After a new agreement, I believe that Switzerland is now back.
There are many important reasons for supporting this amendment. From the point of view of trade, it should be supported not just to protect our valuable trade in services and the increasingly important servitisation aspect of manufacturing, but, importantly, to protect British workers and British jobs.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have not participated on this subject before, but I listened to the persuasive explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I note the phrase “mobility framework”, which sounds incredibly friendly. But I will urge my noble friend to reject this amendment. This is not because I want to build a wall or because I think perceptions of immigration have been wholly erroneous—although he quite rightly drew the House’s attention to that. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said that we need to talk about facts. I will share a couple of facts, which will take only a minute. The population of the United Kingdom is going up by 1,200 a day: that is, 400 from natural increase, 600 from immigration from outside the EU and 200 from immigration within the EU. So we are putting a small town or large village on the map of the UK every week. The ONS projections are that the country’s population will go up by 7 million to 9 million between now and 2040. Manchester currently has 2.5 million people living in it—so we will have to find homes for three cities the size of Manchester.
The UK will by that stage have overtaken Germany as the most populous country in Europe and England will have overtaken the Netherlands as the most densely populated. That is against the background of a new industrial revolution that it is believed will cause 7.5 million jobs to be either lost or radically altered. I quite understand the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the other movers of the amendment, but this had to be looked at in the round of our demographic future. It is not about whether you arrived here recently, or about your colour, your race or your creed. It is about what will enable our society to operate cohesively and well as we see that scale of arrivals, and that scale of change to the way we live and work.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. How can his argument work when, at the moment, we have unemployment at almost 4% and we need the 3.5 million people from the European Union who are over here now? Given an immigration White Paper that says a minimum salary has to be £30,000, and the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, how will we manage with a slow-growing economy of just over 1% per year, let alone if it should grow faster? We will have an acute labour shortage.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I think the noble Lord is completely wrong. I have explained that it looks as though we will lose 7.5 million jobs because of the fourth industrial revolution; that is the first thing. Secondly, there is drastic underemployment among people aged over 50 who, when they try to get a job, cannot do so. It is seen that they have only a few years left to work and so are not reliable; youth is what people look for. There are plenty of available older people, but jobs will disappear. That is why I could not support this amendment unless we had done a lot more work on what the mobility framework advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, really meant.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I will depart for a moment from the beauty of facts to perhaps more abstract philosophy. We have heard about the movement of people with respect to the creative industries; there is an important point to make here. I look back over a career that has taken me from being a chorister at the Royal Academy of Music to working at the BBC and the Royal Opera House, working with orchestras, dancers and singers. In each of those cases a very important contribution was made by the movement of people.
I believe that one of the most important aspects of intellect and civilisation—I am sure many Ministers on the Front Bench would aspire to these things—is curiosity. To experience the best aspects of curiosity, you need freedom of movement, freedom of ideas and the freedom to travel. I am privileged in the way my life has been staggeringly enriched by the movement of people, whether it is my ability to go to a concert in Vienna next month where my music will be played, and another in Budapest, or people coming here to perform. These are people from whom I have learned so much, people such as György Ligeti or Witold Lutosławski, with whom I studied. This movement of ideas and curiosity is vital to the intellectual and cultural health of our nation.
Lord Puttnam
My Lords, I had no intention of entering this debate other than to support the amendment. However, I must make a point to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, because he raised it. What we heard from him is all too familiar. When my mother’s family came to this country 120 years ago as Jewish immigrants from Russia, exactly the same charges were being made about a flood of Jewish immigrants arriving in this country and, potentially, destabilising it and making it a more difficult place to live. Does any noble Lord in this House think that that generation of Jewish immigrants did anything other than contribute massively to the wealth and prosperity of this country? This absurd argument is trotted out every 100 years—mostly from his Benches, I am afraid—yet it is always fallacious and, frankly, very upsetting and quite disturbing.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, at the heart of this amendment is a concern that the necessary steps are taken to support trade involving the use of services, which increasingly spreads across not just performance, art or culture but work in making cars, machinery and so on, of which it is an integral part. The expertise and knowledge that goes with that involves people and we need to accompany the work they are doing in a way which allows it to function properly. If they are prevented from moving, we as a society will suffer. In addition to the well-made points from the Cross Benches on the artistic and cultural level, at a purely practical level, we need arrangements for the new technologies which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred to, which will be unable to work if we do not have the services to make them do so. I wish him well with his iPad when it collapses and he cannot get the people to service it because they are unable to travel.
More seriously, the fourth pillar of the GATT treaty, of which we are a member through the EU, and would be a member if we come out of the EU, requires countries such as the UK—it we were independent—to make sure that services are delivered in ways which include the ability to provide rights for working, living and studying. Although studying does not necessarily seem to apply to the right to work and live, it is a very important aspect for us in Britain because one of our biggest export earners is our educational services. If we prevent people travelling to provide the facilities which allow studying and the ability to pass on knowledge—as we would be, if we do not have a proper arrangement for that—we will suffer enormously as a result.
Last night, I was at a meeting involving universities, organised by the Industry and Parliament Trust. There was a palpable concern felt by all the academics present about: the inability to engage with Erasmus and Erasmus+; the possibility that the Horizon 2020 funds will not be available; the lack of technical support for research activity, because the salary level grades were too high; and the inability to attract good postgraduate students to provide the intermediate work in research teams, and to teach. They felt that this was going to mean considerable changes in our university systems. This is the implication if we do not have a mobility framework of the type described in this amendment, which I support.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for moving this amendment. Before I respond, I should declare an interest, in that my wife came to this country from outside the EU and has contributed over the last 30 years by building a business, and in other ways. Therefore, I have no problem with recognising, as I was invited to do, the tremendous contributions to this country made by people who come to make this place their home. In the same spirit, I recognise the contribution that our European friends have made to this country, in many of the areas referenced already.
Lord Fox
My Lords, I congratulate those Peers who have taken part in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Puttnam, all forcefully put the moral as well as economic case behind the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for mentioning the industrial revolution. If we are to build a significant place in that industry in the world, as the Government’s industrial strategy seeks to achieve, it will not be by closing the borders and stopping people coming in to give us the value of their services, their knowledge and their ability to build it. This will be a global exercise. If we want to lead in it, we have to fling open our doors and let those people into this country.
The Minister of course put a persuasive case on the proposed regime. In essence, we are taking the regime that has been applied to non-EU migrants and putting it on to EU migrants. I have worked in companies that have sought to bring people into this country to do important jobs, and I have to tell the Minister that it is an extremely difficult process. Making it harder for our closest allies and biggest market to bring people in is not the solution to this problem.
The Minister is right to say that there might be other opportunities to put this point, but I am someone who likes to seize the day. I beg to seek the opinion of the House.
“UK participation in EU and EEA organisations
(1) The Secretary of State must seek to negotiate an international trade agreement with the EU which will enable the United Kingdom to continue, after exit day, to co-operate closely with the bodies listed in subsection (2).(2) The bodies are—(a) the European Medicines Agency;(b) the European Chemicals Agency;(c) the European Aviation Safety Agency;(d) the European Maritime Safety Agency;(e) the European Network of Transmission System Operators;(f) the European Food Safety Authority;(g) the European Union Intellectual Property Office.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, those with keen eyesight will have noticed that this is an amended version of an earlier amendment which was tabled in Committee. It reflects the fact that we have been in discussions with the Government on how best to frame an important issue, which is that a duty and obligation should be placed on the Secretary of State in this case and on the Government more generally to ensure that, if we are in a situation where we are negotiating international trade agreements with the EU—in other words, we are not in a no-deal, crash-out situation—the United Kingdom should try to co-operate as closely as possible with the bodies set out in the list.
In moving Amendment 24A, I draw the attention of noble Lords to Amendment 25A which I regard as consequential since it seeks to remove the clause that Amendment 24A is intended to replace.
We can trace the thinking about this back to an amendment moved in the other place at the time the Bill was being considered on Report in the Commons. That amendment inserted into the Bill a requirement that the Secretary of State or an appropriate authority to negotiate an international trade agreement with the EU that includes working closely with the European Medicines Agency, but it stopped at that point. That raises in my mind—and I am sure in others’—why other agencies and bodies of equal importance across a range of issues should not also be the subject of close negotiation. I therefore thought that it would be appropriate to bring forward an amendment at this stage which tries to list some of them.
I noticed that, in the Chequers statement and the White Paper that followed it, there was in fact a much longer list of bodies which were thought to be appropriate in any future negotiated international trade agreement with the EU. They did not appear in my original list, but they could well be considered. I also discovered that the CBI was keen to draw the Government’s attention to its view that the future relationship with the EU would suffer tremendously if a considerable effort was not made to approach bodies such as the European Medicines Agency and then including the European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Maritime Safety Agency and the European Network of Transmission System Operators in the same manner. The version before noble Lords perhaps still does not catch the full attention of the Government, but I hope that, when the Minister responds, he might suggest that we work further on this to make sure that we have reached an agreed position before we get to Third Reading. If so, I would be happy to work with the Government on that.
The Minister will probably raise the question why paragraphs (f) and (g), covering the European Food Safety Authority and the European Union Intellectual Property Office, are on my list whereas they perhaps would not meet the criteria that are going to be raised by the Government. I would be interested to hear his arguments on this, because many Members of your Lordships’ House would think that the European Food Safety Authority meets all the criteria of the others in the list. Moreover, if we are to make a future of our economy in the new modern world, we are certainly going to need to work closely with the European Union Intellectual Property Office, which has a high reputation for all the work that is involved in trying to regulate and bring forward arrangements for new technologies. I beg to move.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for presenting his amendment, and I particularly thank him for the way that he has engaged with officials and with my noble friend Lady Fairhead on this important issue. I can cut to the chase and say that we are probably not going to be that far apart, but let me put some remarks on the record in the hope that we can agree to keep working on this between now and Third Reading.
Ministers from across Government have carried out an extensive engagement on EU exit with businesses, industry bodies and civil society organisations from all sectors of the economy and all regions of the UK. The Secretaries of State at DExEU and BEIS and the Chancellor of the Exchequer co-chair the EU Exit Business Advisory Group to ensure that business is not only heard but is influential throughout the negotiations. The group involves the director-generals and directors of the CBI, IoD, EEF, BCC and FSB. The meetings take place regularly and are included in transparency returns. Since July 2016, DExEU Ministers alone have organised and attended more than 500 engagements with business and civil society stakeholders from every sector of the British economy.
For goods, the UK and the EU want to be as ambitious as possible. As part of this, both parties have agreed to explore the possibility of UK co-operation with EU agencies such as the European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Medicines Agency. In addition, the political declaration sets out that the UK will seek to co-operate with the European Maritime Safety Agency and the European Network of Transmission System Operators. As a specific example of this suggested co-operation in the interests of tackling shared safety and security issues, we will continue to co-operate with the European Maritime Safety Agency, including on exchange of information between the agency and the United Kingdom Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
Let me turn now to the core issue that remains between us, which is the position of the EU Intellectual Property Office. The Government are working to find the best arrangement for the UK regarding EU agencies and bodies, but the decision to seek co-operation with an EU agency or body must be made carefully, bearing in mind the context of the UK’s overall aims for the future relationship and negotiations with the EU. As we negotiate our future relationship with the EU, the Government are determined to agree ambitious provisions to help businesses protect their intellectual property rights. Indeed, in the political declaration the UK and the EU commit to establishing,
“a mechanism for cooperation and exchange of information on intellectual property issues of mutual interest”.
In this regard, the UK would seek an appropriate level of co-operation with the EU and other relevant agencies such as the EU IPO. What we can achieve will be subject to the negotiations. However, since intellectual property is a wide-ranging and dynamic area of law, it would be unwise to stipulate in UK law exactly how we want to co-operate with the EU in this given area, as this could have wider implications for the balance of rights and obligations in the future partnership.
Whatever the outcome of the negotiations, I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that trademarks and registered designs are granted on a non-discriminatory basis. That means that, in all circumstances, British businesses will continue to be able to use the EU Intellectual Property Office to protect their trademarks and designs in the EU. The Government want to emphasise that we seek to be ambitious and to obtain the best result possible in the negotiations with the EU on intellectual property. However, as it stands, the amendment would be unhelpful in that it would bind the UK to a particular negotiating approach. The negotiation objectives are complex, and there are vitally important questions which must be weighed in their own right.
In accordance with the commitments made by the Prime Minister, Parliament will have a greater and more formal role in the development of the mandate for the next phase of the negotiations. The Government are more than sympathetic both to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and to those of businesses. A thorough engagement with stakeholders and the EU has led the UK to saying that it will seek co-operation with five bodies that I mentioned earlier. This work requires thorough and weighted consideration of how active participation in an agency delivers wider negotiation goals in the context of any associated costs and disbenefits.
I thank the noble Lord for his constructive approach to engagement on this. I believe that we are not far apart from each other, particularly in the light of the progress that we have made to date. As a consequence, I can confirm, as has been the case throughout the process, that I and the lead Minister, my noble friend Lady Fairhead, will be happy to have further discussions to see whether we can reach a mutually acceptable agreement. We will therefore return to this matter at Third Reading. On that basis, I would ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considerate words and for dealing in detail with some of the issues that I raised in my opening statement. With his agreement, we will see whether we can work further over the next few days to get a common agreement on a wording that can be brought back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Fairhead
“Statement on equalities legislation
(1) This section applies where a Minister of the Crown proposes to make regulations under section 2(1).(2) Before a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations is laid before either House of Parliament, the Minister must make a statement—(a) as to whether the statutory instrument would, if made, modify any provision of equalities legislation, and(b) if it would, explaining what the effect of each such modification would be.(3) If the Minister fails to make a statement as required by subsection (2), the Minister must make a statement explaining why.(4) A statement under this section must be made in writing and published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.(5) In this section, “equalities legislation” means the Equality Act 2006, the Equality Act 2010 and any subordinate legislation made under either of those Acts.”
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, we have talked at length about the purpose of the Government’s trade continuity programme, which is to seek continuity of the effects of existing EU free trade agreements as far as possible as we leave the EU. The vast majority of these existing trade agreements, which we are part of as an EU member state, are already in operation in the UK and have been scrutinised by Parliament.
Let me make it clear that, as part of this programme, we do not expect to need to change existing domestic equalities legislation. In the unlikely event that we need to make minor or consequential changes to this legislation, we will aim to ensure that this does not result in reduced protection against unlawful discrimination or diminution of equality rights. However, as indicated in Committee, to ensure suitable transparency and accountability on this important issue, the Government have worked closely with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to develop this amendment.
Amendment 26 specifically provides for a ministerial Statement to be made before any regulations are laid under the Clause 2 power to implement a continuity trade agreement. This statement will outline whether those regulations modify any provision of the Equality Acts 2006 and 2010 or any subordinate legislation made under those enactments. This is in addition to the reports that Parliament will receive under Clauses 3 and 5, setting out any significant differences between continuity agreements and the corresponding original EU agreements.
