House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I understand how important it is to support those nearing the end of their life, and I am taking the evaluation forward as a priority. We have made progress on all areas of the work announced by the previous Secretary of State on 11 July. As a next step, we will be holding a workshop event on 29 October to gather key stakeholder views.
Mrs Moon
The Scottish Government have already done this work. They have talked to the medical profession, the third sector and patients. My Bill to implement a system in England and Wales is ready to go. Why are we not pushing ahead? Is this not just delaying the terminally ill from being able to access terminal illness benefits?
Justin Tomlinson
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who has been a tireless campaigner in this area, building on her personal and professional experience. I have met with her on several occasions, including as part of this work. We want to get things right. We understand the importance of the issue, and we are doing internal research with clinicians and external research with claimants and stakeholders. We are also looking at international research, which will include what the Scottish Government are doing, and we will be concentrating on the process to ensure that it is improved. This is an important area.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Given that the hon. Gentleman chairs the all-party parliamentary group for terminal illness, I call Drew Hendry.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This Government are stringing terminally ill people and their families along. They already have the evidence from stakeholders and from what is happening in Scotland. When will they do what they should for these people and their families and scrap the six-month rule, get implicit consent in place, and make the situation one of fairness and dignity for people who are dying?
Justin Tomlinson
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work as chairman of the APPG. We do take things seriously, which is why we are doing this thorough evaluation. We are already working with organisations such as Marie Curie, the MND Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, Hospice UK, the Association for Palliative Medicine, Macmillan, the Queen’s Nursing Institute and Sue Ryder. We must get the balance right so that those who should be getting fast-track access to support are always prioritised, and we will be doing a thorough evaluation to ensure that we get that right.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
Justin Tomlinson
Part of the evaluation is about looking at the whole process, including not only the six-month rule but the process before and after. I believe that there has been a case in the right hon. Gentleman’ constituency, so it would be helpful to have further information on that as part of the evaluation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I call the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris); I am very grateful to him for proffering me a very effective throat remedy on Thursday.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
We are committed to ensuring that individuals receive high-quality assessments as part of the suite of evidence that decision makers can use to decide entitlement. Providers are closely monitored against a range of measures, including through independent audit, to improve the accuracy of the advice they provide to decision makers. We continually look to improve the efficiency of the assessment process by working closely with providers.
Grahame Morris
I listened intently to the Minister’s response, but my constituent has a series of complex and debilitating medical conditions and had been in receipt of disability benefit since 1994. At 60, when she had expected to retire, the Department for Work and Pensions declared her fit for work. Given that 74% of fit-for-work decisions were overturned on appeal in 2018-19, what confidence can the Minister give my constituent that there is equality and consistency of decisions on work capability assessments and, indeed, that the decision-making process is correct?
Justin Tomlinson
We strive to get the right decision first time, but we have to do much more to speed up the appeal process in the minority of cases where that does not happen. That is why we launched a series of pilots in the spring of mandatory reconsideration centres for both personal independent payment and work capability assessment, to ensure that we proactively gather the additional written and oral evidence that is often presented at the end of the independent appeal process, speeding up the process of ensuring that people get the right decision quickly.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I know the Minister is determined to see improvements in how decisions are made. Will he kindly update the House on the progress on introducing a single assessment service, which will greatly help the situation?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. She works tirelessly in this area and is held in great respect by all Members on both sides of the House.
The integrated assessment is looking at how, with the claimant’s permission, we can share the evidence they have already gathered. We know that the majority of successful appeals contain additional written and oral evidence, often because the claimant had previously struggled to get that evidence. If the evidence is already in the system, we should be making it as easy as possible for the claimant to use it a second time.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
Might I meet the Minister immediately after questions to give him a file of photographs of constituents who have failed to get any mobility component, even when they have foot bones coming through their flesh like in the photo I have here, so that we can have an urgent meeting to discuss how the procedure that we all wish to see is not currently operating?
Justin Tomlinson
I would be very happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman, who has a huge amount of expertise in this area. Of those who have transferred from disability living allowance to PIP, there are 144,000 claimants who were not on enhanced mobility under DLA but who now are under PIP.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
If a 16-year-old’s DLA stops before PIP starts, should not the contractor be made liable for the maintenance of that child until the PIP settlement is determined?
Justin Tomlinson
The two benefits link through together. It is set at 16 to allow time for adaptation, and we continue to work with stakeholders to make sure the process is as straightforward as possible.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Figures recently published by the Department reveal that disabled people are being forced to wait up to 69 days for their mandatory reconsideration for PIP. This process is a barrier to accessing vital social security and, for many, is a deliberate delay to the appeal process. As 85% of MR decisions are upheld, almost three quarters of PIP assessments are overturned on appeal. Will the Minister lay out his plans to improve this failing process, or will he follow Labour’s lead and scrap this unfit-for-purpose assessment?
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the need to improve mandatory reconsiderations, which is why we brought forward the pilots in the spring. The pilots are proactively gathering the additional written and oral evidence that was often presented at the end of the independent appeal process, which would sometimes take a year or even longer—that was not acceptable. We have been doing this over the summer, and we are now doing it for all PIP and work capability assessments. I attended a PIP mandatory reconsideration in Cardiff over the summer, and we are seeing some fantastic results because, rightly, we are speaking directly to claimants to ask them why they are challenging a decision. That will make a big difference, and stakeholders warmly welcome it.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
Universal credit targets additional support at a wider group than the system it replaces, with a much higher rate for severely disabled people than the employment and support allowance equivalent. Around 1 million disabled households will gain, on average, £100 a month on universal credit compared with legacy benefits.
Jessica Morden
It is shameful that it took the Government 15 months and a High Court ruling to sort out payments for those with severe disabilities, but it goes on. Why does a young constituent with Down’s syndrome who is making a new claim have to wait more than three months for a full payment?
Justin Tomlinson
We continue to work with stakeholders and claimants to make sure the system is improved and can operate as quickly as possible. I encourage Opposition Members to support the £600 million of additional support for the severe disability premium and not pray against those regulations.
Debbie Abrahams
Despite what the Minister says, the reality is that a new claimant on universal credit will be £180 a month worse off as a result of disability premiums not being available. That is in addition to the increasing number of disabled people who are dying after being found fit for work or being refused PIP. When will the Government ensure that disabled people are not discriminated against and are adequately resourced, as they would be under the Labour party’s policy?
Justin Tomlinson
This Government are spending an additional £9 billion per year—a record high of £55 billion—supporting those with disabilities and long-term health conditions. The universal credit rate for the most severely disabled is more than double the equivalent employment and support allowance group rate, at £336.20, compared with a legacy payment of just £167.05.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Universal credit ensures that support goes to those who need it, allowing 700,000 more people to receive benefits than did previously—this is worth approximately an extra £2.4 billion. Those who move to UC from legacy benefits and whose circumstances remain the same will be eligible for protection of their entitlement at the point of transition.
Patrick Grady
This is Challenge Poverty Week, and plenty of people are challenged by UC. They face what Citizens Advice Scotland describes as an “acute dilemma” between enforced hardship for five weeks, while there is no income whatsoever, and ongoing hardship if they choose to take out a loan and have to face reduced monthly payments while they pay back that loan for the first five weeks.
Guy Opperman
The situation is that this is an assessment period and no one has to wait to receive a UC payment; an advance of up to 100% is available to those in need, and significant funding has gone to Citizens Advice Scotland.
Martyn Day
Some 700,000 households yet to move to UC have insufficient savings to cover that five-week wait, which clearly proves that UC is not working. Will the Minister consider making that advance payment to claimants a non-refundable first UC payment?
Guy Opperman
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a managed migration pilot in Harrogate, where we are learning lessons, and I take on board the points he makes. That completes at the end of 2020 and, obviously, everyone not in the pilot stays on the legacy system as it currently runs.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
One important way for people on UC to build their financial resilience is through regular saving, although that can feel incredibly difficult for those on lower incomes. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s Help to Save scheme, which is precisely for people on tax credits and UC and which provides a 50% bonus on their savings, is a really important tool?
Guy Opperman
Just today, I met Toynbee Hall and other organisations that are championing the idea of Help to Save. It is making a massive difference, and it is linked to automatic enrolment and to various other schemes we are trying to pioneer in order to ensure that people have savings as well as UC.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I visited my local jobcentre, and it is very positive about the effects of UC. Specifically on financial resilience, how many people have been helped into work and the security of a regular pay packet as a result of UC?
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend makes the good point that hundreds of thousands of people have been helped into work, but more particularly this is about the difference between the current system and the legacy system: we now have a dedicated work coach and personalised support; we have scrapped the 16-hour cliff edge; there is more help with childcare; and we have given additional support that was never there under the legacy system.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Guy Opperman
If the individual case is sent to the Minister with responsibility for UC, they will take that up and respond accordingly.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
If people are paid on a four-week cycle, once a year they get paid twice in the same month, which disrupts the UC payment for two months. Will the Minister meet me to see what we can do to prevent these cash flow issues?
Guy Opperman
I take the point that my hon. Friend makes, in his usual astute way, and I know that the Minister concerned will be happy to have a meeting with him.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
Guy Opperman
As we discussed before the start of questions, the hon. Lady knows that I will soon write to her in great detail on those particular points. The individual issue is being addressed so that there is a much gentler way forward. We are reforming the way that advances are made so that there is no fraud involved in the process.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Ind)
I hope the Minister will forgive me, but I was hoping to address my question to the new Secretary of State. I am interested to know what she has learned so far about the five-week wait and the damage it does. People have more debt when they come on to universal credit than they had on legacy benefits, and the advance payment is another debt that must be repaid from a meagre amount of benefit, frozen for three years. When is the Secretary of State going to look into getting rid of the five-week wait so that people get non-repayable money into their pockets more swiftly? They cannot wait for five weeks.
Guy Opperman
I am sure the Secretary of State looks forward to appearing before the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, of which the hon. Lady is a member, next week.
An advance is available to people in the usual way. Supported by the Treasury Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee, we have brought in the Money and Pensions Service to provide debt advice and budgeting support for claimants. There is no doubt that the extra money for Help to Claim, which is administered by trusted providers—whether that is the citizens advice bureaux or Citizens Advice Scotland—is very much helping the process.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) said, it is Challenge Poverty Week in Scotland, and 400 events will take place to highlight the reality of living in poverty. One of the most significant push factors that take people into poverty has been the five-week waiting time between applying for universal credit and receiving it. Today, three quarters of a million households are unable to cover their outgoings during those five weeks and are trying to repay their universal credit advance. We know it, the public know it and I suspect the Department knows it; when will the Minister do something about it?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is an assessment period and no one has to wait to receive a UC payment. On migration, there will be a two-week run-on for both housing benefit and employment support benefits.