I trust that this House will accept this as further evidence that the Government have a strong desire to be transparent with Parliament, businesses and the general public about their continuity programme. I beg to move.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
My Lords, briefly, we on this side support the amendment and are pleased the Government are committed to protecting equalities legislation. However, I would like to see the Government go a little further and give a firmer promise that trade agreements will not allow any regression of standards as we move forward. I have nothing further to add.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, for his support. As I think the House is aware, we are trying to work on standards to agree a mutually acceptable form of words.
I conclude by placing on the record my thanks for the positive engagement that the Government have had with the Equality and Human Rights Commission in relation to this amendment. We have worked closely together on developing it. As the House will have seen from the commission’s briefing, it too is supportive of the amendment. Consequently, I hope your Lordships will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment 26 agreed.
Clause 7: Regulations: devolved authorities and general provision
Amendment 27
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I rise as batsman No. 3 today. This group covers Amendments 27, 28, 29, 30 and 36 to 58. I will speak to Government Amendments 27, 29, 30 and 36 to 58 which are minor, technical amendments. I will then respond to amendment 28 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and Lord Purvis of Tweed, after they have spoken to their amendment.
To avoid the unnecessary duplication of a provision already in place by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, Amendment 27 removes Clause 7(2). Clause 7(2) allows for devolved Administrations to make regulations under section 1(1) or 2(1) of the Trade Bill before exit day provided that those regulations do not come into effect until exit day. This is already provided for by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which applies this principle to all Bills passed after the Act in the same Session of Parliament. There will be no change to policy with the removal of Clause 7(2); it merely removes an unnecessary and duplicative provision.
For the Bill to work in the way that is intended, the definition of subordinate legislation must include Acts passed in devolved legislatures as well as in the UK Parliament. This is possible by changing the definition of subordinate legislation from that used in the Interpretation Act 1978 to the more detailed one used in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. This is the purpose of Amendment 29 which ensures that, where possible, the provisions in the Bill respect the important role of the devolved Administrations.
Turning to Amendments 30 and 36, Clause 8(6) in Part 1 of the Bill sets out a list of definitions of terms found in the Bill, such as “devolved authority”. The amendments will move the definition of domestic law from Schedule 1, paragraph 2(7) to Clause 8(6), where it will sit alongside other definitions that relate to the devolved Administrations. This will make the Bill easier for people to follow.
Turning to Amendments 37 to 43 and 45 to 58, Schedule 1 to the Trade Bill allows joint procedure requirements that derive from outside the Trade Bill still to apply to regulations made under Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. By inserting the phrase “acting alone” to appropriate places in Schedules 1 and 2, as Amendments 37 to 43 and 45 to 58 seek to do, we are improving the quality of the legislation by clarifying when the devolved authorities are acting alone as opposed to acting jointly with the UK Government.
Amendment 44 ensures that paragraph 6(4) of Schedule 1 works as intended by applying consultation requirements that would otherwise bind Northern Ireland devolved authorities to regulations made under Clause 1(1) and 2(1). These changes are technical in order to tidy up the Bill, and as such I hope your Lordships will support them.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, it is a test of the abilities of Ministers to be able to breathe life into a list such as that we have just heard. This is a case of drafting amendments beyond the boredom threshold of many people who have to sit through these debates, and I congratulate the noble Viscount on his ability to do that well. I have no objection to the points that he has made and will support them enthusiastically when asked to do so.
In this group, which includes a lot of one-line amendments, is a large amendment dealing with the Sewel convention, which has operated for a number of years in relation to devolved matters in the Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—when they meet. It is there because there is concern that the Government have still not bottomed out their arrangements for how all such matters are to be dealt with going forward. While there is no complaint that the convention has not worked well until now, conventions are conventions and there is an argument, at least in principle, that at some point—either now or at some later stage—an attempt should be made to clarify the rules by which it operates and the conditions under which it exists.
I say that particularly because there remains a continuing concern over how the Government attempted to legislate in the withdrawal Bill, in particular on matters being devolved—as they may be under any agreement with the EU or if we crash out—to the UK but for which there was a strongly persuasive case for them going directly to the devolved Administrations. In those circumstances, a great deal of work has been done and a lot of the individual issues have been settled, one way or another. However, a list of matters relating to devolved issues still needs to be resolved so that where they intersect with other geographical locations, there is a workable scheme under which progress can be made.
One issue that arose previously was the extent to which the devolution legislation passed in this House to set up theses bodies could be invoked for issues concerning who has the authority to legislate where a matter is devolved. If a matter is not reserved under the Act, it is devolved, so matters that fall to be devolved must have the consent of the body to which the issue is devolved under the Sewel convention. I am putting this simply; the arrangement is more complex. In the case before us, with trade being such an important issue, we felt that there should be some measure in the Bill to explain exactly the conditions under which the convention would operate and the extent to which it would or would not be concerned. The amendment’s wording is quite clear:
“Regulations made … by a Minister of the Crown may not normally make provision which would be within the devolved competence of a devolved authority”,
unless the Ministers consent. It goes on to say that it would normally be within the devolved competences of the devolved authority, to which conditions are attached. That applies to all areas.
That would have been a very simple introduction to a very simple issue on which I would expect the Minister to respond. However, it will not have escaped the House’s attention that only yesterday, a very similar amendment to another Bill—the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill—was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, on behalf of the Government. It covered almost exactly the same territory. It was phrased positively, in a way that the amendment before the House today is not, but it covers the same ground. It said:
“Before making regulations … that contain provision which is within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature, the Secretary of State must consult the relevant devolved authority on that provision”.
It goes on to explain the conditions under which that would operate. The wording is not identical but I would argue that the sensibilities and principles behind this matter are identical to those of that amendment. Does the Minister therefore recognise that, to the extent to which the Government have already considered this issue and legislated for it, it may be in the Government’s best interests to accept Amendment 28, since to do otherwise might cause difficulty for what has already been agreed to in the healthcare Bill? Alternatively, would he agree to meet me and other noble Lords to discuss this, so that we can come back at Third Reading with wording that is consistent with what will soon be in law via the healthcare Bill and appropriate for the Trade Bill?
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 28, to which I have added my name. There is not much to add to the persuasive case made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I welcome the Minister, who is always assured at the crease even as the third batsman. His clarification on Ministers of the Crown acting jointly with devolved Ministers is helpful; Clause 2 has always been a bit of a puzzle for me when it comes to the joint working of the two sets of Ministers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out, our discussions in Committee concerned the areas of interaction where either devolved and reserved competences align themselves clearly or there is dispute as to where they fall—that is, whether they fall fully in the devolved competences of the Welsh or Scottish Parliament, for example, or are reserved. When we discussed the withdrawal Act, the Government put forward all the different policy areas to be repatriated from European Union legislation. There were no issues with 49 of them. It was recognised that a common framework between the UK and the devolved Administrations was needed for 82 of them. The Government said that there was to be further discussion on 24 of them. In 12 areas, there was no agreement; the UK believed that they were reserved but the devolved Administrations, particularly the Scottish Parliament, believed that they fell fully within the devolved competences.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 28. I hope not to repeat too many of the points already made.
The Minister may have seen the letter from Mike Russell, dated 11 March 2019, to which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred. He draws attention to the fact that the Scottish Parliament is not prepared to give its consent to the Trade Bill as presently drafted, which is a matter of some concern. It is not just being obstructive; it is taking a measured position based on Clause 2 of the Scotland Act 2016, to which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also referred. In his letter, Mike Russell said, as the Scottish Government has pointed out, that many of the 24 policy areas currently identified as potentially subject to such regulations are highly relevant in terms of future trade deals, for example food and feed safety, animal health and welfare, agriculture, environmental policy, food labelling, procurement and fisheries management. It is vital that the Scottish Government and Parliament should be able to protect and advance Scotland’s interests and approach in these areas. It is concerning that the Bill as drafted does not mention either consent or consultation. I hope that the Minister will feel able to look at this matter more carefully before we reach Third Reading.
I will make two further points. First, the wording of Amendment 28, adopting the formula in the Scotland Act, uses the word “consent”. I recall long arguments, when we were debating the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, about whether the word “consent” should be included in its various provisions involving interaction with the devolved authorities. The matter was resolved, in connection with the frameworks in relation to trade, by using the word “consult” instead of the word “consent”.
Personally, I would argue that we should adopt the forms in the Scotland Act, but the fact that the word “consult” was used in the amendment to the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred, might be worth some reflection on the Minister’s part. As the noble Lord pointed out, the formula used in Amendment 15 to that Bill, which was an insertion after Clause 4, was:
“Before making regulations under section 2 that contain provision which is within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature, the Secretary of State must consult the relevant devolved authority on that provision”.
That does not go as far as the Scottish Government wish, but at least it is a step in the right direction. As that amendment was moved by a Minister to a closely related Bill—it is part of the general package that we are considering, which is all related to our departure from the EU—I hope that the Minister and his Bill team will give careful consideration as to whether, if the Minister is not prepared to accept the formula in Amendment 28, that formula should be adopted instead. The difference between “consent” and “consult” is quite significant—but consultation, at least, would go a substantial way to meeting the concerns of the Scottish Government in these very important areas.
I shall add one further point. I was in the Grand Committee the other day looking at a statutory instrument that had been made by a UK Minister, and it contained a substantial number of amendments to Scottish legislation made by the Scottish Parliament. I asked why that was being done in a UK SI, rather than being dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. When one looked at the description in the back about consultation, one saw that it was defective, because it did not make it clear that the Scottish Government had been consulted. That was an example of a statutory instrument made by a Minister, on which one would have thought that consultation was essential—indeed, during discussions on the withdrawal Bill I was assured that the Sewel convention would be applied—yet the narrative was incomplete. That may have been simply a technical error, but it illustrates how easy it is to overlook the need for consultation, at least, unless that is on the face of the statute. So I warmly support the points made by the two noble Lords in support of the amendment. If the matter is to be taken away, I hope that the Government will come back on Third Reading with something to address this important issue.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for this amendment, and for his scrutiny of the devolution provisions in the Bill throughout its passage. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his points, which I will address later. Ensuring that the Bill works for the whole of the UK remains a priority for the Government, so I am pleased to inform your Lordships that yesterday the National Assembly for Wales voted in favour of granting consent to the Bill. I ask that this House consider that when weighing the scrutiny of the Bill in the context of the devolution settlements.
The practical purpose of the amendment is that the UK Government should, as a matter of course, seek the agreement of the devolved Administrations prior to legislating in areas of devolved competence. This is not, in principle, an area of contention; rather, the question is whether this should be on the face of the Bill. I reiterate that the UK Government are committed to not normally using the powers in the Bill to legislate in areas of devolved competence without the consent of the relevant devolved Administrations, and certainly not without first consulting them.
We have respected the role of the devolved Administrations through our programme of engagement with them, government amendments in the other place and my renewed commitment today. The Government will maintain this commitment. More broadly, the UK Government have been working productively and collaboratively with the devolved Administrations on a number of fronts. UK government officials are working with devolved Administration officials to revise the common frameworks analysis and take into account progress on framework areas since March 2018. The Government anticipate publishing a further iteration of this analysis shortly.
During our debates on this legislation, there have been many areas of agreement between us and noble Lords on the opposite Bench. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was correct to say in Committee that the use of the powers in devolved areas is,
“more complicated than can be dealt with within the confines of the Trade Bill.”—[Official Report, 23/1/19; col. 724.]
Additionally, the amendment risks setting a precedent whereby competence for policy-making is defined outside the established devolution settlements. It seeks to go further than the convention already recognised in the most recent Scotland and Wales Acts, and could require the court to make a decision on whether or not we were in normal circumstances. I do not believe it is the intention of this House to introduce new legal uncertainty to our statute book.
The Supreme Court made it clear in the judgment on the Miller case that it does not believe it is appropriate for the courts to police the Sewel convention, as it does not lie within the constitutional remit of the judiciary. By inviting this potential judicial scrutiny, the amendment could obstruct the programme of continuity that the Bill seeks to deliver, as the use of the powers could be substantially delayed, to the detriment of the UK as a whole.
I shall now deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, when he mentioned the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. As he knows, I was not involved with that Bill, but I hope that I can help. The amendment to that Bill requires the Secretary of State only to consult. Amendment 28 involves a consent requirement. Those are very different—and this plays into the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. For reasons that we have set out, the consent requirement would create a legal test for the courts, and therefore uncertainty. The powers in the healthcare Bill are different, too. The benefit of the concurrent powers in the Trade Bill is that they allow for the relevant Administrations to legislate themselves where a matter falls under devolved competence, and also allows Ministers of the Crown to make regulations for the whole UK when that makes sense.
As well as the benefits to the devolved Administrations of the concurrent powers, we have made repeated commitments on the Floor of both Houses always to consult the relevant devolved Administration. To take up the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, about creating legal uncertainty, although the amendment includes the word “convention” in its title, it uses words that appear designed to turn the convention into a legal test. It uses the words “may not normally”, which appear designed to make that a legal rule justiciable by the courts. This could be a substantial block on the use of the Clause 1 and 2 powers, and could lead to delay through litigation, or, ultimately, to a block on the use of the powers if the court judged the situation to be normal. This could allow a challenger the power to withhold consent to the implementation of part of an agreement, meaning that the UK could not bring it into force until the matter was resolved.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Clearly, I would always defer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on these issues, but I had a slight anxiety when I heard the Minister say from the Dispatch Box that UK Ministers would be allowed to make regulations where they considered that that “made sense”. That is not language that we have become accustomed to in devolution practices over the past 20 years. UK Ministers could say almost all the time that it made sense for them to bring forward such regulations, especially in the context of trade agreements that they themselves had negotiated. But that is not the point. The point is that the legislative competences are not those of UK Ministers, but those of other bodes. All we ask is that the practices that have been developed, which have now been adopted in the Scotland Act—it contains language recognising that the Parliament of the United Kingdom “will not normally legislate”—be continued. That is now well established in statute. I cannot see why the Government say that it would cause problems in a separate statute, because it is already in statute.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said. He referred to the point I made about making sense, and legislative efficiency after consultation with the devolved Administrations is what we are looking for. So in effect, I believe that we are on the same side of the fence. But given that we are getting into some quite detailed discussions and debates and my job is to give answers, it may be helpful if we go into such detail outside the Chamber with a further meeting. I have not finished yet, but I hope that so far I have given some reassurance to noble Lords.
Returning to my opening point, the vote yesterday in support of a legislative consent Motion by the National Assembly for Wales is a significant endorsement of the Trade Bill, and I am pleased that the UK Government have been able to meet all of the Welsh Government’s requests to improve the Bill. The Assembly’s vote recognises the UK Government’s meaningful efforts in ensuring that the Bill works for the UK. I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance on the Government’s commitment, and the potential unintended consequences of this amendment. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 28.