Brendan O’Hara
As part of Scotland’s Challenge Poverty Week, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has published a report that shows that the Scottish Government’s actions—such as the building of 87,000 affordable homes and the introduction of specific child poverty legislation—are making a real difference in tackling poverty. Given the fact that there is at least one Government on these islands who are determined to tackle the scourge of poverty in our society, is it not time for social security to be devolved fully to the Scottish Parliament?
Guy Opperman
There is much that I could say about the Scottish Government and their approach to welfare, but I will pass on that. The point is surely that this Government have introduced childcare changes, more employment and support on an ongoing basis, including through lower taxes. It is obvious that there is a benefit from the changes and advances we have made.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
Since 2010, there are over 3.7 million more people in work and 730,000 fewer children growing up in workless households. About three quarters of employment growth has been in full-time work, which has been proven to substantially reduce the risk of poverty. But it is not enough to have any job; we want people to have good jobs.
Mr Dhesi
With regard to in-work poverty, 20% of people in relative poverty in 2016-17 were single people without children and 11% were couples without children. The Government have done absolutely nothing to reverse cuts to work allowances for people without children who do not have a disability. What action is the Minister going to take to tackle in-work poverty among those people?
Will Quince
I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. We are committed to helping lone parents into a job that fits around their caring responsibilities. There are now more than 1.2 million lone parents in work. To support parents into work, the Government spend £6 billion on childcare each and every year.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Has the Minister read the report from the Resolution Foundation that stated:
“Low pay is falling for the first time in four decades”
and that women were the biggest beneficiaries? It pointed out that since the national living wage was introduced in 2016 the percentage of employees on low pay has fallen from 20.7% to 17.1% last year.
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I have not seen the report, so I will go away and dig it out. We have invested £8 million to develop the evidence on what works to support people to progress in work, including enhancing our operational capability to support claimants to make good decisions on job switching.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The thing is, it is really difficult for many families in my constituency on the minimum wage, as they may have to travel quite substantial distances to be able to work, while having to meet family responsibilities at the same time. They end up not being able to do enough hours to make the whole package add up at the end of the week. How are the Government going to make sure that such families have a chance to provide for themselves? That is all they are trying to do.
Will Quince
The statistics show that full-time work reduces substantially the chances of poverty. The absolute poverty rate for children where both parents work full-time is only 4%, compared with 44% where one or more parents are in work, so we need to support more people into work, and we are doing so, for example, by offering 30 hours of free childcare to parents of three and four-year-olds. The national living wage is £8.21, increasing to £10.50 by 2024, and we have taken millions out of paying tax altogether.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
This Government are committed to providing targeted support for all our young people, to give them the best chance of getting into work. That includes the youth obligation support programme, Jobcentre Plus support for schools, and the recently introduced mentoring circles.
Eddie Hughes
I thank the Minister for that answer. I welcome the Government funding given to Go Train, which provides recruitment and training services to businesses at no cost to business. Will she visit Walsall North in November, when a course will be provided specific to the Birchills area of my constituency?
Mims Davies
I was recently nearby, at one of our universal credit service centres, with my hon. Friend. It was absolutely clear that opportunities for young people in his constituency and the surrounding area are vital. The Department for Work and Pensions is working with the West Midlands Combined Authority to bring together local skills, employment support and Jobcentre Plus services. We are investing £1.2 million in the west midlands for extra resources, including helping young people to tackle the biggest hurdles to finding employment.
Mr Speaker
Ah yes, I shall be having a cup of tea or coffee with the mum of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) this week, so doubtless we shall compare notes on his inquiry. Huw Merriman.
Huw Merriman
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speaking of young people, they will welcome the decision to grant the living wage to people aged 21 to 25 at £10.50 an hour, but are the Government satisfied that there will not be any impact on young people and their job opportunities as a result of their being paid the same rate as those who have more experience in the workplace?
Mims Davies
I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement to bring more people, including younger people, into the scope of the national living wage over the next five years. Employers will continue to select the best person for the job, based on multiple factors. Like me, they will take confidence from the fact that young people will have a chance to take advantage of the support offered to make sure that they are ready to meet those challenges and be the best person for the job. So local labour markets will still be strong.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
When are we going to see a glimmer of passion from this Front Bench about young people who do not have any employment opportunities? Has the Minister looked at the report from the Children’s Commissioner that showed that 20% of kids come out of schools at this time with no qualifications? A lot of them are already on the skills journey in further education colleges, waiting to get an apprenticeship. What is she going to do about it?
Mims Davies
Wonderful passion—that is very much appreciated. And I make no apology for bringing passion to this new role when it comes to youth unemployment. In fact, I explicitly asked the Secretary of State if I could continue with my focus on young people in this role. Please do not forget that youth unemployment has almost halved since 2010 under this Government.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Minister may be aware of the talent match programme that was run in Greater Manchester in order to reach young people not in education, employment or training. We have learnt a great deal about how to ally industrial education and skills, and employment strategies, for that group as a result of that programme. Will the Minister look at devolving some of the initiatives that she has described to Greater Manchester, along with providing funding, so that we can do more to work at a sub-regional and city-regional level to support our young people effectively into employment?
Mims Davies
Place-based support and understanding is really important in devolving down and making changes on the ground. There is a great opportunity in the coming changes to the European social fund, in the shared prosperity fund and in the ability to work with local enterprise partnerships and local mayors, because young people may have fantastic employers around them, but never know that those opportunities exist.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Ind)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments about the national living wage and young people. On what evidence has she based the decision not to extend that down to 18, or is she perhaps considering providing the national living wage to those who are younger but still able to provide a great deal to employers in the workplace?
Mims Davies
My right hon. Friend knows that, if it were up to me, I would love to extend the national living wage down to 18, but sadly this is down to the Treasury; I will question the relevant Ministers accordingly.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Well-paid, secure work is a good route out of poverty, yet far too many young people—11%—are not in education, employment and training under this Government; or they are in low-paid jobs and on zero-hours contracts. Will the Minister press the Chancellor to set the national living wage at the same rate for all young people in work, as Labour has committed to do—£10 an hour in 2020?
Mims Davies
Everybody in this Chamber speaking up for our young people does all our communities a great service. We need a mixture of chances and opportunities for young people, including through mentoring. I am particularly interested in the work that we do with schools around engagement with jobcentres. [Interruption.] It is not all about money; it is also about skills and opportunities. I hear the hon. Gentleman, as do many colleagues, and I hope the Treasury will too.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
We have extended the right to request flexible working, abolished the default retirement age, and introduced and financed the returner programme. I have seen the success of the returner programme through the company Release Potential, which is based in my Hexham constituency and which I have seen help many people back into work.
Maria Caulfield
If WASPI women were successful in appealing last week’s Court ruling, would the Government abide by that judgment and compensate women accordingly?
Guy Opperman
I spent 20 years as a lawyer, and my last client was a Mr Ed Balls, when he was Secretary of State for Education. I can assure my hon. Friend that this Government will abide by court decisions and follow the law. If there are any changes—two independent High Court judges heard the case and made the decision— clearly the Government will obey that decision.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I have been contacted by my constituent, who said:
“I have to work as a cleaner and it is hard physical work. I am nearly 63 and getting health problems. Our retirement age has been changed and we have had little time to plan for this so have little alternative but to keep working.”
Does the Minister not get that the real injustice here is that so many women have had no time to plan their pensions, no time to plan their savings and no time to plan for their families, and were told in their late 50s that they would have to work for so much longer? The WASPI women are not going to go away, so when will the Minister give them a fair deal?
Guy Opperman
I say with great respect and gentleness that the right hon. Lady, I believe, served in the Department for Work and Pensions as a Minister during the period when the state pension age was raised by successive Labour Governments. The Court in the judgment last Thursday—[Interruption.] She asked me a question, and she should let me finish. The Court in the judgment last Thursday indicated that the state, including the Labour Government of 13 years, acted appropriately by giving due notification in the way that it did.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I accept everything that the Minister just said, but does he accept that successive Governments, despite their best efforts, failed to get the message across to enough people that the retirement age for women was rising exponentially? Will the Government try to look at some of the proposals from people such as Baroness Altmann for ways in which alternative schemes could mitigate the problems that have resulted?
Guy Opperman
With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I refer him to the judgment in last Thursday’s case, a copy of which I will place in the Library of the House of Commons—in particular, paragraph 118 and the successive paragraphs in which the High Court outlines the exact work that was done in copious detail.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Some 3.8 million women born in the 1950s who built Britain face hardship as a consequence of pension changes by this Government. Before the Court, they were told with cavalier disregard that they had no right to be consulted on the change of retirement age. Labour has already committed to some preliminary measures—early retirement and pension credit—and we will now consult with the women concerned about how much further we can go to bring justice to them. Thus far, the Government have committed to nothing. However, the Prime Minister said during the Conservative leadership contest that he is committed to doing “everything” he can to bring justice to the 1950s women. Can the Minister update the House on progress, or will this be another cynical broken promise on the part of the Prime Minister?
Guy Opperman
This is the matter of a court case which may be the subject of appeal. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman—who is, to his discredit, a friend of mine—the honest truth is that he should be consulting with a 1950s-born woman who was Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions: the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is also his wife and who was responsible for the continuation of the self-same policy that he now objects to. For 13 years, the Labour party did the perfectly proper thing of taking due account of equality and the rises in life expectancy, and it should stick to that, having made those decisions for 13 years.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
Universal credit takes earnings into account in a way that is fair and transparent. The amount of universal credit paid reflects as closely as possible the actual circumstances of a household during each monthly assessment period, including any earnings reported by the employer during the assessment period, regardless of when they were paid.
Jack Lopresti
Does my hon. Friend have any plans to introduce a mechanism to universal credit that allows claimants to move their review date?
Will Quince
As I said, monthly assessment periods align with the way that the majority of employees are paid and allow universal credit to be adjusted each month, which means that, if a claimant’s income falls, they will not have to wait several months for a rise in their UC. We have produced guidance to help to ensure that claimants, staff and representatives are aware of the importance of reporting accurate dates and the impact on payment cycles. I am conscious that my hon. Friend has written to me. I would be happy to meet him and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who also raised that issue.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I have been contacted by a number of constituents who have received unexpected pay—for example, holiday pay—during the assessment period. Because that pay is unexpected, it impacts on the amount of universal credit that they are awarded. What work is the Minister doing to ensure that unexpected pay, like holiday pay, will not severely impact their award?
Will Quince
As I have said, the amount of UC paid to claimants reflects as closely as possible the actual circumstances of a household during each monthly assessment period, and those periods align to the way that the majority of employees are paid. I recognise the issue. I have said that I am happy to meet two other colleagues, and I would be happy to also meet the hon. Lady.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I raised this issue with the Secretary of State’s predecessor in the run-up to Christmas last year because many enlightened employers will pay their staff early in December so they can afford Christmas. She told me it was fixed. However, I was phoned last week on my 24-hour helpline by a constituent who, because her partner was paid on the 28th of the month the previous month and on the 27th of the month subsequently, it appeared—to the computer at least—that they had had a 100% pay rise, and her benefit was cut to £11. Can we fix this, particularly before Christmas this year?