Lord Hope of Craighead
I return to the word “normally”, to which the Minister drew attention. I recognise that in its judgment in the Miller case, the Supreme Court made it quite difficult for anyone to take a case before the court based on the use of the word “normally”. Indeed, the convention itself is not justiciable. In a way, that shows the sense of the formula that is used in the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill because that does not use the word “normally”. It just states that the Secretary of State “must consult”. If one is asking for consent, a higher level of co-operation is a useful qualification. “Normally” requires consent. But consultation is a sine qua non of proper legislation where the devolved Administrations are concerned. I would have thought that the formula in the amendment would not give rise to the same concern, which is why I suggest that the Minister considers very carefully whether, in this Bill, it would not be appropriate to adopt the same provision.
I appreciate what the Minister says about the consent of the Welsh Assembly, but it is a matter of some concern: the Scottish Government are particularly sensitive in relation to these issues and it would be a pity to say to the Scottish Government that just because the Welsh have agreed the Scots should just accept the provisions. They are making their own arguments based on what they know is important to them. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will pay very close attention to the point made.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this has been a useful little debate and I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for raising all the points that he did and giving such a full response. But may I check with him that he said—it will be in Hansard—that he would be happy to have further discussions about the issue? I appeal to him and his good sense. Given that we are already in debate with him and his officials on a number of issues, this could with advantage be added to the list. It is not that we have any particular reason to want to bring it back in any aggressive form at Third Reading, but the issues raised are worth further discussion, particularly because the Government have chosen to legislate in the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill and that, irrespective of whether or not it has direct read-across to the Trade Bill, will have set a standard. We have to be careful that we are not either missing or exceeding that in a way that would be detrimental to any future discussions on trade.
I am willing not to press this amendment if we can be absolutely clear that there will be further discussions, because this point has not been fully resolved. But I give an undertaking that this is in no sense trying to make things difficult for the Government. It would be worth going a further round to get this right.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
As I said, I am very happy to be part of further discussions.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
A further meeting, principally with those who raised points in this debate, would satisfy us. I do not think that we are far apart on this, but if we can work out exactly what we want said in a way that would advance the chances of getting a better result for all concerned, that would be the right way forward.
Baroness Fairhead
“(6) In this section, “domestic law” means the law of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.”
“Assessment of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures
In determining whether the application of an anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measure meets or does not meet the economic interest test under Schedule 4 to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, the Secretary of State or TRA must give special consideration to the injury caused by the dumping of the goods, or the importation of the subsidised goods, to a UK industry and the benefits to the UK industry in removing that injury.”
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 31 and 32 are in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Amendment 31 relates to the presumption in favour of adoption of trade measures and it will be familiar to noble Lords from Committee.
The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act sets the overarching rules under which the UK’s new Trade Remedies Authority will operate. The Act does not have a clear or explicit presumption in favour of adoption of trade measures akin to the EU equivalent, the Union interest test. Considering whether measures are in the interests of the UK involves taking into account five different sets of interests. In doing that, unlike the EU approach, the Act does not give priority or special consideration to the interests of the complainant industry. That special consideration gives the EU test a presumption in favour of adoption of measures, which is absent in the UK Act. While government amendments on Report of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act improved the wording around the economic interest test, and Ministers have privately assured manufacturers that the intention is that there is a presumption in favour of adoption of the measures, the words contained in the Act fall short of such a presumption.
I thank the Minister for helpful meetings with me and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull on this issue, and I hope that, in her reply, she will be able to clarify the presumption that the TRA will apply when it conducts the test. An explicit reference to special consideration of the need to remove injurious dumping would be particularly helpful.
Amendment 32 relates to the way that the detailed rules for the operation of trade remedies will be scrutinised. These rules will have profound impacts on UK manufacturers’ ability to level the playing field when overseas competitors do not play by the rules. Many of those rules about the operation of trade remedies will come through secondary legislation as a result of provisions in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act. Trade policy generally, including specific issues such as these, is of such importance that we should be discussing it frequently in your Lordships’ House—a sentiment that I believe the Minister might also support. Amendment 32 would require the statutory instruments to be affirmative instruments, to be discussed and approved by resolution of both Houses. I am interested to hear from the Minister about the opportunities that your Lordships’ House will have to debate important trade policy issues. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to these two amendments and I will be brief. I agree with every word that my noble friend Lady Brown just said. I add my thanks to Ministers and the Bill team, who have been very gracious and given of their time generously to discuss these issues. I have nothing to add to what my noble friend Lady Brown said about Amendment 31, about which I wholly agree.
I also agree with what she said about Amendment 32, but I have one more point to add. It arises out of the report of the Constitution Committee into the Trade Bill. Talking about the formation of the Trade Remedies Authority, it states:
“While we recognise the pressing timescales and uncertainties concerning Brexit, in constitutional terms, creating and empowering an important public body in such a manner is inappropriate”.
I very much agree with that assertion. I therefore regard Amendment 32 not only as a mechanism for debate but as a partial cure for the problem that the Constitution Committee has unearthed in its report. I therefore see it as being an attempt to try to somewhat address that problem. Can the Minister comment on that and, if she feels the amendment should not be agreed, how we should address the itch that the Constitution Committee identified?
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will make three very quick points. First, we need to be clear that Amendment 31 simply tries to attach the words “special consideration” rather than “take account”. It is not that all the factors are not there; they are, and they will be considered. The point is that special consideration should be given to this. It is not necessary to do that, because the nature of the structure in Schedule 4 would suggest that that precisely would be the case. I cannot therefore support the amendment. Temperamentally, I want to support Amendment 32, but I fear that in practice there will be many such regulations and it would not be the best use of time for this House and the other place repeatedly to engage in approving regulations of this kind.
I am interested in whether the Minster has anything to add on the potential announcements today on tariffs, which we foreshadowed last week. It is said that all the existing remedies presently imposed by the European Union would be continued, even under a no-deal scenario, by the United Kingdom. I want to inquire—the Minister might choose to reply by letter—to what extent it will be sustainable for us to do that when the remedies will have been assessed in relation to the European Union as a whole, rather than to the United Kingdom itself. For example, an increase in imports leading to injury to an industry might well be applied by the European Union in relation to an industry in Italy or Spain, but it would not be appropriate for such a remedy to be applied in the United Kingdom. That would very rapidly be open to challenge if we do not get the Trade Remedies Investigation Directorate, which is up and running in the Department for International Trade, on the case, so that we can, if we have to—I hope we do not—apply remedies on the basis of an investigation with UK, rather than EU, data.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for tabling their amendments and clarifying in advance their concerns with me and the ministerial team.
Before I respond fully to the amendments, I will take the opportunity to draw your Lordships’ attention to the steps that the Government have taken to ensure that the UK is ready to deliver a fully operational trade remedies system by exit day. The Government have brought forward legislation under the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 to establish the UK’s trade remedies system in the event that we leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement. These regulations also temporarily confer trade remedy functions on the Secretary of State until the Trade Remedies Authority, the TRA, is legally established.
Staff already recruited to DIT with the intention of transferring to the TRA on Royal Assent of the Bill, including those trained as investigators—the key function of this body—will carry out their functions as the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate within the department. The directorate started work on 6 March and will deliver trade remedies functions in house pending legal establishment of the TRA.
Let me repeat that this arrangement will only be temporary. As noble Lords will appreciate, this is a necessary and pragmatic operational contingency to ensure continuity of protection for UK businesses. This must remain the Government’s priority. It is right that we plan for all eventualities, including where, for whatever reason, the TRA is not legally established under the Bill by 29 March.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
I thank the Minister for her detailed response. It is very encouraging to hear of progress with the implementation of the trade remedies system and with the work being done to ensure that, should we need it, provisions will be in place to support industry in this way on exit day should the TRA not be legally established by that point.
It was also good to hear the Minister say that the Government intend that we will act decisively on injury to domestic manufacturers, such as our ceramics industry, and I thank her for the reassurance that the intent of the Act is that there will be—I shall put it in inverted commas—“special consideration” for hurt to manufacturers when the economic interest test is applied. I am very comfortable with the strong reassurance she has given.
On Amendment 32, I accept the argument that there will be a large number of SIs containing a great deal of technical detail and that that is the reason for the negative procedure. I still have concerns that some very important issues will come through under the negative procedure. Trade remedy issues will be some of them, so it is with some reluctance that I shall not move Amendment 32. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 31.
“Collection of export information on international education
(1) The Office for National Statistics (or anyone acting on their behalf) must collect and publish detailed information on the export earnings from non-UK-domiciled students which should include—(a) fee income,(b) living cost expenditure,(c) research and other similar contracts,(d) education products and services for non-UK-domiciled students,(e) education related travel and tourism services,(f) tourism expenditure by visitors linked to non-UK-domiciled students. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) non-UK-domiciled students includes all non-UK domiciled students studying in the United Kingdom, including but not limited to—(a) all non-UK-domiciled students studying at education providers on the Tier 4 sponsor list including schools, English language providers, further education colleges, embedded colleges, private providers and universities,(b) all non-UK domiciled students studying on a short-term study visa at a provider with approved accreditation including those on student mobility programmes.(3) Information published for the purposes of subsection (1) must be broken down with regard to—(a) the regions and nations of the United Kingdom,(b) levels of study including school, further education, higher education, and English language provision,(c) subjects which facilitate entry into jobs on the shortage occupation list.(4) Within one month of publication of information under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a target for future export earnings from non-UK-domiciled students which, as a percentage of the global market, must equal or exceed the level reported by the Office for National Statistics.”
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friends Lord Bilimoria and Lord Hannay, I shall move Amendment 33. This is yet another amendment on trade in the cultural industries, which have become a very important export sector, with the distinctive feature that some of the exports, in particular educational services, bring people to this country rather us sending goods to other countries.
The amendment seeks to improve the statistical basis for estimating the value of overseas students coming to this country. At present, the way it is estimated is not very satisfactory. Statistics are produced by the ONS, which calculated it as £7.2 billion, and by the DfE, which calculated it as £19.9 billion. That is quite a big gap. The aim of the amendment is to improve the statistics, making it easier to set an export target for this sector. There is a clear need for complete and unambiguous information. Although the students do the travelling, the educational services are a valuable export in which this country has an important place. We have targets set, but it does not make very much sense to set targets until one has clarity about the metrics. This amendment is about the metrics and getting the target right. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull
My Lords, I was added as the fourth batsman. I have only one thing to add to the very clear presentation made by my noble friend Lady O’Neill, which is that noble Lords will note paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of the proposed new clause. It would mean that some estimate of the tourism expenditure of visitors to students studying in the UK would be included in the statistical information. This information is being collected in Australia and the Australians have discovered that it is quite a big economic driver. That has led them to feel that they have a jewel in the crown of educational exports, and they are trying to grow it. The more we understand the numbers and statistics of the mighty business we have, the more we would be likely to feed it and help it. I bring that to the House’s attention.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, the Government welcome international students, who make a valuable contribution to the UK economically and culturally. They bring greater diversity to university and college campuses and an international dimension to the experience of all students. They also stimulate demand for courses and add to the UK’s impressive research capacity. In the longer term, they offer the prospect of productive business, political, cultural and research links. Of course, they also bring welcome income to UK universities and our wider economy.
We are pleased that the UK remains a highly attractive destination for international students. UK higher education institutions hosted almost 460,000 EU and non-EU students in 2017-18, the highest number on record. There remains no limit on the number of students who can study here, and there are no plans to introduce one.
In the Higher Education and Research Act, there is provision for a faster and simpler route for high-quality new providers to enter the sector and gain degree-awarding powers. This allows the sector to diversify and strengthen its international offer, providing even better opportunities to students from all over the world.
The Department for Education currently publishes data on the value of UK education exports annually. These statistics cover education exports and transnational activity relating to higher education, further education, schools, English language training and products and services. I am grateful for the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. It is important to look at the statistics, and I will start by giving a view of the ones that we already publish. The latest education exports data publication was dated January 2019. It set out that total education exports and transnational education activity were estimated to be worth almost £20 billion in 2016. International students at higher education institutions contributed £11.9 billion in exports through living expenditure and tuition fees alone that year. This accounts for around 60% of the total value of education exports and activity.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
I thank the Minister for a very interesting reply and, of course, for the publication of the new document, which I look forward to; I understand that it is due imminently. To get the statistics right is not a simple matter: they interact in quite difficult ways with the metrics that we use for our own domestic students and for quality control. It is surely important to get this right and, since I hear the note of optimism that an attempt will be made to get it right, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Conditions of commencement
The provisions in Parts 1 to 3 of this Act may only come into force if—
(a) a withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, or(b) the House of Commons has passed a motion “That this House approves of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship”.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, when I first joined your Lordships’ House, I was given tutelage in the ways and proceedings of this House. Indeed, I had a watcher who held hands with me, as it were, right through my opening period. One of the first things he said to me was, “When you get a new Bill, look at the commencement clauses, because they tell you how serious the Government are about their intentions”. Hidden in the interstices of the commencement clauses there is often a very good clue about how things happen. Some of the powers in a Bill come into effect immediately the Bill receives Royal Assent. Quite a few do not, and for them usually various elements come forward under regulatory procedures which are sometimes difficult to guess but which are very important to follow through to their logical conclusion. Nine years ago that was seared on my brain as an important thing, and I have never had the opportunity to do anything about it until today. I am therefore delighted to bring forward my first amendment on a commencement clause—and what an amendment it is.
As we speak, Divisions are happening in another place that will bear to some extent on the future of this Bill in its entirety, because consideration is being given to the question of whether there will be no deal. We have anticipated some of the thinking on that by wondering whether it would be sensible to give regard to the question of whether this Bill in its entirety had a commencement at all in relation to whether the other place had actually resolved that measures that would be affected by the legislation contained in this Bill had been given satisfactory agreement by the House of Commons.
There are two parts to this. Either a withdrawal agreement and framework for the future relationship with the EU must have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons in a move by a Minister under Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, or the House of Commons must have passed a Motion that it approves of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement or a framework for a future relationship. These are quite tight and narrow constraints on the ability of this Bill to come into force. They are important because, in a sense, they tie the whole of the debates about our future relationship and trade in the widest context to the question of what exactly the Government intend for the future of the country in relation to the withdrawal Act.
The whole process can take effect only on the formal passing of a Motion or Motions by the House of Commons. This may not be the night on which such a Motion takes place. I understand that the amendments selected for discussion today do not fulfil the criterion set out in the withdrawal Act as being binding on the Government, although they will give us a clear view about where things will go. But we have been saying this for ages. Indeed, my credibility is shredded by the number of projections I have given to my family about what I thought was happening, all of which have turned out to be wrong. I am not proposing to go further tonight than simply saying that activity is happening that may have a bearing the future of this amendment. With that, I recommend to your Lordships’ House that we seriously consider this amendment. If necessary, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My name is on this amendment, which seems to be an extremely sensible one. I support what has just been said. I had no mentor when I came into this House, and I had no one to hold my hand, so, as will be obvious to all, I am lost, particularly on the details of commencement. But it seems to me that one of the virtues of this amendment is that it would rule out proceeding in the event of an accidental no deal. An accidental no deal is still a real possibility. But any form of no deal would be an act of self-harm, which I hope will be rejected very strongly in a very few minutes.
I was very sorry to see that some members of the Government were proposing to vote for self-harm, which is very odd. The doctrine of Cabinet responsibility seems to have fallen by the wayside on an issue as important as this, where it is impossible to have a government line which all the Cabinet would stick to. It seems to me that, since Sir Robert Walpole’s time, the defining characteristic of British Cabinet government is Cabinet responsibility shared by a group of friends who can command a majority in the House of Commons. It seems that both of these conditions are not met. I am not sure how relevant that point is to the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, so I will say merely that I support it.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, as we move towards the final stages of Report, it is right that we reflect briefly on why we have this Bill. Primarily it is here in case there is a no-deal Brexit. It includes many of the provisions that the Government told us would have to be in place before exit day for preparedness in case there was a no-deal exit. That was the intention in January 2018, when the Commons first debated this Bill, and we received it in September.
It was still the Government’s intention then that there would be plenty of time to put this legislation on to the statute book in order for there to be a framework for the slew of continuity agreements that we would all be considering. So far we have three, representing 0.3% of UK exports, and we will be debating them later today. If we are going in the direction of putting this Bill on the statute book in order to facilitate a no-deal Brexit, it is right that it is an intentional decision by the House of Commons that that is indeed the path that we should go down.
If the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, presses this amendment, we will support it, because it is unconscionable, to use the Attorney-General’s word, that we will somehow at this stage find ourselves inadvertently in a no-deal scenario. However, we will have to reflect to some extent on what the House of Commons decides. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is absolutely right: not only has Cabinet collective responsibility now been ditched but there is not even any kind of collective responsibility within the Treasury. Today, the Chancellor talked about the shock to the economy and the deeply damaging elements of a no-deal Brexit. His deputy disagrees with him and will be in a different Division Lobby in the other place this evening.
Therefore, whatever the House of Commons decides, it is right that we provide a degree of certainty in this legislation, so that we cannot accidentally go down the path of a no-deal Brexit. If this Bill is to be enforced to provide that framework, it will have to be on the basis of a majority in another place specifically asking for it, and that is why this amendment is justified. As I said, if the noble Lord presses it, we will happily support it.
Lord Lansley
My Lords, I profoundly believe that we should not leave the European Union without a deal in place, but making this amendment to the Bill would not prevent that. Such an outcome would have to be stopped in another place with legislation or through the revocation of Article 50, and this amendment does not bear on that. Unfortunately, in that unhappy event, the amendment would remove from us the power to implement, for example, the agreement that has been reached with Switzerland. It is not ideal, but it is there. It has been entered into in good faith by us and by the Swiss on the basis that, in the event of no deal, we have to have that measure available.
I am afraid that it is also not true, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, suggests it is, that the Bill is entirely occasioned for the eventuality of no deal. It enables us, for example, to establish the Trade Remedies Authority—we have just heard about the valuable work that it is doing—and it implements the Agreement on Government Procurement, which is a very large-scale issue for British services companies and others which want to be able to bid internationally under the WTO for such contracts. The amendment would stop this Bill coming into force, and we would therefore be unable to ratify the international Agreement on Government Procurement in the way that we were intending, and it would deprive businesses of the opportunities that that would provide. Much as I heartily concur with the intention behind the amendment, it would not have the effect that is sought.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I just want to make a point about the ability to have the regulations on the Swiss agreement. The Government are not using the likely regulatory powers under this Bill to ratify the Swiss agreement, so I do not think that the noble Lord is accurate on that point. They are using the CRaG process, not this Bill.
Lord Lansley
My noble friend the Minister may know what their intentions are but, as I understand it, in a number of instances—and I think the Swiss are among them—they will use what are effectively not just bilateral agreements with the Swiss but the opportunity to roll over the EU-Swiss agreements into UK-Swiss agreements, and the power here is available for that purpose.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it is also worth pointing out that, in the event of an accidental no deal—which I hope will not happen—the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, this afternoon would be relevant as well.
Baroness Fairhead
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. I am particularly delighted to be at the Dispatch Box to answer the inaugural commencement amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
We have had extensive debates on the Trade Bill, during which I believe all sides have acknowledged the importance of its provisions. I do not believe that this House disagrees with the underlying principles of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Lansley pointed out, it is not just for a no-deal situation; it is to cover whatever the outcome of the negotiations with the EU might be. I hope and trust that your Lordships will acknowledge the need for any responsible Government to bring forward these provisions.
The Trade Bill covers four important areas for consumers and businesses. This House has debated them and is well rehearsed in them, and I do not propose to repeat the key ones in detail here today. The fundamental point which I hope your Lordships will consider carefully is that, if we do not enact this Bill in a timely fashion, that will have a direct and adverse impact not just on consumers but on businesses.
I am very aware that there are activities elsewhere at this hour that might have a bearing on this debate, but I remind noble Lords of the comment of my noble friend Lord Lansley that, if passed, this amendment could have very serious consequences for the UK. If a vote is passed in the other place ruling out no deal but no Motion is approved in favour of a withdrawal agreement, the default position at law is that the UK will leave the EU at 11 pm on 29 March. As a number of your Lordships have said, it would be an accidental no deal; it is not what the Government want, which is to have a deal. However, if that happens, the effect of the amendment would be to prevent the commencement of the substantive provisions of this Bill, and I do not believe that that is the intention of the noble Lords who are proposing it. Nevertheless, that is what would happen. The UK would leave the EU without a deal and without any of the protections offered by the Bill. I do not believe that anyone wants to see that.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, commented that the amendment would rule out an accidental no deal. We do not believe that it would; it would merely have the unintended consequence that, if there were to be an accidental no deal, the provisions would be prevented from coming into force. If the other place voted tonight in favour of no deal, the requirements in paragraph (b) proposed in the amendment would have been met. This would mean that the precondition for commencement would be satisfied, so the amendment would be rendered redundant by events.
Furthermore, as far as I am aware, no business groups or other representative organisations have indicated support for the amendment. In fact, many support the need to enact these provisions. For example, the CBI has stated that it remains,
“strongly supportive of the initiative to set up a Trade Remedies Authority”.
Similarly, the British Ceramic Confederation has stated:
“It is clear that we need a TRA, and it is certainly welcome that the Bill establishes one”.
We have heard cross-party support for continuity in both Houses of Parliament, and the International Trade Select Committee also confirmed that it struggled to find a witness who would speak against it.
I acknowledge, and understand, that passions and views are strongly held about whether this country should remain a member of the EU or leave. However, this should not distract from the core role of Parliament and of your Lordships’ House to ensure the best for this country’s people and businesses. No matter how strongly your Lordships feel about these issues, ultimately it must be a matter for the elected representatives in the other place to make a decision about the steps this country takes at this important moment in our nation’s history. This should not distract us from this Bill’s content, the importance of these provisions and the desire of consumers and businesses to see these vital provisions enacted.
During scrutiny of this Bill, the House has shown itself at its best, holding the Government to account and working with the Government to improve the legislation. However, for the reasons I have stated, we do not feel that there is a call for this amendment. I would therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, feels able to withdraw instead of pressing to a vote.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am grateful to the Minister for responding as she has done. I pay tribute to her and her team for the considerable work they have done in trying to make sure that we get through this Bill and try to iron out the differences between us.
I think we will disagree on this. I have received information that the other place has voted 312 to 308 against a no-deal exit. We at least have that information in our hand as we think further about how this amendment might play out.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for whom I have a great respect and whose knowledge and experience have been very useful to the Committee and have informed our debates throughout the process of this Bill, we have already joined the GPA. That has gone through. The regulation-making power in the Bill is to make regulations about future changes in the GPA, not about the GPA itself. I disagree with him that we need this at this time. It may be necessary in future, but there may be other opportunities.
As has already been said, most of the establishing framework for the TRA is in another Bill already in place. As the Minister said, the Government have already introduced the regulations that give effect to the powers necessary for that to operate effectively. They are already through the House. The actual power in this Bill is not necessary. Many of its powers are not. They were appropriate earlier but not so now. I do not think we are talking about the substance of this. In some senses, this is a bit of a wake-up call to the Government, as well as a broader message to the wider community. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“COMMITTEE ON TRADE AGREEMENTSRecommendation in relation to ratification1_ The report under section (Parliamentary approval of trade agreements)(6) must include—(a) an account of the Committee’s consultation with—(i) each devolved authority,(ii) public bodies, businesses, consumer groups, trade unions and non-governmental organisations which, in the opinion of the Committee, have a relevant interest,(iii) the public, and(iv) equivalent bodies in the other signatory states;(b) an assessment of the qualitative and quantitative impact of the proposed trade agreement on—(i) the economy, broken down by the different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England,(ii) the environment,(iii) human rights standards,(iv) labour standards,(v) individuals with protected characteristics under section 4 of the Equalities Act 2010,in the United Kingdom;(c) an assessment of the qualitative and quantitative impact of the proposed trade agreement on—(i) the economy,(ii) the environment,(iii) human rights standards,(iv) labour standards,(v) individuals with protected characteristics under section 4 of the Equalities Act 2010,in any other state which is a proposed signatory to the agreement.2_ The report under subsection (6) of section (Parliamentary approval of trade agreements) must include an assessment of the extent to which the provisions of the proposed agreement conflict with, or are consistent with—(a) the provisions of international treaties ratified by the United Kingdom;(b) the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015; (c) the provisions of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights;(d) domestic human rights law;(e) international human rights law and international humanitarian law;(f) the United Kingdom’s obligations on workers’ rights and labour standards as established by the United Kingdom’s commitments under the International Labour Organisation’s fundamental conventions including but not limited to the Declaration on Fundamental Rights at Work;(g) obligations relating to animal sentience by which the United Kingdom is bound, or any principles relating to animal sentience to which the United Kingdom adheres, and any provision in domestic law (including retained EU law) relating to animal welfare standards and the welfare of animals in the production of food and the wider supply chain practice;(h) the principle of eliminating poverty;(i) the United Kingdom’s environmental obligations in international law;(j) the offences in section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour);(k) the sovereignty of Parliament;(l) the legal authority of UK courts;(m) the rule of law;(n) the principle of equality before the law.”
Baroness Fairhead
Baroness Fairhead
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be the back-marker on Report. Amendment 59 inserts text into the schedule that sets up the process for appointments to the Trade Remedies Authority, so that the chair can be appointed by the Secretary of State,
“following a report from the International Trade Committee of the House of Commons”.
In effect, this includes the chair of the Trade Remedies Authority in the list of appointments that are subject to pre-appointment scrutiny.
I do not do this lightly. There are about 1,000 senior public appointments, only 50 of which are subject to pre-appointment hearings by Select Committees. The Cabinet Office guidance on this was amended then reissued in January. Paragraph 8 sets out three criteria, the first of which says that such appointments should be for,
“posts which play a key role in regulation of actions by Government”.
This clearly must be satisfied as it determines one of the essential roles of the Department for International Trade in investigating and recommending trade remedies. Secondly, the appointments must be,
“posts which play a key role in protecting and safeguarding the public’s rights and interests in relation to the actions and decisions of Government”.
This instance may not be about the public, but certainly it ticks the box for the business community, which would regard the TRA as one of the most important bodies impacting on its interests in relation to the actions of the Government. Thirdly, the guidance says that appointments subject to pre-appointment hearings must be,
“posts in organisations that have a major impact on public life or the lives of the public where it is vital for the reputation and credibility of that organisation that the post holder acts, and is seen to act, independently of Ministers and the Government”.
Noble Lords will recall that, at a much earlier stage, we debated whether this body should be independent. The Government, having looked around the world, decided that the Trade Remedies Authority should be independent, and seen to be independent. We have three ticks in the box. This is clearly an important appointment; for the Department for International Trade, it must be regarded as the most important appointment. I do not know of any other posts that it is presently asked to scrutinise prior to appointment. This seems a perfectly reasonable way to proceed; nor does it constrain Ministers too far, as we have discovered. Ministers have to consult and liaise with Select Committees, respond to them and take account of what they have said, but they do not have to do what a Select Committee says and in quite a number of instances have not done so. Ministers can still make the appointments that they consider to be the right ones. I do not feel that I am holding the Government back from doing what they need to do. I am just encouraging them to include this appointment in that list. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I support the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and congratulate him on the succinctness with which he has made his point. I have been confused for some time as to why the department might resist this. He has made the points exactly as I would have done. This is a key role with a public-facing responsibility and will hold the Government to account on issues of great importance. Indeed, it is the only body that the DIT will have as a marker; it behoves the department to raise the TRA to the appropriate level so that it is seen to have the importance that the department claims for it. For these reasons, it is absolutely right that we have an established routine that the person selected by the Minister to be the chair of this body—we are not expecting the same to happen for the chief executive or more junior staff, just the chair—should be seen by the International Trade Committee. As he says, it is a courtesy in some senses because the Minister can still appoint should they wish to do so. I support the amendment.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
My Lords, Amendment 60 is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I also support Amendment 59.
The UK needs a strong and independent Trade Remedies Authority with a balanced membership to investigate alleged dumping and subsidy cases and to recommend remedies. Schedule 4 to the Trade Bill defines the membership of the TRA and its governance. As I have said before, and as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, emphasised in moving Amendment 59, while both Clause 10 and Schedule 4 make the independence of the TRA a clear objective, this does not sit entirely comfortably with the chair and the non-executives being appointed entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
The governance model of the Office for Students in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 seems to offer a good model for delivering both independence and balance, and this is the model that has been used in drafting this updated amendment. It would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of members having between them experience in a number of relevant areas, including UK manufacturing, trade unions, consumers, regional economic growth, regulatory systems and international trade disputes.
The Government have suggested that the TRA should be managed by trade remedies experts rather than by stakeholders with vested interests, in order to be independent. However, the chief executive designate has already told a Commons Select Committee that she is not a trade remedies expert. A properly balanced group of non-executive stakeholders, supported by expert executives, could be effective, independent and balanced. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government will ensure the combination of independence and balanced and relevant expertise that this important body requires.
The Earl of Kinnoull
My Lords, Amendment 60 is also in my name. I too have problems with the TRA as currently constituted, in that arguably it lacks independence and balance. It is in looking for independence and balance that the amendment has evolved. Amendment 59 very much deals with the independence point, and on that basis I strongly support it.