Will Quince
The simple answer to my right hon. Friend is yes, I am looking at ways in which we can do this. It is important to put this in context: UC replaces the outdated and complex benefits system, which too often stifled people’s potential, creating cliff edges at 16, 24 and 30 hours and punitive effective tax rates, of over 90% for some, punishing people for doing the right thing. UC seeks to take earnings into account in a way that is fair and transparent, and we want to preserve this simplicity as far as is possible.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Lisa Forbes (Peterborough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Universal credit payment timeliness continues to improve and is near a record high, with the most recent data showing we paid 83% of new claims in full and on time.
Tom Brake
Can I thank the Secretary of State for saving herself to answer my question? I welcome that. She will know that the five-week delay is still causing huge harm, so could I ask her what effort the DWP is making to ensure that UC recipients are not penalised by other organisations for the five-week gap in their incomes, and what extra support can the Government give to organisations that support universal credit recipients with financial management during this very difficult period?
Dr Coffey
It is important to recognise the help to claim—I think it is £39 million of support—that has been given through the citizens advice bureaux to try to help people who may not always be there with the paperwork that is required, so we are making best efforts so that people can make the right claims so they can be paid on time. As regards other elements, of course the advance is available, which can then be repaid over a 12-month period.
Lisa Forbes
With former Thomas Cook employees being offered food bank vouchers by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Trussell Trust in Peterborough reporting a 50% increase in the number of food parcels given to my constituents in the last year alone, can the Secretary of State tell us what impact she thinks the collapse of Thomas Cook will have on these figures?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady was at our first taskforce, and I am sure she will be impressed with the work that we have already been doing together, including the jobs fair that happened last Thursday. It is important, and we have seen this with Thomas Cook ex-employees, that they make a universal credit claim quickly—some of them have —so they can get the support that they need. I welcome, actually, the support that is given through the Trussell Trust in order to help people in this difficult time, but the sooner people come into Jobcentre Plus and start claiming universal credit, the sooner we can help.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Without giving this House a debate or a vote, as they had promised, the Government have pushed through regulations for the pilot of universal credit managed migration and payments to severely disabled people who lost out in being forced to transfer to universal credit. Will the Government explain why those payments still do not fully reflect the financial loss those disabled people have suffered?
Dr Coffey
There is an extra £600 million of support going to the most vulnerable. I really do want to encourage the Opposition to withdraw their early-day motion, because if they succeed in praying against this, they are hitting the most vulnerable people, and I am sure that is not something that they wish to be remembered for.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Department’s resource budget will increase by 1.9% ahead of inflation for the first time since 2011, enabling us to provide excellent customer service, help people move into and progress in work, and provide financial security through timely benefit payments. As part of this, the DWP has been allocated £106 million to support vulnerable people and help to tackle private rented sector housing affordability through additional funding for discretionary housing payments.
Alan Brown
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has highlighted that, with more social housing and lower housing costs, Scotland’s poverty figures are lower than the rest of the UK. The reality is that the biggest poverty factor is still Tory austerity. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that recent announcements will only mitigate a quarter of the cuts implemented since 2010. It is clear from the Secretary of State’s answer that a 1.9% increase is not enough. If austerity is really ending, when will the other three quarters of the cuts that have been implemented be reversed?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have lifted 400,000 people out of absolute poverty since 2010 and that income inequality has fallen. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to go back to the Scottish Government and see what more they are doing to increase the number of higher paid jobs, because we all know that the best way out of poverty is to work.
Marion Fellows
On this subject yet again, the spending round did nothing to address the cuts to the local housing allowance and the pressures on private renters, who are £38.49 a week worse off due to the UK Government’s benefits freeze. To ensure affordability and prevent evictions and hardship, will the Secretary of State immediately increase the LHA to the pre-2010 level, and uprate it in line with inflation and rent increases?
Dr Coffey
I have just laid out that we increased the amount of money for discretionary housing payments. I have spoken to Shirley-Anne Somerville, the Scottish Minister, and it is my intention to see her soon, but the hon. Lady knows there are things the Scottish Government can do with the funding they have.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
We have made significant progress to improve support and have seen the number of working age disabled people in employment increased by over 1 million in the last six years. However, we continue to focus on improving our services for those who use them. This includes the current consultation on measures aimed at reducing ill health-related job losses.
Steve Double
I thank the Minister for that answer. What specific help is available to young people with disabilities to support them into work?
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is right to highlight this very important area and I am very proud that I helped to champion disability apprenticeships. Through the Access to Work scheme, which is now seeing record numbers benefiting, we saw a 34% increase in 16 to 24-year-olds using it, opening up more opportunities for employment.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The catalogue of the Department for Work and Pensions’ own failings has created a hostile environment for disabled people. Figures released this year show that almost 6,000 people died within six months of being found fit for work. The announcement of the new independent serious case panel lacks any meaningful detail, terms of reference or purpose. Will the Minister confirm whether the new panel will review previous social security benefit deaths, and will he set out what the statement of purpose is for the new independent panel?
Justin Tomlinson
We work all year round with claimants, stakeholders and charities—organisations with real-life experience—to help to improve not only the training but the understanding of all areas of disability and health conditions. We back that with genuine financial support. The Government now spend £55 billion a year, 2.5% of all Government spending and 6% of GDP—a record high, at £9 billion in real terms, to support people with disabilities.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
It is a priority for this Government to provide swift access to support those who need it, while protecting those same people from potentially fraudulent behaviour. If a claimant does not have the documentary evidence we need, we can verify by using: biographical tests and checks, and information held on the Department’s systems; confirmation of third-party organisations; and two members of jobcentre staff knowing and recognising the claimant as part of their work.
Chi Onwurah
This is not what is happening in practice. Constituents are coming to me who have had their claims denied or who have just been turned away and told, “Go and find the documentation.” Newcastle citizens advice bureau also reflects that. Will the Minister guarantee that no vulnerable claimant will be turned away because of not having the right documentation? Will she write to me with the number of those who have had their claims denied because of a lack of documentation, so we can see the size of the problem?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I know she is passionate about her constituency. It is absolutely right that there is a balance, but to get a universal credit claim right we need to ensure we verify the identities of all vulnerable people. We heard earlier about the challenge if a claim is made fraudulently. We must be able to understand when there is a particular need to intervene. As we heard earlier, home visits are possible in relation to Help to Claim. If she would like to give me the details, I am very happy to look into this matter further.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) can legitimately shoehorn his Question 19 into this exchange.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Mims Davies
The Department is absolutely committed to making sure that we have the most compassionate and approachable opportunities for people to claim in every single constituency. I have met work coaches—from Scotland to Crawley to Walsall—who are dealing with this day to day, and the Help to Claim scheme backs that up.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
This Government take child poverty extremely seriously. The evidence shows that work is the best route out of poverty and that there are 730,000 fewer children in workless households compared with 2010, but there is more to do—one child in poverty is one too many—and this is a key priority for me and the Secretary of State. I will continue to work with colleagues from across the House, other Government Departments and stakeholders to identify and tackle the root causes of poverty.
Stephen Morgan
Children are not getting the nutrition that they need on the 170 days a year when they are not at school. Local authorities and devolved Governments are tackling this issue head on; why are this Government not doing so?
Will Quince
This is probably a question for the Department for Education, but we are supporting more than 1 million children with free school meals, investing up to £26 million in school breakfast clubs and providing approximately 2.3 million four to six-year-olds with a portion of fresh fruit or vegetables each day at school. Through the Healthy Start programme, hundreds of thousands of low-income families benefit from vouchers that can be redeemed against fruit, vegetables, milk and infant formula.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Child poverty is being driven up by the five-week delay during which people have to wait before they receive universal credit. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that what Ministers refer to as an advance is in fact a loan that has to be repaid by claimants, and will he commit to scrapping the five-week delay?
Will Quince
I think that this one has been answered several times already, but advance payments of up to 100% are available from day one of a universal credit claim and budgeting support is available for anyone who needs extra help. The repayment time for the advances has been extended to 12 months and will be further extended to 16 months from October 2021.
Mr Speaker
There was a discernible world-weariness in the Minister’s reference to this question having been answered several times already. I simply remind those observing our proceedings that repetition is not a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons. It never has been, and I doubt that things are going to change very much.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
An article in The BMJ shows that researchers have highlighted a possible link between an increase in the number of babies who die before their first birthday and child poverty. They estimate that there were an additional 570 excess deaths between 2014 and 2017, with 172 attributable to an increase in child poverty, so will the Minister scrap the two-child limit and the benefit cap, which are driving up child poverty?
Will Quince
I humbly suggest that few Members in the Chamber have raised child and infant mortality more than I have. I take the issue incredibly seriously and I have read that report. No one in government wants to see poverty rising. Wages have outpaced inflation for 18 months, and there are more people in work than ever before. We know that children in households in which no one works are about five times more likely to be in poverty than those in households in which all adults work. Our welfare reforms are incentivising work and supporting working families.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, leading a fantastic Department that serves people from the Shetlands to the Scilly Isles, with more than 20 million customers across the country. In my short time in this role, I have already witnessed at first hand the inspiring and incredible work of civil servants throughout the country, and they are benefiting as well in seeing our employment rate continuing at a joint record high and an unemployment rate at its lowest since the ’70s. There is more to do, however, and I will keep focusing on improving the payment of universal credit and ensuring that we support everyone in society.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s sunny disposition in outlining her priorities, but the retirement plans of millions of women born in the 1950s are in ruins because of a decision by the previous Conservative-Lib Dem coalition Government to accelerate the increases in the state pension age. Last week, a decision in the High Court made it clear that only a political decision could deliver a just solution for these women, so will the Government now give the WASPI women dignity in retirement? Some 197 MPs have signed early-day motion 63 calling for justice for the WASPI women and for this historic injustice to be put right.
Dr Coffey
The High Court set out quite clearly that successive Governments had taken a measured approach in recognising the inequality in the state pension age and the need to increase the state pension age. Indeed, it was the Pensions Act 2007 that started the trigger going beyond 65. It is important to recognise that and the efforts made to communicate it, but I can assure the House that, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there are record numbers of women in employment. We will continue to support them in fulfilling their careers.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to praise the people who work for the DWP in his constituency. We have more than 4,000 civil servants in service centres nationally and we constantly monitor the volume of work as universal credit grows, but I assure him that sufficient resources will be in place to support those workers in his constituency.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (LD)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady and her colleague. We are determined to continue to improve PIP—31% of claimants now access the highest rate of support, compared to just 15% under the legacy benefits—but I would welcome any additional information.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
As we have heard, many 1950s-born women have now reached the age at which they expected to receive a pension but are not, and many are struggling. Given that the judicial review is now out of the way, will the new Secretary of State agree to meet me and my co-chair of the all-party group on state pension inequality for women, the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), to discuss the proposals in the transitional arrangement document we produced? Can she also give us an estimate of how many women are affected in this way and whether they are in work?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
On Friday, I visited the new Barnstaple Work Club, a fantastic initiative giving support to those seeking employment, particularly those with disabilities. Will the Minister join me in welcoming this new initiative and in thanking the volunteers as well as Barnstaple library for hosting it?