In Committee, I said that independence is important, because the TRA needs to be seen to be not a mere cipher for the British state but something which has its own life. There is a problem when one looks at Schedule 4 and sees that the chair is appointed by the Secretary of State, as are all the non-executive directors. The Secretary of State gets the chance to approve the CEO. The non-executive directors will always be in the majority and the Secretary of State has the power to remove them. On top of that, paragraph 34 of Schedule 4, entitled “Guidance”, says that the TRA must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, which seems to me to mean instructions. It seems to be wrongly titled. Therefore, I worry that the independence bit of my beef is not coped with sufficiently. I look forward to hearing something from the Minister to assuage my concerns.
Balance is incredibly important. This cannot be an effective body if there is no balance—balance of experience and background. The point is obvious. Nowhere in Schedule 4 do I see anything that gives rise to a feeling that there would be balance, but I look forward to being corrected on that point.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise simply to say that I do not particularly agree with Amendment 60. It is necessary to have expertise in the TRA. As I said on an earlier occasion, I am not convinced that having a completely separate authority is sensible. The European Union seems to do a very good job on trade negotiations. That, as I recall from my experience as a civil servant, a Minister and a businessperson, was done in-house. I ask the Minister to pause before agreeing to these amendments without thinking about them a little further.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their continued engagement with the work to establish the Trade Remedies Authority. I trust that I am able to provide reassurance that we are taking proper steps to set up this important body in the right way.
I turn first to Amendment 59, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. We listened carefully to the points made by them and other noble Lords in Committee about how best to ensure that the senior leadership is as independent as possible. This includes the appropriate role for the International Trade Committee. That is why I am pleased to announce that the Secretary of State is content for the International Trade Committee to conduct a pre-commencement hearing of the TRA chair. This hearing will take place after the Secretary of State has appointed the TRA chair, but before the chair has taken up their position. I further reassure the House that this offer of a pre-commencement hearing by the International Trade Committee will apply to all future TRA chairs, not just the first one. We hope that this will ensure that the ITC has the appropriate role in scrutinising any individual appointed to that position.
I turn now to Amendment 60, for which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. There are three key issues at hand that I would like to address. The first point is independence. Having had discussions with the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, I will say that independence really matters. We are committed to creating an independent TRA that all our stakeholders can trust and that will be seen as an independent body by third countries. We have taken clear steps to achieve this, including establishing it as a non-departmental public body in the first place, which is different from other organisations around the world, and giving it the appropriate separation from Ministers. We are ensuring that it has an independent board. That is why the Secretary of State will be required to follow the tried and tested Cabinet Office Governance Code on Public Appointments when appointing all non-executive TRA board members.
As this House will be aware, that code enshrines the independence of those members by explicitly stating:
“All public appointments should be governed by the principle of appointment on merit”.
TRA board members must be appointed based on their ability, not the stakeholder group or interest that they represent. The Commissioner for Public Appointments will regulate all non-executive appointments to the TRA, providing independent assurance that the Secretary of State follows the code’s strict rules on making such appointments based on merit and the public interest. While TRA non-executives may well have had experience representing certain stakeholders, we believe that that alone cannot be the reason why they are appointed. To do otherwise would jeopardise the true independence of the board, particularly as this is an investigative body.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, referred to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. We do not feel that it is appropriate to draw parallels between the TRA and the Office for Students. The primary function of the Office for Students is to protect the interests of students, whereas the TRA has been set up to protect UK industry from unfair trading practices, which it will do by undertaking independent and impartial technical investigations into whether these practices have occurred. While this will ensure that manufacturers are protected against unfair trading practices, the TRA has not been set up specifically to protect the interests of those manufacturers or other groups.
The second point relates to skills and experience. I assure your Lordships that we are committed to making sure that the members are best placed to oversee this new function. That is why, when appointing the non-executive members of the TRA, the Secretary of State will have regard to ensuring that the board has the right balance of skills and range of experience. I will do more than pause, as requested by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. She has wide experience of sitting on boards in both the public and private world, and it is having that right balance and mix of skills and experiences that is most important. Moreover, this process does not happen behind closed doors. To ensure transparency, the requisite skills and experience for each non-executive appointment will be set out in individual TRA job descriptions that will be published in accordance with standard practice.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised a question about the TRA having regard to guidance, and we have included clear statutory restrictions on the Secretary of State’s ability to issue guidance to the TRA. That includes setting out specific circumstances in which the Secretary of State can publish guidance. For example, they cannot publish guidance in relation to a specific case. That is also why the Secretary of State must consult the TRA before publishing guidance, and explicitly have regard to its independence, impartiality and expertise.
These skills and experience requirements include, among others, strong and effective leadership, astute business awareness and an understanding of the complex domestic and international trading environment which the TRA will be operating in. However, we believe that specifying a detailed list of desired experience in statute risks restricting the Secretary of State’s ability to appoint individuals, and the chair and the board’s ability to appoint executives with other relevant experience not detailed here. It suggests that only those criteria listed in legislation are desirable, and may inadvertently displace others. That could create a problem if, in the future, a TRA non-executive was needed to fill a skills or experience gap not covered on the list.
On stakeholders, let me reassure the House that we understand the need to ensure that stakeholders’ interests are accounted for properly. We have also taken clear steps to ensure this. That is why the TRA chair’s job description, and terms and conditions, make clear that he or she will be expected to communicate with stakeholders and incorporate their perspectives into TRA board discussions where appropriate.
We specifically recognise the importance of the devolved Administrations in building the UK’s independent trade policy. That is why we have made several key commitments to ensure they, too, have an appropriate relationship with the TRA and DIT. These include sharing the TRA’s annual report with each devolved Administration, seeking suggestions for the optimal way to recruit TRA non-executives, and suggesting to the TRA chair that the board undergoes specific devolution-focused training. The Welsh Government of course have passed a supplementary legislative consent Motion in the Welsh Assembly, indicating their support for the TRA provisions in this Bill.
As we are reaching the end of Report, I will make some concluding remarks. This stage has provided us with a valuable opportunity to test and improve the detail of this important Bill. I thank your Lordships for that and look forward to Third Reading next week. Having said that, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her response to this short debate. It is fitting that we have further evidence in her response of the constructive and positive way in which Ministers have listened to the debate and sought to meet the concerns raised. That has been evident throughout our discussions.
I apologise—I should have declared an interest. I am the UK co-chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group, and in that context Sir David Wright, who is the chair-designate of the Trade Remedies Authority, was a member of that board and a former ambassador to Japan, so I know him. It will be evident from those who know him that the purpose of this discussion is not in any way to question his suitability for the post—far from it—but rather the process by which his successors are to be appointed in years to come. In that context I was grateful for the specific nature of the assurance my noble friend was able to give.
The difference between a pre-appointment hearing, in circumstances where the Secretary of State is minded to appoint somebody who is then seen by the Select Committee, and a pre-commencement hearing, where the Secretary of State has appointed somebody but the post has not been taken up, is a distinction without a difference in circumstances where the Secretary of State could proceed in any case. There is a benefit in such appointments being taken up by those seen by Parliament as well as by the Executive, not least having been seen positively in the context, not of trying to second-guess the Secretary of State’s choice of the right person but of understanding at the outset, before somebody takes up the post, how they propose to approach it, their suitability for the tasks, and what objectives they are looking for—what kind of outcomes they are hoping to achieve. In that respect, what my noble friend was able to say adequately and fully meets the purposes that I was raising in my amendment, so I beg leave to withdraw it.
Bahrain: Human Rights
Lord Scriven
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of human rights abuses in Bahrain.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to move this important debate on human rights issues in Bahrain. I start by thanking noble Lords who have put their names down to speak, and the many organisations which have sent briefing notes to us, particularly the Library for its comprehensive note.
It is important to have this debate, and what has happened in Bahrain today shows us why. Today, Bahrain’s lower criminal court sentenced former opposition leader Ibrahim Sharif to six months imprisonment, and a 500 Bahraini dinar fine to suspend the execution of sentence, for tweeting criticism of Sudan’s President. Since December 2018, Sudan has been rocked by popular protests against the 30-year regime of its President. Ibrahim Sharif is the former leader of the secular opposition party in Bahrain, which was dissolved earlier this year in the crackdown against civil society in the kingdom. Ibrahim has spent time in Bahrain’s notorious Jau prison for his role in the pro-democracy protests of 2011. His only tweet was on 25 December 2018, when he said that the cities of Sudan should rise up, and called for the people of Sudan to be free.
The history of the UK and Bahrain goes back many years—this is the 200-year celebration. It is a special relationship between the peoples of Bahrain and the United Kingdom, but it is not one that should be exercised in a moral vacuum. It is not one that should turn away when human rights abuses are committed. In fact, because of our history and relationship, it is our moral, legal and political responsibility to speak up and speak out when there are human rights abuses, not just privately but publicly. Since the Arab spring, UK policy towards Bahrain shows that a gift of a £40 million naval base has been made by the King of Bahrain. UK arms sales equate to about £120 million.
We uphold human rights, law and the judicial system not just by saying that we want to do that, but by investing as British taxpayers—£6 million over the last seven years—in an opaque fund. It is there, as the Government say, to strengthen the rule of law and ensure that oversight bodies make sure that human rights are upheld. This fund is opaque and secretive. Despite requests by civil society and my Parliamentary Questions, the Government’s policy has changed on the Integrated Activity Fund. They used to say who the beneficiaries of that fund were; they are now refusing to say. I and others accept that some might be military, defence or intelligence organisations. I ask the Minister: why has the policy changed on telling the public how their money is being spent in upholding justice and strengthening the rule of law in Bahrain for organisations outside of defence and security? Back in September 2018, the Foreign Affairs Committee cited the lack of transparency over this fund.
Let us look at the rule of law and human rights in the judicial system since 2011. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, who is taking part in the debate, was a joint author of a report in 2014 that highlighted some of the issues. However, things have got worse since then. The death penalty has returned in Bahrain. In 2017 there was the execution of three men that the UN described as extrajudicial killings. There was the closing down of the last independent and free press and the jailing of journalists. In March 2018 the Interior Minister made it very clear that there would be a severe crackdown on anyone who condemned the Government online. Some 850 people have had their citizenship revoked, 304 in 2018 alone.
Human rights bodies estimate that 4,000 political prisoners have been arbitrarily arrested, denied their freedom, possibly tortured and sexually abused, and placed in custody. They have been forced to sign confessions of guilt under potential torture. In 2018, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said that there was widespread and systematic human rights abuses—not one or two, but widespread and systematic abuses—in violation of international law, and that they are a potential crime against humanity. It seems that there are abuses. We cannot stand by and say that we are turning a blind eye just because we are trying to keep stability in the region. We have a moral duty to say that enough is enough. Our friendship, our policies and our role in international law allow us to do so.
When international bodies such as the UN or Amnesty International look at the oversight bodies that we are investing taxpayers’ money in—the police, the courts and prison services—they say that there is extensive evidence that they are compliant in human rights abuses. The UN Committee Against Torture condemned the ombudsman and other oversight bodies as being neither effective nor independent. It talks about the Interior Ministry interfering, as well as parliamentary interference in these oversight bodies. Amnesty International pointed out that when cases go to those bodies, they are ignored.
That is also my own experience. I have done what the Government have asked me to do in Parliamentary Question after Parliamentary Question. They have said that people should go to the oversight bodies. I have approached those bodies about individual cases. I am still waiting for replies going back to November. There are cases of families asking those bodies for a mammogram, and action has not properly been taken six months later. The oversight bodies are not working and it is time for the Government to have an independent review. What independent review has been undertaken, or will they undertake, of these oversight bodies?
In my last three minutes, I come to three cases. Listening to us today are the families of some people who are in jail and have been imprisoned. The first is Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, a UK-based Bahraini and human rights activist, who is listening here tonight. His family have been tortured and unlawfully convicted in Bahrain in relation to Mr Alwadaei’s human rights work here in the UK. On 30 October 2017, Mr Alwadaei’s brother-in-law, Sayed Nizar, his mother-in-law, Hajer Mansoor Hassan, and his cousin, Mahmood Marzooq, were sentenced to three years’ imprisonment following what was internationally condemned as a flawed trial. Subsequently, they have experienced human rights abuses and have been denied privileges in jail, particularly at the town prison, where its commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Albardoli, has not kept basic human rights laws and conventions by not allowing them access to their family and medical provision. What independent assessment have the Government made of this case?
There is also Ali Mushaima, the son of Hassan Mushaima, a leading human rights activist and a former Secretary-General of the Haq Movement for Liberty and Democracy. Hassan is 72 years-old and was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2011. During his detention, trial and incarceration the Bahraini authorities subjected him to severe human rights abuses and violations. Despite Questions in this House, the Government say that he should go to the independent bodies. The independent bodies say that there have been no violations. Ali sat outside the Bahraini embassy and carried out a hunger strike. Can the Minister tell him that his father’s treatment is not what he is seeing and that he is being abused? Why do the Government take the word of the oversight bodies? There are clearly human rights abuses. What assessment has been made of our policy to ensure human rights are being upheld? In particular, what independent evidence is there that the Integrated Activity Fund is improving the oversight bodies, police and prisons, and not contributing to human rights abuses in Bahrain?
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, on bringing this important matter to the House. I know he has been particularly tenacious in ensuring that these issues are followed through and addressed on several occasions.
Bahrain remains a key regional partner for the UK. As the noble Lord said, we have worked together for more than 200 years and share many interests, with an unequivocal commitment to promote peace and security in the Gulf. I respect the work of the Minister for the Middle East, who has talked about the many areas of bilateral collaboration—trade and investment, defence and security, the environment, and education. We have many Bahraini students being educated in the UK; we certainly have some very happy Bahraini students at the University of Hull, where I happen to be chancellor.
Nevertheless, there are serious human rights issues and the important issue of advancing human rights internationally, which we all support, is one that we must all give priority. The Minister is correct to identify Bahrain as a human rights priority for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, talked about political reprisals and the family of Sayed Alwadaei, who I am pleased are here today. It is worrying that the supreme court of Bahrain upheld these sentences only this year, despite the conclusions of the United Nations Arbitrary Detention Working Group, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Concern has been raised about arbitrary and extrajudicial detention, and the use of torture and ill-treatment as a means of eliciting unreliable confessions.
Any declared commitment to freedom of expression is undermined by a high number of arrests and prosecutions of individuals who have criticised political figures. There has been a disquieting number of incidents where journalists, opposition politicians, lawyers and human rights activists have been subjected to travel bans. We all noted them.