Justin Tomlinson
It would be a pleasure to thank those volunteers doing so much to create new opportunities for disabled people, which is something I know my hon. Friend, as their MP, regularly champions, as I have seen at first hand on some very good visits there.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman that secure and stable accommodation is one route out of poverty. It will come as no surprise to him that I raise this issue regularly with my counterpart at the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I have been pushing the Ministry to consider providing more affordable homes, and homes for social rent, as one of its policy initiatives.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for youth employment, I warmly welcome the Minister’s announcement about additional support for our young people. Can he confirm that mentoring will be an important part of that, given that it has been proved that it will help, in particular, those furthest from the labour market and the most vulnerable into work?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. In the middle of last year, there were 63 new mentoring circles in operation. The circles originally focused on the race disparity audit, but they are now being rolled out across the country, as was agreed last January. I recently met the members of one circle in Basingstoke, where they were having a real effect on local young people who know what is around them. Mentors, businesses and employers can do a great deal to change young people’s lives locally.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will Quince
Childcare provision is far more generous under universal credit than it was under the legacy benefits system. Another recent change is that the flexible support fund can now be used to pay deposits or first month’s payments.
Mr Speaker
I call Toby Perkins. [Interruption.] I did not call a Conservative Member because I know that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) is normally paying the closest possible attention, and none of the hon. Members sitting on the Government Benches wished to contribute to the proceedings. I therefore alighted on the oratorical opportunities offered by the hon. Gentleman.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
That is simply not the case. The first time that I became involved with a food bank was in 2006, when people were falling between the gaps. One of the things that make me proudest of the Conservative Government and the coalition is that people are better off in work than out of it unless they cannot work, and we have championed the vulnerable. Universal credit is ensuring that people can have more and more income, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important issue. We have doubled the number of disability employment specialist advisers, and we are ensuring that we do everything in our power to identify claimants who need additional support. That is a real priority for us.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Dr Coffey
The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are still in the middle of a negotiation for how we leave the European Union at the end of the month. It is important to stress that we have decided on a three-year rise unilaterally. We encourage other European Union countries to do exactly the same and we will continue to support those who have relied on UK pensions.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
People with a terminal illness want the choice of whether to work or not, and they should expect help and support from their employer. Does the Minister support the TUC’s Dying to Work campaign, which asks businesses to sign up and promise not to sack employees who have a terminal illness, and will she encourage more businesses to sign it?
Justin Tomlinson
The TUC has done really good work here. We are working with employers to highlight the importance of making those sorts of changes, and this is an area where I am sure there would be cross-party support.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
There are over 5,700 WASPI women in Inverclyde. Many have worked their entire adult lives. They have paid their dues and they were expecting a pension, not a benefit. If we mucked around with MPs’ pensions in the same fashion, many Government Members would be standing and asking questions. Will the Secretary of State commit to undertaking an impact assessment for all women affected by changes in the state pension age and, once completed, offer a payment acknowledging any disadvantages caused?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be speaking to his own Government, who have the power under sections 24, 26 and 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 to take interventions and address the problem that he has raised.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Why are the Government not tracking young people when they leave the youth obligation? As such, how do they know whether the scheme works? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. This is very unseemly. The hon. Lady was asking her question and there is a lot of very noisy chuntering taking place between the SNP Benches and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who luxuriates in the lather of the Treasury Bench. It is very unfair on the hon. Lady, very unseemly and very uncharacteristic of the hon. Gentleman, who is normally a most emollient fellow.
Mims Davies
The youth obligation programme is now being fully rolled out and looks at 18 to 24-year-olds making a new claim on universal credit. We had an internal evaluation report in April 2018 that identified a need for what the hon. Lady raises. We believe it is too soon to be looking at this, but I know that she and I share a great interest in how we can support our young people, and I am happy to speak to her further about this.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
One way that the Government could start to put right the injustices done to the women born in the early ’50s who were denied their pensions is to have a discussion with their colleagues in the Department for Transport and local authorities and provide free bus passes. That would help them a lot.
Guy Opperman
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the judgment given by the High Court on Thursday and, obviously, any individual local authorities that wish to address that point in a particular way.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) is being addressed by her leader, which is a very solemn matter. Nevertheless, I intrude, in the hope that she still wishes to ask a question.
Christine Jardine
Further to the points already raised by other hon. Members, there are 6,500 women in Edinburgh West who were born in the 1950s and who have been affected by last week’s Court judgment. Can the Secretary of State assure me that, in the meeting that she has agreed to with the chairs of the APPG, there will be a meaningful attempt to address the poverty that these women face and not just sweep it under the carpet like an inconvenient problem?
Dr Coffey
I refer the hon. Lady to the judgment that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), has already raised. She might also wish to speak to her party leader, because she joined me in the Division Lobby when we made the changes that we did in the Pensions Act 2011. [Interruption.] Or rather, at least that the coalition Government did. I wish to make sure that we have a sensible conversation going forward, but the judgment stands. It is open for the ladies to appeal, but I can assure the House that we have made every effort, as did the Labour Government before us, to ensure that people knew about these changes.
Petition
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to present a petition entitled, “Call to revoke the decision to reclassify Ministers of Religion under immigration rules” on behalf of the residents of Glasgow North East at St Augustine’s parish church, Milton, Glasgow.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of Glasgow North East,
Declares that visiting clergy offer respite to dedicated Ministers and bring enormous cultural benefit to the communities they serve; and further that the introduction of severe conditions regarding English language proficiency and the sharp rise in fees for visas for Ministers of Religion would cause detriment to the communities they wish to serve.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Minister for Immigration, the hon. Member for South Ribble, to revoke the decision to reclassify visiting Ministers of Religion as being Tier 2 visitors under immigration rules.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002526]
Withdrawal Agreement: Proposed Changes
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union if he will make a statement on when the Government intend to publish the full legal text of their proposed changes to the withdrawal agreement and political declaration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)
We are unconditionally committed to finding a solution for the north-south border that protects the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the commitments that can best be met if we explore solutions other than the backstop. The backstop risks weakening the delicate balance embodied in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement between both main traditions in Northern Ireland, grounded in agreement, consent and respect for minority rights. Any deal for Brexit on 31 October must avoid the whole UK, or just Northern Ireland, being trapped in an arrangement without consent in which it is a rule taker. Both sides have always been clear that the arrangements for the border must recognise the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland and, reflecting that, be creative and flexible. Under no circumstances will the United Kingdom place infrastructure checks or controls at the border.
On Wednesday 2 October, the Government proposed a new protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. These were serious and realistic proposals that reflect the core aims put forward by both the UK and the EU. These proposals are consistent with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and deliver our aim of avoiding any checks or infrastructure at the border. The proposals were set out in detail in an explanatory note and in a letter to the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. The Prime Minister deposited both documents in the Library on Wednesday 2 October and published them in parallel on gov.uk. To support these negotiations, a draft legal text was also shared with the Commission on a confidential basis. The Prime Minister’s Europe adviser, David Frost, and UK officials have been in intensive discussions with the Commission for some time now and will continue to meet their counterparts from taskforce 50 for further technical talks this week. These meetings will cover our proposals on the protocol and the political declaration to reflect the goal of a comprehensive free trade agreement.
The previous withdrawal agreement and political declaration would have trapped the United Kingdom within European regulation and customs arrangements. The Prime Minister is continuing talks with the EU leaders today, including the Prime Minister of Sweden, the Prime Minister of Denmark and the Prime Minister of Poland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is also travelling to EU capitals, including visiting Amsterdam and Valletta over the course of this week. Discussions with the Commission are ongoing and thus sensitive, and we must ensure that we as a Government act in a way that maximises our chance of success in these negotiations. We will of course keep the House informed as the discussions continue. The legal text that we have shared with the Commission will only be published when doing so will assist the negotiations.
We hope that those in Brussels will decide to work with us over the upcoming days. If they do, we will leave with a new deal. If they do not want to talk, we are prepared to leave without a deal. We need to get a new deal or a deal, but no more delays. We must get Brexit done so that the country can move forward and focus on other issues, such as the cost of living, the NHS and other domestic priorities.
Keir Starmer
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. The Government have presented the EU with a 44-page legal text, a seven-page memorandum and a four-page letter. In this House, we have seen the memorandum and the letter, but not the full legal text. Frankly, that is not good enough, because without the full legal text, we are being asked to guess at the detail of the Government’s proposals, or, worse, we are being asked to take the Prime Minister’s word on it. We do not want a summary. We do not want the Prime Minister’s interpretation of the text. We need to see the full legal text. And it matters, because there appears to be what the Taoiseach has called a “contradiction”—his word—between what the Prime Minister tells the House and the words of the legal text.
Last week, in response to a question from the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), the Prime Minister said that “the proposals we”—that is, the Government—
“are putting forward do not involve physical infrastructure at or near the border or indeed at any other place.”—[Official Report, 3 October 2019; Vol. 664, c. 1389.]
I noted the words used by the Minister just now, and I hope he can clarify this. The contradiction the Taoiseach appears to be highlighting is that the legal text may say something different on that very issue, and the Minister will know just how important that is.
Can the Minister now clear the issue up at the Dispatch Box? Does the full legal text bear out the Prime Minister’s assertion to the House that his proposals do not entail physical infrastructure at the border, near the border or in any other place? That is what he said, and that is what prompted the Taoiseach to say that the full text should be published. That goes to the heart of the only defence the Minister has put forward—that of confidentiality.
Both the Taoiseach and the President of the EU Commission have called for the legal text to be published. That shoots through the confidentiality argument. They want us to see the text so that we can properly debate and scrutinise what the Government are putting forward. The only party insisting on secrecy are the UK Government, so the question is obvious: what are the Government hiding?
Then there is the question of a level playing field. As the House knows, no Labour MP could support a deal that strips away or undermines workers’ rights, environmental protections or consumer rights, yet that is the very—[Interruption.] I hear the claims that it does not. If it does not, the Government should publish the text and assure the House. Before I first came to the House, and since I have been in the House, I have dealt with summaries and interpretations of texts, and I have seen texts, and there are differences between the full text and somebody’s summary or interpretation. If it is clear that the text does not undermine workplace rights, environmental rights and consumer rights, the Government should publish it and assure the House. What is being hidden? Will the Minister agree now to do the right thing and publish the full legal text forthwith?
James Duddridge
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for those comments. Last week, I was able to tell the House that proposals would be tabled to the EU by the end of the week. Not only were we able to table those proposals, but we were able to publish them and share them with the House. It is the Government’s intention to share as much as possible, but at a time that is right, and not at a time when getting a good negotiation through takes precedence.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the Prime Minister’s position in relation to his assertion that there would be no checks at the border, near the border or at any other place. I have not seen the Taoiseach’s exact comments, but I can confirm that the position that the Prime Minister stated is still correct today and is the Government’s position, and I see no reason why that is going to change.
In relation to level playing fields, we are not hiding anything. We do not wish to undermine workers’ rights. We will keep those workers’ rights. Truth will tell over time, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman sees the results of the negotiation. He wants a deal, and I want a deal. The Government genuinely do not think that sharing the full text now will make doing a deal more likely.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister’s statement in response to the urgent question, and we all hope for no further delays on the Brexit negotiation. Is he aware that business groups across the country want certainty, to allow them to plan for the future? What discussions has he had with them to reassure them?
James Duddridge
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. Clearly, he has been talking to business groups in his constituency. Businesses certainly do want certainty, and whether it is meetings with business groups in England, Northern Ireland or Wales, everyone wants to get Brexit done. The last thing they want is more delay. We have had delay and delay and delay, and the answer to delay cannot be more delay.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I congratulate the Minister on managing not once but twice to include all this week’s Brexit buzzwords in such a short but, I am sorry to say, not particularly informative answer.
The Government have made public only their version of a seven-page explanatory document based on a full 44-page legal text. Last week, a number of Government loyalists criticised Opposition Members for saying we were likely to oppose the Prime Minister’s plan before we had read it properly. They then went ahead and committed themselves to supporting it before they had read it properly—they cannot have seen it or read it properly, because nobody has seen it yet.
It is simply not acceptable for us to be asked to commit to support something based on the Prime Minister’s version of what it says, because none of us can trust what he tells us. Last week, he twice gave us a promise from the Dispatch Box—once to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and once to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady)—that the Government are going to restore full control of Scotland’s fishing to the people of Scotland. If only that were true.
The Taoiseach told us that the Prime Minister’s version of what is in the 44-page confidential document was not accurate. The Prime Minister told us last week that there would be no checks on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but even the seven-page summary tells us that that was not true.
Does the Minister not accept that if he is to have any hope of Parliament agreeing to the withdrawal agreement, he must trust Parliament and allow us to see the full agreement now, not at the last minute when there is no time to read 44 pages of detail? When will the document be published? When can we expect to be asked to vote on the deal? How much notice will we have regarding the detailed legal text? Going back to the question that is still being dodged, does the Prime Minister’s proposal mean that there will be additional infrastructure anywhere in relation to the Irish border? If so, where will it be?
James Duddridge
The legal text will come forward at the right time. The hon. Gentleman is critical of Tory Members for supporting the Prime Minister before seeing all the detail, but I would not be critical. Indeed, I suggest that my hon. Friends should always support the Prime Minister as a matter of default. I understand that SNP Members will be more sceptical, but they will have all the information in front of them before they are asked to vote. However, we will not provide the legal text if it gets in the way of the negotiations and the deal, which I think the hon. Gentleman would want.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
As the Government approach the final stages of the negotiations to get the necessary changes to the backstop, is it not the case that if the EU believes that this House will not support the Government’s deal, it is less likely that a deal will be achieved? We have heard people say, month after month, that they want the Government to negotiate a deal, so I say to Opposition Members who, like me, want a deal that now is the moment to speak up and support the Government in getting that deal.
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Now is the time for a deal, but the way that the House has behaved has made a deal less likely and made it more likely that we will have no deal. However, it is not too late. The Government are reaching out across the Chamber to our friends on the other side, saying, “Join us in supporting a deal. It is the right thing for the country.”
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Earlier this year, the Government said that if we left the EU with a deal, we would keep our world-leading standards and rights on food, quality, employment and environmental protections. That commitment was pretty flimsy then, but people now fear that it has been ditched in desperation, and the Government will not even publish the text. The public have a right to know whether the Prime Minister is prepared to sacrifice the quality of food on supermarket shelves, the rights of workers to take holiday and our children’s right to breathe clean air.
James Duddridge
We are supposed to be temperate in our language, but, quite frankly, that is a load of rubbish. That is not our intention, and if our constituents are worried and scared as a result of what the Liberal Democrats say, that is a terrible thing; it simply is not true.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I said from this spot a few weeks ago that it did not matter what the Government brought back, because there are Members in here representing leave seats who will always find a reason to vote against what the Government bring forward, because their real aim is to stop us leaving. Is it not the ultimate irony that the people who are giving the biggest croggy to a no-deal Brexit are the very people who repeatedly stand up and tell us that we have to vote for compromise but then vote against any compromise—any deal—that is put on the table?
James Duddridge
My hon. Friend is right. That is a particular problem with the Liberal Democrats who, for perfectly respectable reasons, do not want a no-deal exit but who will not back a deal. It makes sense for us all to get behind a deal, which is better than no deal. That is what the Government want to do, and we reach out to all Members to support a deal.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Something does not quite add up on there being no physical infrastructure at any other place, which is probably one reason why the Government’s proposals are currently not acceptable to the European Union. The Prime Minister told the BBC last week that
“there will have to be a system, for customs checks away from the border.”
The explanatory note says that such checks will
“take place at traders’ premises or other designated locations… Goods moved under either mechanism would be under customs supervision by one or other customs authority from the point at which they are declared for export until they are cleared by customs in the territory of import for free circulation”.
Can the Minister name any jurisdiction in the world where there are customs checks but no customs infrastructure?
James Duddridge
The Government are looking for a tailored solution. Of all the trade between the UK and Northern Ireland, only 1% of goods cross the border. As well as trusted trader schemes, goods could be examined by authorities at commercial sites run by hauliers and freight forwarding companies. That is already provided for under existing transit rules, under which logistics services are commonly approved as authorised consignees for these very purposes. It already happens.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Were any of the frightful diminution of rights mentioned by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) to occur, it would clearly require primary legislation by this Parliament, wouldn’t it?
James Duddridge
Yes. We would not propose it; I would not support it; and I do not think my right hon. Friend would support it. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats can say whether they would support it.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
We know the Prime Minister thinks that preparation is just for girly swots, but at least the last Prime Minister gave us a 90-page White Paper on her proposals and we got to see them at the same time as the European partners. Here we are, 11 days before the summit, and we have this pathetic rag—four pages—and an explanatory note. It would be comical if the Good Friday agreement and the promises contained therein did not rest on this. Can the Minister explain the magic thinking by which we have a border down the Irish sea and a border on the island of Ireland without border posts?
James Duddridge
I acknowledge, as I think the whole House would, that we are working to a compressed timescale compared with the previous negotiations, but those negotiations were not successful. Following the same tack in our negotiating strategy and expecting a different result would be foolish. It is time for a change of tack in the negotiations, which I welcome.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
As a member of the “MPs for a Deal” group, it would make my life easier if we were to include environmental and workers’ protections, as requested by many Opposition Members, but does the Minister agree that the right place for those protections is probably in the political declaration?
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for her work with the “MPs for a Deal” group, which brings together MPs from across a number of political parties. I welcome her introduction of the political declaration, as getting that right will set the tone going forward from 1 November, after we have left on 31 October, and will form the basis of the future economic partnership and the first-in-class free trade agreement that most hon. Members want.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response to our questions, and I wish him well in his job. Can he confirm that there is no intention to change the original position that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will take back control of our seas and our fisheries, enabling our fishing sector to grow and create jobs, and that we, the citizens of this great nation, will be in charge and in control?
James Duddridge
I can give the hon. Gentleman that confirmation, but I encourage him to discuss the detail with my colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. If that is not to his satisfaction, I will be happy to talk to him about fishing rights or impact at the same time.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the agenda of Members from the Opposition parties to overturn the referendum result, put a stop to Brexit and revoke article 50? Will he confirm that this Government and this Prime Minister will not let that happen?
James Duddridge
With great sadness, I can confirm that I fear that some Members on the Opposition Benches and in this House simply do not want to follow the mandate of the British people. They do not want to exit and they will use every trick and turn in the book to frustrate it. That is not to say that there are not some genuine concerns, and I recognise those, but she is right: some people, having offered the referendum to the electorate, do not like the result and are trying to interfere and overturn the democratic will of the public.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm whether the full legal text has been shown to the Democratic Unionist party? If it has, why is it reasonable for one party to be able to make an informed judgment about the Government’s proposals while everyone else is kept in the dark?
James Duddridge
I am not going to get into the detail of—[Interruption.] Opposition Members who have been Ministers will realise that lots of people see documents, and Ministers do not constantly want to be in the position of saying who has seen what documents, which versions and when. I will not comment on who has seen which documents or indeed on documents that I have seen or have not seen.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I love the way that Opposition parties are implying that if only they could see these documents, they would rush to support the deal. I think the British public are now wise to the way in which Parliament has frustrated the Government’s negotiating position. Would it be possible for the Government to strengthen their negotiating hand by holding a vote on these proposals, in the way that we did on the Brady amendment in January, and show that there is a majority in this place for them?
James Duddridge
I think members of the public are getting wise to what is going on: this Government are trying to deliver Brexit and this Parliament, collectively, is trying to frustrate it. My hon. Friend raises the interesting solution of putting this to a vote, and I will discuss that with my ministerial colleagues.
James Duddridge
I have already said that I will not comment on which documents I have and have not seen, or which versions I have and have not seen. This is a document that we are negotiating on. It makes sense to look at that document, negotiate on that document and come back to the House with a final document. This House does not want a blow-by-blow account; it wants to deliver a deal.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
As has been said by honourable colleagues on the Government Benches, it is a well-known fact, and the public are not fooled, that most MPs in this place—in all positions in this place—do not want to leave the EU. That is a dishonourable stance to take, after the EU referendum. Will my hon. Friend reassure the public and us that we will honour this referendum and leave the EU, with or without a deal, on 31 October?
James Duddridge
I can reassure the people of Dorset and the United Kingdom that we will be leaving on 31 October. Our preference is to do so with a deal, but we are very much ready to leave with no deal.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)
I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you may not have heard the use of the word “dishonourable” to describe those of us who think that our great country has made a mistake and are doing nothing more than speaking out with the freedom that I thought was at the heart of our democracy. I would have hoped that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) might have withdrawn his comments. In any event, it is very odd that we are all being asked to support a deal, the details of which we know very little of, unless of course our name is Arlene Foster. We want to know the details of these customs arrangements, and of the structures and infrastructure, because of the position in other countries, notably Norway and Sweden. Sweden is a member of the single market and the customs union, and Norway is in the single market but not the customs union, and they have a hard border. May we therefore have these unicorn details please?