But there are paradoxes and contradictions. Bahrain was the first Arab state to achieve education equality and the first country in the region to introduce public education for girls. In spite of a remaining disparity in the legal equality between Bahraini men and women, Bahrain has historically been a leader in advancing gender equality in the Middle East. It has the fastest rate of growth for women’s economic participation, and was the first Arab country to appoint female ambassadors to Britain and the USA.
The National Plan for the Advancement of Bahraini Women and the ongoing work of the Supreme Council for Women are welcome, and it would be valuable to hear from the Minister about some of the up-to-date evidence around these bodies and the role of women, in the light of anxiety that there has somehow been a deterioration in all that seemed encouraging.
We respect the cultural and moral diversity and universality of human rights and non-discrimination. They must be recognised, and people should be held to account. But we should act as a critical friend, and urge the Government of Bahrain to return to the path of progress. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. We have a long-term relationship, but there are ongoing concerns. I hope we can work with Bahrain to ensure that it gets back on the path of progress.
Lord Soley (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important but very short debate, and I greatly regret that we each have only a couple of minutes for what we need to say. I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, has just said about the advances that have been made in Bahrain; there were not just female ambassadors to the UK, US and other countries, but ambassadors of different religious faiths, which is important.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, clearly feels strongly about this—quite rightly—and he has made a couple of points relating to my report. It was now four or five years ago, and perhaps this is a good time for me to consider revisiting it and looking at what has happened. I criticised Bahrain at the time for not allowing the UN special rapporteur on torture to visit, and also because we could not visit the prisons. But if you look at what Bahrain was setting up with the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry following the riots, it was way ahead of most other countries in the region. If you were to ask me which country in the Middle East I would like to live in, if I had to do so, I would probably choose Bahrain as one of the best. That does not mean, as the ambassador said this to me the other day, that all is perfect—it certainly is not. But the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is missing something profoundly important—the situation of Bahrain in this incredibly unstable region. Bahrain is just a mile or two down a causeway from Saudi Arabia, a Sunni power, which is in conflict with Iran, just across the water from Bahrain, which is a Shia power.
The book given to me recently by the Al Wefaq party, which left the Parliament of its own will—we criticised it for that; it need not have left and it would have been better if it had stayed and stood for election—is expensively produced. I have no problem with that, although it would be good to know how it was financed, because, as the noble Lord has said, there are questions about other finances. Indeed, there are questions about the financing of Al Wefaq. A gentleman resident in Britain whom I see on a number of occasions, Mr Ali Alaswad, is a strong supporter of and a former Member of Parliament for the Al Wefaq group. He emphasises that if it started supporting violence, he would no longer support it. I understand that. But he also understood the point I am making about the impossible position of Bahrain between two competing regional superpowers—one Shia, one Sunni.
The book is produced by Al Wefaq and written by Sheikh Ali Salman, who is currently in prison. It starts off by explaining the Shia history of Bahrain. The Shia population is the majority; the Sunni population is the minority. When I asked the King there four or five years ago how he felt about that, he said quite passionately, “I am a Muslim first, not a Shia or a Sunni”. I understand that, but religion, like other ideologies, is always subject to splits. Those splits can be violent, and often are. We need to understand that Bahrain does not want to be in the position of Yemen, which is already part of the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
I say to the noble Lord by all means keep questioning this, but put it in the round. What would he do if he were a minority community of Sunnis looking across the water to Iran and wondering what will happen to them if it takes over? This cannot be ignored. It is part of the strategic geopolitics of the region.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I remind noble Lords that when the clock gets to three minutes, that is three minutes completed.
Baroness Stern (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, on securing this very important debate and on his powerful contribution. I declare my interest as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Rights.
Following the recommendations of the 2011 Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry report, a number of mechanisms were put in place by the Bahraini Government to demonstrate their support for international human rights. For many of those involved, this was a very encouraging and exciting time. They set up the National Institute for Human Rights, the Ministry of Interior Ombudsman and the Prisoners and Detainees Rights Commission. These bodies are doing some positive work. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Rights has had much positive contact with the ombudsman, and we are currently in correspondence with him about failures in detainee treatment—particularly on inadequate provision of healthcare.
However, welcome as these developments are, the existence of these mechanisms cannot disguise the Bahraini Government’s obvious lack of political will for the more substantive political, institutional and legal reforms needed to ensure that Bahraini citizens enjoy their fundamental rights and that human rights defenders and members of the political opposition are no longer persecuted.
The FCO has been funding human rights institutions in Bahrain for a number of years. During that time, the level of criticism of Bahrain for human rights violations has increased. There has been criticism from the United Nations Human Rights Council and Dr Agnes Callemard, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, who described the 2017 executions of three people in Bahrain as “extrajudicial executions”. A number of respected NGOs have been very critical, as have many UK parliamentarians.
This raises difficult questions that need answering about the role of the FCO in Bahrain. I therefore ask the Minister, whose commitment to human rights is beyond doubt, whether the FCO has recently reassessed whether its continuing financial support for human rights work in Bahrain is appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said there should be an independent review. Will the Minister consider that, and, bearing in mind the fact that the abuses of human rights in Bahrain would most likely trigger further radicalisation, polarisation and conflict in what the noble Lord, Lord Soley, has already explained is a difficult arena in which to work, does she agree?
The FCO is valued throughout the world for the support UK diplomats give to human rights NGOs and activists. Is the Minister satisfied that human rights activists in Bahrain are well supported by our diplomats there?
Lord Astor of Hever (Con)
My Lords, my interest in Bahrain is as vice-chair of CMEC, and goes back to when I was a Defence Minister and had some responsibility for defence co-operation between our two countries. We have vital national security and economic interests in maintaining and developing our relationship with Bahrain. I was involved in the early stages of setting up our strategically vital naval support facilities there.
In an uncertain world, Bahrain is a loyal and important ally. As my noble friend said, it has been a staunch supporter of the UK for over 200 years. We need to keep criticism of Bahrain in perspective, and be mindful of the regional and security context. Bahrain’s scope for progressive political development is limited by the need to keep in step with its GCC neighbours, a point very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Soley.
Bahrain is a tolerant society. There are historic tensions deriving from a large Shia population, but the great majority of Shia live happily there, and many have senior positions in government. They strongly oppose the actions of a very small violent minority.
It is the leading country in the Gulf region in terms of political development, education for all, freedom of religion, employment law and the emancipation of women. It is one of only two GCC states with a freely elected Parliament, the current Speaker of which is a woman. My noble friend mentioned the two women who were ambassadors to the UK and the USA, one a Christian and the other Jewish. The capital, Manama, is a religiously diverse city, housing Sunni, Shia, Christian, Jewish and Hindu places of worship. The Council of Ministers regularly has at least one, and often several, female Ministers. Bahrain’s appointed Upper House of Parliament always includes at least one member of Bahrain’s Jewish and Christian communities—currently, both female—and someone with a registered disability.
Bahrain has made progress with its human rights reforms. As part of British broader assistance to Bahraini reform, the United Kingdom has been working with Bahrain’s independent human rights oversight bodies since their creation, the first in the region, following recommendations in 2012 from the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry. Our work has supported the building of effective institutions which hold the Bahraini Government to account. They have demonstrated their abilities, including through the prosecution of more than 80 police officers accused of human rights abuses.
Of course, there is always more that can be done, and I think that the Bahraini Government recognise this. But let us not lose sight of the fact that there is genuine, effective progress in a region where change is often hard to come by.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for securing this debate. I have never visited Bahrain, but I believe it is a modern, moderate Arab country, a close ally of the United Kingdom. It has an open and tolerant society that respects all religions and cultures. It is striving for gender balance, women’s empowerment and workers’ rights.
If we look at religious freedom in Bahrain, I believe that the capital, Manama, is one of the most religiously diverse cities in the GCC, with places of worship of Sunni, Shia, Christian, Jewish, Sikh and Hindu faith across the city. Bahrain also has a history of appointing non-Muslim ambassadors, both Christians and Jews, for example to the UK and the USA, as was mentioned earlier.
Bahrain was the first country in the region to introduce public education for girls, in the 1920s, and was the first Arab state to achieve education equality as part of the UNESCO 2010 education for all development index. According to Bahrain’s government statistics, women make up over 49% of public sector employees and hold over 50% of managerial positions. I believe that Bahrain was ranked in tier 1 by the US State Department in 2018 for its efforts to counter human trafficking. Bahrain has gone through significant reforms to the sponsorship system, through the flexible work permit, which enables work without a sponsor.
However, I am aware of some of the reports, made by some credible international organisations, of violations of human rights in the country. No excuse can be accepted for violation of human rights. Keeping in mind the country’s demographics and surrounding political and religious environment, including Iranian and Saudi influences, I suggest that, as a friend of Bahrain, the United Kingdom should help Bahrain to improve its level of tolerance and understanding of diverse political and religious views, instead of taking harsh measures that amount to violations of human rights, and to have a free and fair justice system that meets international standards.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, I would like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for bringing this important debate before your Lordships’ House. In so doing, the noble Lord brings before us what is a very prescient example of the delicate balance required between the UK using influence to improve human rights, while at the same time being aware that if influence is to be successfully brought it must be as a critical friend.
In Bahrain, there are clearly significant obstacles and obstructions to freedom of assembly and freedom of movement as we would understand them. Protests remain banned in the capital, Manama, and over 90 Bahrainis are banned from travelling abroad without judicial warrant. At the same time, there are accusations of impunity for those who acted outside the law in 2011. As with many noble Lords, I am concerned that since April 2017 the judicial system has been amended to allow the military courts to try civilians—surely a retrograde step.
However, in assessing all these deficiencies, I am sure that the Government will take cognisance of the real instability and interference that the kingdom faces, especially from Iran. Bahrain is of course led by a Sunni Government, but, as we have heard, especially from the noble Lord, Lord Soley, has a majority Shia population. The UK Government have a role to assess any sectarian discrimination but also to help build community cohesion within Bahrain.
Bahrain is an important strategic partner of the United Kingdom but is a small, relatively new state with a fragile religious demography in what can only be best described a very tough neighbourhood. That context must be remembered when seeking to support Bahrain to improve human rights; and, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Soley, there are positives in Bahrain that do not exist in similar Gulf states. Bahrain has one of the best records in the Gulf for religious diversity, as well as for more liberal positions on women’s rights and an exemplary record on human trafficking. There are also four pillars of scrutiny: the Ombudsman, the Prisoners & Detainees Rights Commission, the Special Investigations Unit and the National Institution for Human Rights. The United Kingdom has an important role in supporting and building capacity in all those oversight bodies, to ensure that they are fully functioning.
I do find it a spurious argument to say that, by providing good practice support to our friend and ally, the British Government are in some way condoning or financially supporting human rights abuses. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the efficacy of the oversight organisations within Bahrain and how the Government intend to remain a critical and effective friend for Bahrain.
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was right to put this important debate into a wider context of the very long-standing friendship between the people of this country and the people of Bahrain. If we consider the very significant points made by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, that the region in which the Bahrainis live is sandwiched between Iran on one side and Saudi Arabia on the other, with rivalry between two important regional powers, added to which are the Sunni/Shia tensions, then of course we see that Bahrain is living in difficult circumstances. If I may, I will strongly add to that: Bahrain is living in the shadow of Saudi Arabia, where we have a Crown Prince who is ambitious to reform the economy but is using repressive measures in order to try to achieve it. That has repercussions for Bahrain. I believe that our interests are very strongly in the direction of evolving constitutional monarchies in the Gulf countries and, above all, in Bahrain, if we want stability there—as we do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, was right to point out that there have been considerable achievements in Bahrain over the last few decades, for example on women’s rights and on freedom of religion. That in itself is striking. I want to focus, though, on one thing. Following the Arab spring of 2011, the King and the Crown Prince were bold enough to establish the Independent Commission of Inquiry, led by Mr Bassiouni, a distinguished lawyer from Egypt. Would any Government in this country set up a completely independent commission to advise us how to run our affairs? I doubt that. It was a bold decision. The commission made important recommendations, to which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, referred. Those recommendations were to set up oversight bodies, which have been established. We have mentioned the National Institution for Human Rights, the Ombudsman and so on; that was important.
The problem and the worry is that, over the past two or three years, there has been a deterioration in standards of human rights in Bahrain. That is damaging both to Bahrain and to our interests and friendship with the country. The question I have for the Minister is this: what is the Government’s assessment of the progress of the recommendations made by the independent commission? How many of the recommendations have been implemented, and how transparent and effective are they? It would be helpful to know from the Government what their assessment is.
The UK’s relationship with Bahrain is singularly important. We have a base there which helps to protect the country, and we give technical assistance on human rights issues. We are therefore entitled to have a free expression of views between each other as to how we can help Bahrain to achieve greater stability. I hope that the Minister will summarise what we are doing to help them in that progress.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for initiating this debate. Human rights, wherever they may be, are dear to us all, for we can enjoy our rights only if we have respect for the rights of others. I declare a couple of interests in that I am the chairman of the Centre for Islamic Finance at the University of Bolton where we run a joint masters degree with the Bahrain Institute of Banking and Finance. I was also the chairman and am now the vice-president of the Conservative Middle East Council, where I first came to know Bahrain, to meet members of the Government and of the opposition, and to make many friends. It is in that spirit of friendship that I speak this evening.
The violence that rocked the Middle East during the Arab spring left its scars on Bahrain. It is a small country where it was never an issue if you were Sunni or Shia or, for that matter, Jewish, Christian or Hindu. It was suddenly thrown into turbulence during the 2011 uprisings. The ensuing troubles were a cause of sadness and deep concern to a country which had long embraced democracy, where women had been given the vote in 1950 and where men and women, Sunni and Shia, were free to stand in all elections, and where significant reforms including human rights were already taking form under the office of the Crown Prince.
The Crown Prince responded to these events by opening up a dialogue with all who chose to participate and the Government initiated a commission of inquiry. As the noble Lord, Lord Luce, has just said, that was a bold decision. It was to explain both of these initiatives that, in 2012, I first met a delegation from the Shura Council and realised the determination of Bahrain to learn from what had happened and to put in place systems with strong and independent oversight. These initiatives led to reforms and, in the intervening years, I have had the pleasure of meeting the Ombudsman for the Ministry of Interior with responsibility for prisons, and members of the National Institution for Human Rights. That is an independent body with a wide-ranging mandate to protect human rights. I was impressed by the quality of the people I met, and in particular by their sincerity and determination to do the right thing. There have been a number of prosecutions of officials for human rights abuses. I hope that they will read the debate today and look to see what they might do in the future to allay some of the fears that have been raised.
I know that, for some, the pace of change and reform across the Middle East as a whole is not fast enough, but too often these countries, who are our good and old friends, are not given due credit for the changes they have effected and for the long-standing rights they do afford their citizens. I often think that that is because our Arab friends are too reticent to blow their own trumpet. Nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, explained so eloquently, do we take enough account of the difficult political tensions in the region.