James Duddridge
I must say that although I am reaching out across the Floor, I have given up on reaching out to the right hon. Lady. There are many Opposition Members and there is still hope for people who will support a plan, but I suspect that under no circumstances will she support a plan, regardless of what we produce and what it says.
Mr Speaker
That may well be true but I hope that the right hon. Lady, who is not too delicate a flower, can bear the almost unendurable pain of the criticism of the Minister with such stoicism and fortitude as she feels able, in the circumstances, to muster.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Last week, the Leader of the Opposition said that no self-respecting Labour MP could vote for the proposals, yet we are now being pressed on a confidential document, the production of which would undermine yet again our negotiating position. Does the Minister agree that to reveal the documents would make no deal more likely?
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for asking that question. No deal is indeed made more likely by the House not supporting the Government’s position. As for the Leader of the Opposition, I think that MPs and the public are coming around to the idea that he is flip-flopping on these issues left, right and centre, and want a general election so that they can re-elect a Government with a strong Conservative majority.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
A few days ago, I asked the Minister whether the term “infrastructure” included cameras. He was not quite sure at the time; now that he has had a few days to go away and look it up, will he give us an answer?
James Duddridge
I do not think I said that I was not quite sure. I think I used the words, “It would have been something that was considered,” but that the House should not read anything into that in any way. I think that is what I said, virtually verbatim, and that remains the position.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I wonder whether the Minister could help the House. Opposition Members say that they are not supporting a deal because they are worried about workers’ rights, yet if we had a deal, it would be this House that would decide on workers’ rights, and if they were ever in government, they could do whatever they liked. Can we conclude only that the Opposition do not think they will ever be in government?
James Duddridge
I think everyone in the House believes in higher protections for workers’ rights and maintaining and expanding them over time. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the Opposition’s level of confidence: not only are they not confident that they will be in government to improve workers’ rights, but they do not seem to be confident that they will even win a general election. They are running scared of going back to the people because they know that they are trying to overturn the will of the people who wanted Brexit.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Paragraph 13 of the memo issued last week confirms that even if the European Union agrees to the proposals, and even if Parliament then agrees them, they would not come into force for more than a year, unless they had also been endorsed by the Northern Ireland Executive, which has not met for several years. Will the Minister confirm that if the Northern Ireland Executive continues to fail to meet, the proposals automatically fall away after 12 months?
James Duddridge
The right hon. Gentleman is right: we are in a constrained period and we are trying to do an unprecedented amount of work. Even separate to the problem of which he speaks directly, there are already many hurdles to get over, but we will work together with all our partners to re-form Stormont—that is our priority in relation to Northern Ireland—so that we can get this deal through.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
In the most recent general election, more Chelmsford constituents emailed me about the environment and animal welfare than about all other issues put together. I am enormously proud of the way in which the Government are leading the world on protecting the environment and on endangered species. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Lib Dem’s suggestion that this deal, which is to resolve the issues on the Irish border, could somehow be used to undermine our standards on the environment, animal welfare or workers’ rights is pure scaremongering and totally irresponsible?
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We will maintain environmental and animal welfare standards. I know that she works tirelessly to improve those standards, both in Chelmsford and with Back Benchers. I remember many a campaign that she has led in her time in the House of Commons, particularly on environmental issues, recycling, and changing behaviours and perceptions. I thank her for that work, and there is nothing in this process that means that we are going to go back on any of those commitments. In fact, the Government are committed to going further, as she has demanded.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (LD)
It is almost as if members of the Government have been taking lessons dancing around slippery poles this afternoon. Essentially, we do not have a credible deal, because there are no customs borders anywhere in the world without some form of physical infrastructure. We have a Government who are still insisting that they will obey law, but only those parts that it chooses to obey. Will the Minister at least confirm that the Government will comply with the spirit and the provisions of the Benn Act in full?
James Duddridge
In answer to the latter question, yes. When it comes to slippery poles, the thing that is slippery is introducing a ten-minute rule Bill to say that if hon. Members, for whatever reason, cross the Floor of the House and leave their party they should stand in a by-election, then not doing that when she crosses the Floor of the House. That is slippery.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Minister had a strong outing on this subject on 26 September—a date that I happen to remember. Today, I noticed a subtle difference in his wording, as he talked about our leaving with a deal or being “prepared” to leave without a deal on 31 October. Will he confirm not only that we are prepared to leave without a deal on 31 October but that we will actually leave without a deal on 31 October, unless we have deal?
James Duddridge
I thank my right hon. Friend, and confirm that nothing has changed since his birthday—I think that that was what he was referring to. Apologies for not congratulating him at the time. My language was not nuanced in any way. We will be leaving on 31 October with a deal or without a deal.
Mr Speaker
If I were charitable, I would say that the right hon. Gentleman turned 58 on 26 September, but I am afraid that I must not mislead the House. [Interruption.] I call Chris Bryant.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May I ask about the political declaration, which is of as much concern to many of us as other elements of the withdrawal agreement? The former Prime Minister was quite right to say that if there is no deal, there is no deal on security. All the elements of security are shunted forward into the political declaration. I wonder where we are with extradition, because since the original version of the political declaration was signed, four major European countries have said that they will not on any terms extradite their nationals to the UK if we are no longer members of the European Union. Will that not pose a significant problem for us if we want people to face justice in this country?
James Duddridge
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. Obviously, the broader case is that the convention of the ’50s on extradition will come into play. There is a problem with four or five countries, and we are having discussions with them. They are quite significant difficulties, as they concern constitutional arrangements, but there are other arrangements that are not entirely satisfactory to try people in their home country that can be used if we do not secure a workaround. It is not ideal, but there are workarounds, and we are progressing them.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Will the Minister update the House on the volume of trade that would be subject to special customs arrangements that have attracted so much heat and light in discussions? Will he confirm that with good political will on both sides problems can be resolved?
James Duddridge
Where there’s a will, there’s a way. People said that it was impossible that negotiations would reopen, but negotiations did effectively reopen after the Prime Minister spoke to President Macron and Chancellor Merkel, so I am optimistic. I am optimistic because negotiations are ongoing now: David Frost is in Brussels as we speak; my Secretary of State is travelling around, whipping up support and enthusiasm from other member states; and I understand that at around the time we are speaking—if not as we are speaking—the Prime Minister is on the phone to other Prime Ministers to whip up enthusiasm for the deal and avoid no deal. If only there were that much enthusiasm on the Opposition Benches.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
With respect, who do the Government think they are kidding? The reaction from the EU to the Prime Minister’s proposal is courteous but critical, and it is abundantly evident that no agreement will be reached on his terms. We ask only of the Prime Minister that he is straight with people and their Parliament, and acknowledges this. Can the Minister therefore guarantee that the Prime Minister will not hold a meaningless vote before the European Council meeting?
James Duddridge
To paraphrase a famous quotation: well, they would say that, wouldn’t they? EU representatives are negotiating. When we put papers in front of them, they are not going to say, “Gosh, this is wonderful. Thank you very much for making all these compromises. Let’s accept that wholeheartedly and send you back to celebrate.” They are bound to probe and see how far the Prime Minister is going to go. We have already compromised significantly; this is a good solution in which the UK Government have made a number of compromises. It is now time for the EU Commission and member states to say that they are up for compromising as well.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my frustration with the attitude of the Opposition parties, particularly the Scottish National party, who seem more intent on sowing discord and division in our United Kingdom than acting in the national interest? If they really were working for the economy and peoples of our country, they would get behind the Government and support us as we try to get a deal to leave the EU in good order on 31 October.
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for speaking up for Scotland in this Parliament, and for focusing on the nitty-gritty of the economy. No deal will not be as good as a deal for the whole United Kingdom, including Scotland, so he is right to ask colleagues on both sides of the House—including Scottish National party Members and other Scottish Members—to back a deal.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister may not be aware of this, but until about half an hour ago I had no idea who he was. From his answers today, I wonder how he can be so deeply unpleasant to so many colleagues on the Opposition Benches. The fact is that today he has said that it is not loyal or legitimate to stand up for our constituents when we are asking questions about what is contained in the deal. Some of us would vote for a good deal if we could see it—if we did not live in a secret society and a secret state. Will he wake up to the fact that there is a lot of good will in this House for a deal, if we could actually see it?
James Duddridge
I am flabbergasted that the hon. Gentleman says he does not know who I am, because previously when I was at the Dispatch Box he asked me whether I knew about Huddersfield, and afterwards he thanked me for not mentioning that I was a comprehensive schoolboy who went to school in Huddersfield and he is the Member of Parliament for Huddersfield who was privately educated in the south of England.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that at least some SNP Members are simply attempting to undermine the progress that has already been made and that this Government are attempting to make towards a deal? Does he find it as worrying as I do that, when challenged on passing on the Brexit preparation funding to local authorities in Scotland, the First Minister said:
“We should not be having to spend a single penny on Brexit preparations”?
Is that not taking a political view of Brexit preparations, rather than looking at what is good for the economy of Scotland?
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for speaking up for Scotland. He raises a very important point about fund distribution, and while some of these things are in the purview of the Cabinet Office, I am happy to have a discussion with him about how we can improve the situation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
May I now appeal to colleagues for single-sentence questions without preamble? I do not want speeches. We have four other urgent questions, so short inquiries would help.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
We are here on 7 October. The Government’s plan was for Parliament to be prorogued and not return until 14 October. Under the original plan, we would have had no scrutiny at all of the withdrawal agreement and very little time when we returned. Is that not the case, Minister?
James Duddridge
If Parliament had not been in Session, I would have been helping to negotiate with member states, and perhaps we would have collectively, having spent more time doing that, got a deal.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Much nonsense has been spouted about the impracticalities of dealing with consignments when they reach their destination, rather than when they cross the border. Is it not the case that Britain’s biggest port by value operates on that basis already? Goods inbound to Heathrow airport do not stop at the border or near the border; they arrive at Heathrow and are dealt with there. Indeed, if the Minister were to visit the UPS hubs at East Midlands airport or in Cologne or Louisville, Kentucky, he would see tens of thousands of parcels crossing borders, with the duties, tariffs and VAT being dealt with in parallel with those goods travelling.
James Duddridge
My right hon. Friend served in the Department for Transport and knows these issues incredibly well. I look forward to talking to him in more detail about East Midlands airport and UPS, particularly because Southend airport is doing a little bit of transit of goods with Amazon. He is right that these things can happen without intricate checks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I gently point out that Members who came into the Chamber after the questions started cannot now expect to be called.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The Minister will be well aware that the withdrawal agreement we already have says that it protects the Belfast/Good Friday agreement “in all its dimensions”—those are the precise words. The withdrawal agreement also protects the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent. I would like the Minister to take a few moments to explain in detail to the people of Northern Ireland in particular how the Prime Minister’s new proposals guarantee those essential features of the withdrawal agreement.
James Duddridge
The reason why they are an improvement on the backstop is that the backstop could have left Northern Ireland linked to the EU in perpetuity without any consent. This consent mechanism is a massive improvement. I thank the hon. Lady for the discussions we have had. I think she wants to have another discussion with me after this, and I am more than happy to do that.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
The Minister was asked whether the Government are committed to publishing the details, but would that question not carry more weight if those on the Labour Front Bench had not already closed their minds? Within minutes of the deal being proposed last week, they said it was not good enough. Sadly, too many minds on the Opposition Benches—with honourable exceptions—are already closed. Is it not time to just get on with it?
James Duddridge
It is certainly time to get on with it. I think that there are a significant number of Opposition Members who have more open minds than those on the Labour Front Bench, and we look forward to working with them over the coming days and weeks.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
One reason why we need to see the legal texts is that there is every chance that this Government are planning to throw food and environmental standards under the bus for the sake of securing a dodgy trade deal with President Trump. Forgive us if we do not find the Minister’s reassurances very reassuring. We would like to see the full legal texts. While he is at it, could he have a word with the Prime Minister to make sure that the Trade Bill comes back in the Queen’s Speech, so that we have a chance at least of ensuring that planetary health comes before the interests of US trade lobbyists?
James Duddridge
We will continue food and environmental standards. I have made that clear, and I will pass on the hon. Lady’s comments to the Prime Minister with pleasure.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
In Michel Barnier’s speech in October last year, he said that a hard border in Northern Ireland needed to be avoided; that customs checks would be required, but they could happen using existing customs transit procedures; and that regulatory checks would need to increase, but they could continue to happen in the Irish sea. Does that not sound remarkably like the Prime Minister’s deal? Is it not time for the EU to negotiate in good faith, so that Members across the House can vote for this deal and we can leave on 31 October?
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for that information, and I had not quite linked the two together. Perhaps we should call it not the Prime Minister’s proposal, but the Barnier solution.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It has been interesting to watch the Minister’s position morph from “We are prepared to leave without a deal” to “We will be leaving without a deal” in the course of this afternoon. Is he aware that in Edinburgh at lunchtime today, the Court of Session accepted from the Prime Minister “unequivocal assurances” that he would comply with the Benn Act? Is the Minister now departing from that promise made by the Prime Minister to the Scottish courts?
James Duddridge
Just to be clear, we will leave on the 31st and we are prepared to leave on the 31st—that adds information, rather than detracts—and we will abide by the Court decision.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
This morning, a Cabinet source was quoted as saying that the reason the Prime Minister is removing the level playing field protections on consumer, workers’ and environmental rights is that the Government know they would
“seriously restrict our ability to deregulate and do trade with other countries.”
That is the real aim of the Government’s Brexit proposals, is it not—to deregulate our economy and cut back rights?
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I have to say that the world of work wants a deal to be done, but the Minister’s contempt for Parliament today makes it less likely that a deal could ever be arrived at. Serious questions have got to be answered seriously. May I ask the Minister about this specific point, as someone, like many in this House, who fought for decades for peace in Northern Ireland and would never, ever put that at risk? The Prime Minister talks in his letter about the
“very small number of physical checks needed”,
including at
“other points on the supply chain.”
I asked the Prime Minister last week:
“Where are they, and what are they?” —[Official Report, 3 October 2019; Vol. 664, c. 1409.]
He was unable to answer. Can the Minister?
James Duddridge
I have tried to be as open as I can within the remit of trying to get a good negotiation. On the record, in response to an earlier question, I went through the trusted trader scheme and where checks could take place.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Can the Minister confirm whether he has seen the most recent legal document and read it, and say whether it confirms when a data adequacy agreement between the UK and the EU will be agreed? Without one—whether it is deal or no deal—very little is likely to be crossing any border.
James Duddridge
I see all the papers I need to, but I will not go through them, on a paper by paper basis, saying which version I have seen and when I have seen it. I simply will not do that; it is not helpful to the Government process.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
If the Minister is so convinced that this is a good deal, whether or not he has seen the paperwork, why will the Government not put that deal straight to the British people?
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
I raised with the Prime Minister on Thursday the concerns of the Irish Deputy Prime Minister, Simon Coveney, about the nature of the democratic issue in Northern Ireland, where a minority could potentially hold a veto over the wishes of the majority. The Prime Minister assured me that he would seek discussions with the Irish Deputy Prime Minister, so can the Minister update me on whether those discussions have taken place—or when they are scheduled—and what the outcome of them might be?
James Duddridge
I heard the hon. Gentleman in the questions to the Prime Minister. I have not discussed this issue with the Prime Minister since then, so unfortunately I cannot update him, but I am happy to do so in correspondence.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (IGC)
Last year, The Economist reported from the Norway-Sweden border—at Svinesund—and said:
“Even with the latest technology being outside the customs union entails a hard border”.
There is automatic number plate recognition, and there are lorry parks and the confiscation of alcohol. How can we have anything but that if the Government proposals come forward?
James Duddridge
The hon. Gentleman refers to one border. There are many borders around the world. Technologies can be used to avoid a hard border, and this Government are committed to having no hard border.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Do the Government stand by the December 2017 joint report, in which the UK is committed to the avoidance of
“any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls”
in Northern Ireland?
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Are the proposals for the Northern Ireland border the Government’s vision of the perpetual future relationship on the border, or are they actually another form of backstop until some glorious new customs relationship is reached between the whole of the UK and the European Union?
James Duddridge
There will be the point of exit on 31 October; a future economic partnership and a final relationship; and the consent point for the Northern Ireland Assembly to review the issue. So there are many junctures in the future where things can change.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Have the Government sought and received advice on the compatibility of their proposals with strands 2 and 3 of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?
James Duddridge
As a matter of course, the Government do not share the legal advice they receive, nor do they confirm or deny whether they have sought legal advice. That is standard practice not related to this specific issue, but more generally.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
As someone who supported Prime Minister May’s deal and wants to support a deal as opposed to no deal, and further to the answer to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), may I ask the Minister to reassure me that strenuous efforts are being made in Northern Ireland to recover the support for a deal that seems to have been lost since the DUP changed sides and supported a deal?
James Duddridge
Work is going on in Northern Ireland at a number of levels. I have been involved more at a business level, looking at the detail of the arrangements. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been involved on a more political level, as have a number of members of the Cabinet. This is obviously the big issue remaining: the Northern Ireland-Ireland border within the withdrawal agreement. All of the Government are working towards solving that. I am more than happy to discuss this issue with the hon. Gentleman in more detail, because I know he has a high level of expertise on it. I personally very much respect his position, and his thoughtful comments on this issue and many others.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister wrongly says that the backstop threatens power sharing. The Government’s solution is to hand a veto to one side, undermining strand 2 of the Good Friday agreement. What assessment has been made of the economic harm all this uncertainty presents for the promotion of business and investment in Northern Ireland?
James Duddridge
The whole idea of Brexit is to reposition the economy not only of Northern Ireland but of the whole United Kingdom around the growth areas of the world. That is not to say that we are turning our back on our European friends, whose trade is very important, but global growth in the longer term is with the rest of the world. It positions Northern Ireland alongside the UK in a much better place for long-term economic growth.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Government’s proposal makes it clear that the UK will not be in a customs union, there will not be a close single market alignment and there will be even less protection for rights than the May deal offered. Given that, how do the Government expect the proposals to win cross-party support in this House?
James Duddridge
I think the Government expect cross-party support because there are a number of colleagues who have behaved very reasonably. I am afraid I did not hear who the hon. Lady was quoting at the beginning of her question, but I am more than happy to talk to her about that later on. Apologies, but I did not hear the beginning of her question.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Are cameras on the border infrastructure?
James Duddridge
To be frank, I was not being careful with my terminology. If the hon. Gentleman is asking, “Is there no infrastructure?”, there is no infrastructure. In relation to cameras, I saw cameras in Northern Ireland on the main road. I do not think it would be tenable to have cameras all along the border. They would simply be ripped down and be targets for terrorists to attack. I think he has successfully stretched my desire not to comment in any more detail. Certainly, he has done so effectively.
No-deal Brexit: Schedule of Tariffs
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade if she will set out the final schedule of import tariffs proposed in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Conor Burns)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question.
On 13 March, the Government announced that they would implement a temporary tariff regime in the event of a no-deal Brexit. This regime would apply equally to all imports that are not subject to alternative trade arrangements and would apply for up to—I stress, up to—12 months while a full public consultation takes place to inform long-term tariff arrangements. The Government would prefer to leave with a deal and will continue to work energetically and with determination to get that better deal. This will require the European Union to show the same spirit of compromise that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is demonstrating in his engagement with our European friends and allies.
As the UK leaves the EU, the Government are stepping up their preparations to get the UK ready to trade if there is no deal. The temporary tariff regime will maintain open trade on the majority of UK imports, helping to support consumers, business supply chains and sensitive sectors of the UK economy. Due regard has been given 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; and the extent to which these goods are subject to competition. It reaffirms our commitment to become a free-trading nation. It realises the benefits of an independent trade policy to support increased trade and investment with partners new and old around the world and increased choice for British shoppers.
At the same time, Her Majesty’s Government recognise the importance of retaining some tariffs. Tariffs would therefore apply on just over 10% of imports, supporting sectors facing unfair global competition, mitigating otherwise significant adjustment costs for the agricultural sector, supporting the strategically important automotive sector and maintaining our commitments to developing countries. Preferential access to the UK market is important for our developing country partners, and tariffs are being retained on a set of goods, including bananas, raw sugar cane and certain kinds of fish, to demonstrate the Government’s ongoing commitment to countries in the developing world. During the article 50 extension, the Government have remained responsive to the concerns of business and have reviewed the tariffs that would come into effect if the UK left the EU without a deal.
To answer the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), the Government will publish the final tariffs shortly. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on any amendments being considered prior to that announcement. As he will understand from his former guise as shadow Chancellor, to do so would be irresponsible. The Government will ensure that Parliament is informed as soon as is practically possible once a final decision has been made.
Mr Leslie
Thankfully, the Benn Act will safeguard Britain from a no-deal Brexit, but with the Minister still insisting that, in only 24 days’ time, we might somehow crash out on a World Trade Organisation basis, does it not beggar belief that the Government have still not got around to publishing the final schedule of import tariffs for that eventuality? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said that what we have had is not the final word, and he has repeated that today.
At present, we can import from and export to the EU without any customs duties applying, but that could be about to end. The consequences for so many sectors of our economy, including farming, manufacturing and engineering, are massive. I ask the Minister: how are businesses supposed to “get ready”, as the £100 million advertising campaign suggests, if Ministers still cannot tell us the tariffs that will be imposed and seem incapable of even the most basic competent level of preparation?