My noble friend Lord Astor asked if there is more to do in Bahrain. Of course there is, just as there is more to do in nearly every corner of the world. But a country that has set up the organisations I have already mentioned, that has the fastest growth rate internationally for the economic participation of women, that has gone to considerable efforts to counter human trafficking and that protects workers’ rights with strong and effective trades unions cannot be doing it all wrong. I commend our Government and the Government of Bahrain for their continuing work to ensure the best rights and protections for all who live and work in the kingdom.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend for introducing this debate. It is almost as if we are debating two different countries: which one is Bahrain? Although Bahrain is a constitutional monarchy with an elected national assembly, political power ultimately rests with the ruling family. As we have heard, tensions between the majority Shiites and the ruling minority Sunnis with their greater political and economic power exists in Bahrain.
As we have heard, in 2011 as part of the Arab spring, more than 100,000 people engaged in peaceful protest. They were brutally repressed with the help of Saudi troops. A crackdown on political opposition and freedom of expression has followed. The Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, to which other noble Lords referred, was established by the Bahraini Government to investigate. It made 26 recommendations which the Government then said they had implemented. Although it is right to welcome that, human rights groups have criticised the recommendations as weak and said that even these have not been fully carried through. The last independent newspaper was suspended in 2017. All political opposition groups have been dissolved. Political parties are not permitted. Public protests are banned in the capital. Recent parliamentary elections were not considered free and fair. I hope that we do not hear, after this debate, about any action against those who are attending it or their friends and families.
Since 2006 Bahrain has had a draconian anti-terror law. It is used to justify the detention of many anti-Government activists. Confessions are obtained under torture. Freedom of assembly and association can be defined as terrorist. Minors have been arrested under the Act. In 2013 amendments were made to the law, including the revocation of citizenship. More than 800 Bahrainis, including journalists and politicians, have had their citizenship revoked since 2012, leaving most of them stateless. Bahrain will not admit organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, or the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. A 2017 constitutional amendment allowed military trials for civilians who are deemed to be a threat to Bahrain’s “independence, sovereignty and security”. There has been an increase in the use of the death penalty.
The FCO listed Bahrain as a human rights priority country in 2018. The UK has contributed £5 million to support reform, but human rights groups such as Reprieve have accused the Government of not being sufficiently transparent or effective. I recognise the difficulty in this area. We provide training for Bahrain’s armed forces. We have a naval base. Against this background of increasing human rights abuses, we are increasing arms sales. None of this is likely to lead to stability.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord for initiating this debate. Alistair Burt said at the end of last year that, in considering the differing opinions about Bahrain, there are elements of truth on both sides. Compared to most of its close neighbours, women have greater freedom, as we have heard; there is greater freedom of worship; and human rights are a good deal better.
The Government argue that a strong partnership is based on mutual interest, shared threats and a desire to promote greater security and peace in the Gulf, exemplified, as the noble Lord said, by the UK naval support facility. Alistair Burt suggests that this strong partnership means that we can express our concerns about human rights in a frank and open way—publicly, but more often in private. There is no doubt that there is merit in the engagement approach; working with international partners and civil society organisations to promote and defend universal freedoms and to bring about positive change. But how are the Government measuring the success of engagement in achieving positive change?
Freedom House suggests that Bahrain is more oppressive and less free than it was six years ago. As reported in the Guardian, last November’s general elections were considered to be a sham, prohibiting members of opposition groups from running. Reprisals targeting protesters, journalists and human rights defenders have become commonplace. As we have heard, the only independent newspaper was forcibly closed in 2017. There is currently an estimate of 4,000 political prisoners.
What is the Government’s view on the situation of human rights defenders in Bahrain? What assessment has been conducted about our investment? On what basis does the FCO deem that the oversight bodies in Bahrain are independent, effective and capable of conducting swift and thorough investigations?
Finally, as we have heard, executions resumed in January 2017. Will the United Kingdom publicly call on the Bahraini Government to abolish the death penalty?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for securing this debate and all noble Lords who have contributed. It was interesting that a number of your Lordships referred to the nature of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Bahrain. Of course, Bahrain is a key partner of the UK: we co-operate on defence, security, trade and regional issues. As a number of your Lordships observed, our new UK naval support facilities provide the first permanent UK naval presence east of Suez since 1971 and support joint counterterrorism, counterpiracy and maritime security operations. This relationship benefits UK prosperity. As of September last year, total trade in goods and services had increased by almost 65% compared to the previous 12 months.
Naturally, many of your Lordships focused on human rights. As the British Government have made clear and Bahrain has acknowledged, further work remains to be done in this area. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office continues to flag Bahrain as a human rights priority country. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, acknowledged that progress has been made, but she rightly flagged up concerns. She noted that the FCO is strongly committed to supporting human rights around the world. I reassure her and other Members of this House that we keep all programme work under regular review. We continue to believe that our support for Bahrain’s ambitious reform initiatives is the best way to support progress.
We have consistently raised issues of concern to us with the Government of Bahrain. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, specifically referred to the death penalty. Your Lordships will be aware that the United Kingdom deplores the use of the death penalty anywhere in the world. We condemn that, and quite rightly your Lordships take the same view.
We remain committed to promoting and defending universal freedoms and human rights at home and abroad. The strength of our relationship with Bahrain means that we can and do express our concerns frankly, openly, regularly and at senior levels. While we do comment publicly, more often the detail and depth of our engagement take place behind the scenes. Our assessment is that the best way to influence change is through private engagement, dialogue and co-operation. My noble friend Lord McInnes spoke with wisdom on that approach and rightly pointed out that there is a need to strike the important balance.
If your Lordships are interested in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights and democracy report, it was published last October and outlines action that we have taken. The Government of Bahrain readily acknowledge that there is more that they can do. They have undertaken reforms and addressed issues, often with UK assistance.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Luce, I say that we provide technical assistance to Bahrain in order to influence and support change. All training provided is in line with international standards and fully complies with our domestic and international human rights obligations. We believe that technical reform assistance makes a major contribution to the strength of our bilateral relationship. We are committed to supporting Bahrain-led reform and are confident of its positive impact for people in Bahrain across a variety of areas, including judicial reform, youth engagement and empowerment, civil society, combating modern slavery and supporting human rights oversight bodies.
A number of your Lordships referred to these important oversight bodies, which hold state institutions to account. They include the National Institute for Human Rights, the Ministry of Interior Ombudsman, the Special Investigations Unit, and the Prisoners and Detainees Rights Commission. Some of your Lordships suggested that they fail in their fundamental duties. I do not accept that. We believe that they are effective in addressing allegations of torture and mistreatment in detention.
That has been demonstrated through the prosecution of police officers accused of human rights abuses, to which my noble friend Lord Astor referred. A Special Investigations Unit investigation directly resulted in the retrial of Mohammed Ramadan and Hussain Moosa, who were originally sentenced to death in 2014. The Ministry of Interior Ombudsman has investigated serious cases, including deaths in custody. As the first such organisations established in the region, they have more to do, but the UK continues to work with them to encourage development of their skills and capacity.
It is important to acknowledge areas where Bahrain’s human rights approach aligns with our own. I will highlight three of them. First, Bahrain is a regional leader in combating the exploitation of migrant workers. The Bahraini Government have increased transparency and introduced a victim-centred approach. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, who referred to Bahrain’s important achievement in attaining tier 1 status in the US State Department’s annual report, Trafficking in Persons, meaning that it meets its minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. Importantly, Bahrain is the first Gulf country to do so.
Secondly, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley observed, Bahrain plays a leading role in the region in protecting and safeguarding women’s rights. Women’s organisations are active in Bahrain and freely run campaigns calling for equality, especially on citizenship rights.
Finally, freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Bahraini constitution. Bahrain is home to churches, a synagogue and the region’s oldest Hindu temple. Members of all religions co-exist and contribute to society. My noble friend Lady Morris is right that we should acknowledge these achievements. These developments are positive and we should welcome them.
A number of noble Lords raised specific points. I am pushed for time, but I will see whether I can deal with some of them. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised the case of Ibrahim Sharif. We are aware of it; UK officials attended the trial. We understand that Mr Sharif’s lawyer will appeal through the courts. We urge the court to protect freedom of expression for all citizens.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned the Integrated Activity Fund. All reform assistance goes through a rigorous and comprehensive assessment process to ensure compliance with our domestic and international human rights obligations. I should make it clear that, as many projects and programme activities deliver access across the whole region, it is not possible to provide a breakdown according to each beneficiary state, including Bahrain.
Lord Scriven
That is exactly what happened up until two years ago. Why did the policy change? The Government could do that until two years ago—indeed, they did.
Baroness Goldie
I will investigate further. If I elicit any more information, I will certainly communicate with the noble Lord. He also asked about Mr Alwadaei’s family members. We have raised their case with senior levels of the Bahraini Government.
The noble Lords, Lord Soley and Lord Luce, and my noble friend Lady Morris referred to the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, which was an important development. The Government of Bahrain have made significant strides in implementing the wide range of reforms it recommended, and that reform continues under their ambitious action plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the matter of keeping our engagement under regular review. While we continue to believe that our partnership is effective, our embassy in Manama monitors and assesses the situation on the ground. We are certainly anxious to ensure that the help we provide is delivering results on the ground, where that help is intended to provide improvement.
I have run out of time, for which I apologise. I will look at Hansard and undertake to write to your Lordships on any contributions which I have been unable to acknowledge or respond to.
Agreement Establishing an Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed
To resolve that this House calls upon Her Majesty’s Government, in accordance with section 21 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, to extend the scrutiny period for the Agreement establishing an Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CP31), laid before the House on 6 February, by 21 sitting days.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the European Union Committee
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking to these three Motions in my name. First I want to set a degree of context before addressing some of the issues of substance raised by the EU Select Committee. The intention behind the Motions is to give an airing to the first three of what the Government term rollover, or continuity, agreements, which we have negotiated and signed with countries that have an existing trading relationship with the UK by virtue of our membership of the European Union.
The House will be fully aware that it was the Government’s intention that before exit day—whenever that might be—all our existing trading relationships would be rolled over. Indeed, the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Price, stated that all the countries had agreed in principle to roll over the agreements. That was not the case, and only three have so far been scrutinised by the EU Select Committee. Next, the agreement with Switzerland will have to be considered.
I do not belittle our relationship with Chile, with the eastern or southern African regions or with the Faroe Islands—but they represent 0.1%, 0.1% and 0.1% of total UK trade. So there is a lot more to be done before exit day, if the Government intend to roll the agreements over. We know that some of them will not be rolled over, but there is still a considerable question mark as to whether, before exit day, we will see signatures on trade agreements with other countries.
The Faroe Islands, to give one example, are the UK’s 114th largest trading partner, and total UK exports there amount to just £6 million. To put that into context, that is one-fifth of the doomed ferry contract that Chris Grayling agreed. Again, I do not seek to belittle our relationship with those islands, but these are minuscule sums in the context of overall UK trade.
This issue was highlighted by the EU Select Committee in paragraph 5 of its report, which alerts us to a degree of concern that there is no prospect that the other agreements will be agreed ahead of the UK’s scheduled exit from the UK. It says:
“The risk of disruption to the terms of UK trade with many of its most important trading partners is now imminent and acute”.
That is a very reasonable, if slightly understated, description of the situation.
These three agreements are illustrative. In an interesting way, they are broadly representative of the type of arrangements that the UK has in its trading relationships. The ESA EPA is development focused: that is under- standable, given the trading context of our relationship with those countries. The EPA offers a beneficial trading relationship to Madagascar, Mauritius, the Seychelles and Zimbabwe. They cherish their trading relationships with the UK, even when in the context of UK trade, those are very small. In the context of those countries’ trading relationships, they are important.
The Chile association agreement is wide in nature. It is not simply a free trade agreement. It contains high-level provisions on political dialogue and provides for co-operation on economics, scientific issues and specific areas such as illegal migration, drugs and organised crime. It also includes a free trade agreement component. The Faroe Islands agreement focuses primarily on saving what the Government estimate to be £11 million in offsetting tariffs that would have been applied if we were trading with them on WTO terms.
That is a snapshot of the breadth of our trading relationships with Chile, with the eastern and southern African states and with the Faroe Islands. It is right for your Lordships to have an opportunity to consider these agreements on the Floor of the House rather than simply using a CRaG process that does not afford Members an opportunity to consider them.
I fully expect that this may well be a relatively brief debate and it may simply be one where we air some of the questions raised by the committee. But that process still has value—it is important. It is important for our trading partners to know that the Houses of Parliament consider them. I hope that it will also provide a degree of precedent going forward.
In that regard, I welcome the commitment from the Minister on the Report stage of the Trade Bill that we have been considering that it will be the Government’s intention to bring forward to the Chamber some of the trade agreements. I agree with the observation of the committee in calling for further consideration in the Chamber. It is not the job of an opposition party to bring forward Motions to have them debated and I hope that this will be the last time that Opposition Members will bring forward amendments to have trade agreements such as these debated on the Floor of the House. Instead, I hope that it will become standard practice for the Government.
I now turn to the issues raised by the EU Select Committee in consideration of the treaties. In doing so, I pay tribute to the thoroughness of the committee’s work and the considered work of the clerks of the committee and its members. Their first observation was that the Government have chosen to use short-form agreements—this may be right or wrong; I am neutral on this position. In other words, they highlight only amendments to the original underlying agreements with the European Union. But the committee said that to ensure transparency and consistency, the Government should publish the original text of the agreement that we had with the EU along with decisions by the Government for amendment, so that it is easier to compare and identify where there are differences.
I also respect the fact that it was the Government’s intention to publish reports concerning the areas where there were differences. The legislation says “principal or major differences”, but the Government are to be commended for saying that any differences will be highlighted. But in order for us to be aware of those rather than simply to rely on the Government’s statement in their report, it would be helpful if they published the text of the original agreements alongside any of the new ones, especially if they are using the short-form version. It will be helpful to know from the Minister whether the Government intend to do that.
The second observation of the committee to which I draw the attention of the House is over consultation with the devolved Administrations. Noble Lords who have participated in the Committee and Report stages of the Trade Bill will know that this has been a major part of our considerations. Indeed, the House passed amendments concerning consultation with the devolved Administrations. It should be the standard approach that draft texts of rollover agreements are shared with devolved Administrations prior to signature. The EU Select Committee found that it was “puzzling” that this did not happen with regard to the Faroe Islands agreement. There could not possibly be a clearer agreement concerning fisheries and the Faroe Islands and that text should have been shared with the Scottish Government. It was not. But again, I commend the Minister for recognising that that was an omission by the Government and saying from the Dispatch Box during the proceedings of the Trade Bill that that would not be repeated. I take her at her word and it is to be welcomed.
The Scottish Government’s concern was shared by the committee—I do not wish to put words into its report because it is clear to see—that it would be an unwelcome precedent were that practice to carry on. I accept that the Government have taken that on board and it will not be a precedent that the draft text will not be shared. That is a clear example with the Faroe Islands but, as we discussed in the Trade Bill, there are many aspects of legislative competence that are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and they need to see the texts to understand if there are legislative consequences that may arise. Even with the Chile agreement on illegal migration, drugs and organised crime, there will be examples in the Scottish legal system and law enforcement agencies and others that may well have an interest in some of these issues when being implemented. If a precedent is being set, consultation should be carried out on the continuity agreements.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I rise as a member of the European Union Select Committee, which has reported on these agreements, and as chair of the External Affairs Sub-Committee, which considered the Chile and eastern and southern Africa states agreements. The committee’s 31st report is tagged alongside the three Motions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for recognising the hard work that the Select Committee does. There are one or two areas that he mentioned that I may refer to during my brief intervention.
I begin by pointing out that tonight’s debate is the first of its kind. Since parliamentary scrutiny of treaties was codified in statute in Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, neither House has debated a Motion like those that are being debated tonight. It was due to Brexit and the need for the Government to roll over a large number of existing EU international agreements that the Procedure Committee recognised the need for Parliament to scrutinise these agreements and decided that the European Union Committee should take on that task.
It has been a major task, and staff from across the EU committees have worked long and hard to ensure that we could deliver on that task. Today, we published our sixth report in six weeks. It scrutinised another, still more complex, agreement: the UK-Swiss trade agreement. This is demanding work for the committee, so it is important that noble Lords engage more widely in our findings. As a committee, we welcome tonight’s debate regardless of whether, as individual members, we support the Motions introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. Having this debate shows that the House understands the importance of these agreements and that it is prepared to commit time and resources to doing a proper job of scrutiny. It also puts down a marker for the future, when the Government may enter into fresh negotiations on major new trade deals with the United States or with other countries, that the House of Lords intends to be fully engaged. I hope tonight’s debate will be the first of many.
I will now briefly recap the points made by the committee on these treaties. I emphasise that we have not recommended that they should not be ratified—far from it. But we have raised some points that merit further debate, and I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response. First, there is the scale and sequencing of the Government’s programme of rollover trade agreements. The three agreements that we are considering tonight are tiny, representing in total around one-quarter of 1% of UK trade. The Swiss agreement, which I have just mentioned, is of course much bigger, so that is welcome progress. But important agreements with Japan, Canada and South Korea have yet to materialise. We would like to know when they will appear. If we leave the EU on 29 March, which will mean the default position in law, how will the Government mitigate the risk of disruption to the terms of UK trade?
Next we highlight the inconsistency of consultation with the devolved Administrations, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to. We understand, of course, that international trade is a reserved competence. But, as the department’s recent paper on parliamentary scrutiny of international agreements acknowledges, trade intersects with many areas of devolved competence. The devolved Administrations should not be closed out of the process. The Government’s approach to consultation has been patchy. The devolved Administrations have been shown drafts of some non-trade agreements—such as the agreement with Ireland on social security and the agreement with Switzerland on citizens’ rights—but have not been shown drafts of the DIT’s rollover trade agreements. Is the Minister able to respond to that? If the aim of these agreements is to ensure continuity of the existing terms of trade, there is no need for secrecy.
The Welsh Government have written to us to say that the Government’s approach to these agreements has fallen very short of their expectations and that it should not set a precedent for the handling of future free trade agreements. Will my noble friend the Minister undertake that drafts of future rollover agreements—or at least relevant sections—will be shared with the devolved Administrations?
We also raised the question of the modification of free trade agreements. Ratification is not the end of the process. These agreements can be subject to amendments and modifications, so ongoing engagement with stakeholders and with Parliament is essential. As a committee, we have repeatedly asked for clarity on when amendments to agreements will engage the CRaG Act procedures, but we have yet to receive a convincing answer. Will the Minister undertake that the Government will state clearly in future Explanatory Memoranda the circumstances in which amendments to agreements will or will not engage the CRaG Act?
I note that we are tonight well beyond the point at which agreements could have been laid in time to complete the full 21 sitting-day CRaG scrutiny process before 29 March. Is my noble friend able to explain how the Government will approach scrutiny of future rollover agreements? Can she say whether in some cases agreements will be provisionally applied ahead of formal ratification, and how will the Government deal with those that cannot be provisionally applied?
As I said, scrutinising these agreements within the time limits prescribed in the CRaG Act has been a big piece of work. I realise that discussions on future parliamentary scrutiny are continuing and I welcome the DIT’s paper of two weeks ago. It showed a willingness to engage with committees earlier in the process. However, we need earlier, fuller scrutiny, and I hope that in her response the Minister will indicate her readiness to engage with noble Lords across the House, and with the EU Select Committee in particular, in developing those ideas.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the question of FTAs must be taken extremely seriously and we must give them appropriate scrutiny, recognising that they are now very important to the United Kingdom. To borrow the words of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, this is a brief but important debate.
The Government have long iterated on the importance that they place on parliamentary consultation and scrutiny. This afternoon, no lesser a person than the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, informed us of the Government’s vision of engagement with Parliament. We have learned the consequences of not being fully utilised as an experienced resource, so I urge the Minister to embrace these three straightforward Motions. In this regard, the parliamentary ratification processes moving forward should be expedited. The record of government thus far is patchy.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for initiating this debate and agree with many of the points that he made—for example, publishing the agreements and those that they replace together. I also agree that there should be consultation wherever possible—for example, with the Scottish Parliament on the Faroe Islands.
Like my noble friend Lady Verma, I sit on the European Union Select Committee. We have been helping the scrutiny process in this House by reviewing the international agreements laid before Parliament in accordance with Section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The EU Committee was asked to take on this task rather late in the day, and it has involved a commendable cross-party effort by the committee and its sub-committees. However, as has already been said by previous speakers, the main credit should go to the clerks and our expert advisers, who, frankly, have done a fabulous job, working long hours and diving into the wearying complexities of these agreements. As we have heard, we published our sixth report in this series today—HL Paper 315, for the enthusiastic.
I am not sure that I have the chutzpah to table a Motion on this issue myself when there is so much parliamentary business to progress. However, I take this opportunity to draw attention to our work on treaties and to mention the UK-Swiss trade agreement, on which we reported today. This example is “illustrative”, in the word of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I very much understand that my noble friend the Minister may not be able to comment on this agreement, although she is very good at pulling rabbits out of hats. Switzerland is the 10th largest trading partner for the UK. As a committee, we were disappointed that the Government, in bringing forward the UK-Swiss trade agreement for scrutiny, had not provided an explanation of the plans for future UK-Swiss services trade, which accounts for 52% of overall trade between the UK and Switzerland. Services are as important as goods to our economy. Given that they now represent nearly 85% of GDP, you might say that they are even more important to the wealth and success of our islands. I am sorry that the process gives them so little focus.
In the meantime, I support the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. I would like to see the three agreements before us passed without delay. I look forward to many further debates on the very important area of future trade agreements, which will potentially have big implications and lead to big changes to our country.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I suppose this is in the nature of an experiment. This is the first time we have had an opportunity to go into detail about the new world that beckons, whichever side of the Brexit divide one is on. At some point in the future, whether sooner or later, the UK will certainly be faced with making a very large number of these treaties. We need to get used to wading through them and investigating in detail.
I had only a short time to go through the agreements on the Order Paper, but I was left reeling, not only from the pages that dealt with the individual tariff lines—I know I will have to do more work on these because of the Government’s announcement today. Even so, it was a pretty scary moment to try to realise exactly what was going on there, equally so to recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that a modern trade agreement is not just about widgets and physical objects but trade in services, attitudes, approaches, commitments to work together, future developments—all sorts of areas. It is a very complex area. I do not think one quite has a sense of how that works in practice until one reads the raw text.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is right to ask us to dwell on how the process works. Obviously, the committee’s work is exemplary in this way. It may have been short of time and the necessary expertise, but it certainly managed to get access to quite a lot of information. It is full of information that would be very difficult to get if one did not have access to our expert support. It is very useful to give an initial sense of what we are really up against and to take the benefit of those who have gone before us. I do not think there is much more, other than to listen to the Minister’s response, which I am sure will be very fair and cover all the ground.
I want to flag up that I will be looking at these with one particular issue—investment—in mind. That should not be a surprise, since I have been raising this issue over all these trade agreements over a period of time. I looked through the agreements on the Order Paper today and could only find one reference to investment in Article 39 of the agreement establishing an economic partnership agreement between eastern and southern African states and the UK. Is this the only one with an investment chapter in it? Will the noble Baroness comment on whether that is a trend or just the way things are? I probably know the answer to that.
Given that this one has an investment chapter in it, what is the meaning behind paragraph 1(e) of Article 39? It says that the parties recognise the importance of investment and the objectives in this case are to,
“develop a legal framework that promotes investment by both Parties, with a view to promoting and protecting investment and work towards harmonised and simplified procedures and administrative practices”.
Does this mean motherhood and apple pie, or is it code for some new system of secret courts meeting in secret locations and taking decisions on investment with an adverse effect on the political and social economy of the countries concerned? I may have extended slightly to make my point, but I would be grateful for a response.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all of your Lordships who have contributed to this debate for the many insightful points raised and the informed speeches made. I join my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe in commending the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for raising what is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, agreed, a very important subject. It is critical that we transition these three trade agreements, which cover countries accounting for £3.5 billion of our trade.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has raised a concern with the scrutiny processes with respect to these continuity agreements. Let me reiterate what has already been done on scrutiny to date. For the sake of clarity, these are existing EU trade agreements that we are transitioning to bilateral agreements between the UK and third countries. Therefore, they have already been subject to a scrutiny process at EU level, and this was overseen in our Parliament by our EU Select Committees. Ratifying these agreements means that we can provide assurance to business in the UK and third countries that there will be trade continuity in any EU exit scenario.
However, we hear the noble Lord’s concerns that Parliament should have appropriate opportunities for scrutiny, and it is absolutely an objective of the Government that Parliament is afforded these opportunities. That is why the Government agreed to go over and above the requirements as laid out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act by setting out in a report to Parliament details of any significant trade-related differences between the UK and EU free trade agreements, and explanations for the changes. These reports must be published 10 days before implementing regulations are laid under the Trade Bill or before ratification, whichever is earlier. Indeed, I will shortly take the House through a precis of the three agreements and the reports that were laid alongside the texts. I hope this will demonstrate the detail that they include to those who have not had the opportunity to go through them, and will reassure the House about our approach to transparency.
I start with the UK-Chile agreement, which reproduces the effects of the EU-Chile agreement as closely as possible, making only technical changes to ensure that the agreement can continue to operate between the UK and Chile. It means that our businesses can, for example, continue to sell cars to Chile on existing terms. In fact, according to HMRC data estimates, 2,400 VAT-registered businesses in the UK exported to Chile in 2017 alone. Trade in goods and services between the UK and Chile was £1.8 billion in 2017—the top goods imported from Chile being edible fruit and nuts, beverages, spirits and vinegar, while our key exports to Chile were machinery and mechanical appliances.
In transitioning the agreement, the tariff-rate quotas in the UK-Chile agreement have been resized from the original EU-Chile ones to reflect that the UK is a smaller import and export market than the EU 28. These quotas were agreed following examination of a range of evidence including historical usage data and trade flow data.
I turn now to rules of origin. When the UK leaves the EU, the designation of UK exports will shift from EU-originating to UK-originating. To ensure maximum continuity for business, the UK-Chile agreement provides that EU materials can continue to be recognised in UK and Chilean exports to one another. Furthermore, EU processing can be recognised in UK exports to Chile.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised an important issue on where the new agreement differs from the original, and that is with regard to parliamentary committees. The original EU-Chile agreement established an association parliamentary committee as a forum for members of the European Parliament and the Chilean National Congress to meet and exchange views. The EU-Chile committee may, for example, make recommendations to the EU-Chile Association Council. Given the principle of continuity, it has been our intention to replicate the institutional structures of the original EU-Chile agreement where possible. With respect to the association parliamentary committee, we did not consider it appropriate to bind Parliament to this commitment without prior consultation. We have therefore agreed treaty text which reserves the right of UK parliamentarians to their position until such consultations have been concluded. The association council provides a mechanism that allows for the establishment of the association parliamentary committee at the request of the parties. If Parliament considers that it wants this committee to be set up, then DIT officials will work with Chilean counterparts to seek to establish this committee at the earliest possible opportunity.
Turning to the economic partnership agreement between eastern and southern Africa countries and the UK, this maintains the effects of the ESA-EU EPA in a bilateral context. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, reiterated, EPAs are asymmetric in favour of developing countries and are therefore critically important to their progress. The UK signed the agreement on 31 January with Mauritius, Seychelles and Zimbabwe, and we expect Madagascar and Comoros to sign in the near future.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am most grateful to the Minister for her very thorough response to all the points that have been raised not just by me but by colleagues—the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Neville-Rolfe, from the committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, suggested that I may have a little bit of chutzpah in bringing these Motions to the House this evening. I plead guilty, and do not demur from that at all. But, in doing so, I hope that it was a vehicle through which the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, was able to present the hard work that her committee members and staff have done. If nothing else, it demonstrated part of the work of the committees of this House and the value that they bring to other non-committee members on some aspects, as said by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
Sometimes these documents are almost impenetrable without the expert support and advice we need since we cannot get the support that Ministers have from the Bill teams. It has been very welcome, and no doubt we will be able to say this on Third Reading of the Trade Bill, that throughout the proceedings the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, have been very engaged with me. It has been most beneficial. But when an individual Member comes in to meet the three Ministers and five officials from the department, that is slightly daunting—I am sure it is not deliberately so. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, these treaties we will be engaged in are often complex and wide-ranging. The reality, as colleagues have said, is that this will now be a major part of our work in engaging in the scrutiny and ratification process of trade agreements, and then in the continuous updating of them all.
I have two final points in welcoming the Minister’s response. First, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, made a point that struck me. If the Government see Parliament as a resource rather than as something to be afraid of, the process is much more beneficial. I know the Minister believes this, and that is very welcome, but we are having to find new ways of dealing with a new set of environments. Secondly, if we are moving and migrating some of the elements, including parliamentary activities, I am sure that there will be a call for some form of additional resource for Parliament to enable us to carry out our functions in some of the committees.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, if we are embarking on a new way forward, I will put on record—it is helpful that the Government Chief Whip is here—how helpful the Government Whips Office was in scheduling this debate straight after the Trade Bill. It has been a long day, but it meant that those who have been engaged in this issue have had an opportunity to air some of those aspects.
I look forward to the Minister’s letter; I am sure that the Committee does as well. We have simply whetted our appetite for the Swiss agreement and the other forthcoming ones. On the basis of the Minister’s very helpful response, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion in my name.