The CBI director general Carolyn Fairbairn rightly asks why there is no time to consult industries about what tariffs will be applied. Even if we put aside the enormous non-tariff barriers of veterinary inspections, border checks and certification, are businesses to assume that the draft tariffs that were put out in March will still apply? Some of the import tariffs that Ministers are rumoured to be planning are really high. For example, if a British haulage company needs to buy an HGV truck from abroad, should it plan to pay an additional 22% on the cost or 10% because of the Government’s tariff plan? Will my constituents have to add 10% to the cost of buying a new car? What about the UK energy and bioethanol sector? Will customers have to pay the 4.7% tariff on fuel imported from the EU, as they currently do for fuel from beyond the EU? If not, will that not push the British energy sector into a competitive disadvantage when the 4.7% is imposed on its exports? There are container ships full of goods, components, textiles and clothing that have already been dispatched from the far east and elsewhere, heading for arrival at our shores at the end of the month. Will they face tariffs when they get to Britain, or not?
If British businesses suddenly have to start paying tariffs to export into Europe, what will the reciprocal tariffs be on goods imported into our country? How will British farmers compete with foreign produce when, for example, their lamb will face a 48% tariff when selling into Europe, their cheddar 57%, their poultry 37%, their wheat 53% and their beef 84%? The National Farmers Union is deeply concerned about the risk of foreign producers undercutting domestic production. So can the Minister at least do us the courtesy of setting out the rationale and strategic logic behind his decisions? Where is the parliamentary authority for imposing these tariffs and taxes? When will there be a vote in the House of Commons as the customs legislation requires?
Given that the Government now want a customs frontier in Ireland, will the Minister confirm that goods coming from the Republic into Northern Ireland will have tariffs added on? How does he think people and businesses in Northern Ireland will respond to the imposition of a tariff border in that way?
Would it not be far better to accept that erecting reciprocal tariffs between the UK and the EU is a fool’s errand—an endless cycle of costs and bureaucracy where everyone loses out in the end? Will the Minister at least have the good grace to acknowledge that, by leaving the single market and the customs union, British businesses and customers will be worse off, and for no good reason?
Conor Burns
I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman’s first question that it would be irresponsible to go through the entire list of proposed tariffs prior to the formal announcement by the Government, which, as I indicated to him, he may not have to wait all that long to see. He spent the majority of his subsequent questions asking me to do that which I had said it would be irresponsible to do and I will not be drawn down that road, however tempting it is.
I thought the hon. Gentleman’s subsequent questions underlined the desirability of there being a deal between the United Kingdom and the European Union as we seek to leave. I hope that in the days ahead the EU will respond in the same spirit that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has demonstrated and show flexibility and compromise to get a deal that will pass the House. Then the tariff announcements might become redundant. That is very much our hope. The hon. Gentleman said that he found it extraordinary that so long had passed and we had yet to publish this. Many people in my constituency and around the country find it equally astonishing that it is more than three years since the UK voted to leave the EU and still people in this House are determined to thwart that democratic decision.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the situation on the island of Ireland. I am happy to confirm, as I think he will know, that there will be no tariffs on goods coming from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland. On parliamentary process, he will know exactly how that works. The House will have the opportunity to have its say within 60 days of the tariff regime coming into place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
This is the second of five urgent questions I have granted today. There is a premium upon time and therefore I reiterate what I said in respect of the last urgent question. People who came into the Chamber after the question began should not expect to be called. I have a list of about half a dozen people who beetled into the Chamber after the question began. Please do not stand. It is not the right thing to do.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
The day one tariffs were set to produce price stability, protect businesses that took time to make adjustments and ensure there were not additional costs for British importers, who then add value and re-export. Given that it is a good policy and that the assumption of a sterling depreciation of 7% to 13% in the event of a no deal has not changed, can the tariffs be published as soon as possible? Will my hon. Friend also make it very clear that, if we have to introduce the day one tariffs as they are at the present time, the responsibility will lie not with the Government but with those who refused to accept a deal of any sort in the House?
Conor Burns
My right hon. Friend has put that argument extremely effectively and powerfully. May I use this opportunity—my debut at the Dispatch Box—to thank him for all the work that he did in the Department? The fact that, in the last couple of weeks, we now have more than 72% of trade agreed in continuity agreements is largely due to the enormous efforts that he put in during his time at the Department. He is absolutely right: the day one tariff regime is determined to protect British consumers in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Those who can avoid a no-deal Brexit are our friends in Europe coming to terms with the Prime Minister in a deal that will be passed by the House and implement the democratic decision in the referendum of 2016.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box.
The Government failed to consult properly with business organisations or with trade unions before publishing these tariff measures, ignoring the very producers whose jobs and livelihoods would be most affected. Their refusal to listen and their inability to compromise are now posing grave dangers to our country.
The Government told us that EU manufacturers would be demanding a deal with us. They did not. The Government said that a trade deal with the EU would be the easiest in human history. It is not. The Government told us that they would have 40 trade agreements ready to be signed one second after midnight on Brexit day. They do not. Far from our seeing other countries
“champing at the bit to strike trade deals with a post-Brexit Britain”,
as the Secretary of State claimed, many of those countries already have a trade agreement with us by way of the EU, but it is a trade agreement that will fall away if we leave the EU without a deal. The Government have failed to roll over all the existing deals with approximately 70 countries. That is why, earlier this year, the Government announced emergency proposals to reduce up to 87% of UK tariffs to zero, and to expand our tariff rate quotas in the event of a no deal. As new tariffs are imposed on our exports, damaging jobs, this is a desperate attempt to keep import costs down for British consumers.
So may I ask, first, whether the Minister will publish the Government’s assessment of the price rises that they anticipate would hit UK consumers in default of these tariff rates? The Government advise businesses that, in a no-deal scenario, we would trade under World Trade Organisation rules. However, the Government have yet to have our WTO schedules formally ratified owing to challenges over our tariff rate quotas—challenges that are likely to require substantial compensation to resolve. So, secondly, when does the Department believe that such a challenge may crystallise, and what contingency funds have they laid aside to pay compensation to any complainants?
The lunacy of the Government’s position has been exposed by a country that they previously regarded as a friendly model for their future free trade agreement with Europe. Canada has walked away from trade talks with the UK precisely because these measures would mean free access for Canadian exporters without requiring them to open up access to our goods and services in return. So, thirdly, can the Minister tell us what progress has since been made with respect to Canadian trade talks, and whether any other countries have similarly refused to negotiate as a result of the announcement of zero tariffs by the UK? Under this regime, UK companies will face competition from a flood of cheap imports, undercutting them and putting thousands of UK jobs at risk, without any reciprocal right of free access to their markets for our manufacturers and businesses.
Just about every single major trade body and trade union in the UK has decried the lack of engagement with it, and, in particular, the Department’s lack of understanding in respect of trade defence measures. So, fourthly, I ask the Minister what assessment he has made of the diversion of goods originally destined for other markets at a time when those other markets are increasing tariffs and taking substantive action to tackle the issue of dumping. These are existential threats to our industrial heartlands. The steel sector, the ceramics sector and the automotive sector are all greatly at risk from the proposed measures.
The EU has introduced stringent new safeguard measures to tackle dumping, and is due to set out its approach to tackling circumvention shortly. So, fifthly, does the Minister recognise that this could add further tariffs to our EU exports in the event of a no-deal Brexit, and could drive even more dumped goods to our markets? If so, sixthly, can he explain why the Government have sought to establish the weakest Trade Remedies Authority in the world, and to do so without proper legal authority?
Conor Burns
Well, goodness me! We heard not a single word about what the Opposition would do to support the Government in trying to get a deal. We heard no word of compromise. We heard flip-flop after flip-flop, with not a single constructive suggestion from the shadow Secretary of State. Why am I not remotely surprised by that?
The hon. Gentleman talks about a lack of interest. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Lesley Laird) stopped chuntering and listened, she might hear something. The shadow Secretary of State said there was no interest in trade agreements. What does he think is going on with the United States? With Australia? With New Zealand? Everywhere that I have travelled in this role, I have discovered an enormous interest in what our withdrawal from the European Union means not just for the United Kingdom, but for our ability to do bilateral trade agreements with other countries. As I said in reply to my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State, we have transitioned over 72% of UK trade in continuity agreements, which will protect us in the event of a no-deal Brexit—which is something that the hon. Gentleman seems determined to advocate, given his lack of support for the Prime Minister.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the Trade Remedies Authority. There is not a single member of the civil service working today who was working in the civil service the last time the United Kingdom had her own independent trade body. The fact that we have established the Trade Remedies Authority, which I visited several weeks ago—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman took a bit of time to understand his brief, he would understand very clearly—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs. He should be laughing at himself, because he does not understand the very policy that he shadows. The body is created. The body can function temporarily without the passage of the Trade Bill in the event of a no-deal Brexit, as he should know, and then we will put it on a statutory footing when we introduce a new trade Bill in a new Session of Parliament.
The shadow Minister talked about all the things that we have not done. Let us talk about some of the things that he said he would do. He said that he would respect the referendum. He did not. He said that he would implement the decision of the British people. He will not. What we will do is take the opportunities of having an independent trade policy—the opportunity to sign bilateral trade agreements and the opportunity of free trade—to deliver prosperity to our citizens.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his clear command of his brief. Will he take this opportunity to update us on the progress that he is making on seeking continuity of some of the other EU trade agreements, particularly those with Canada and Africa, many of which the Opposition opposed?
Conor Burns
This Government take great pride in the number of those agreements that we have transitioned into continuity agreements. There are many more on the cusp of being agreed. We are dealing with some technical issues and there is ongoing engagement all the time. I was recently in Algeria and Morocco, where we are making substantial progress, and I returned yesterday evening from Vietnam—you might say that I am in another time zone, Mr Speaker, while the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) is on another planet. Even in Vietnam there is significant interest in coming to a continuity agreement with the UK. We will continue to work to deliver those. Of course, as my right hon. Friend and I will both agree, it would be much better if we did not have to go to continuity agreements but instead got the best continuity agreement, which would be a new agreement between ourselves and the European Union, which I hope the Opposition will finally support.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
When the temporary tariff regime was announced this March, the UK Government argued that if they maintained the current external tariff regime, there would be new tariffs on EU imports. They said that if zero tariffs were maintained with the EU, even though that would minimise trade disruption, that would be required to be extended to the rest of the world due to WTO rules. The Government also said that they would keep 43 of the existing trade remedy measures that were in place, but much has changed since then. There has been another round of US tariffs and there is the potential for another round of EU tariffs in response to the US action, so let me ask the Minister this.
Given new tariffs from the US and the EU, has the schedule in the temporary tariff regime changed and, if so, by how much? Has the list of 43 trade remedies to be kept and 66 to be abandoned changed and, if so, by how many? Most importantly, with barely three weeks to go to a potential no-deal Brexit—although the Benn Act should protect us from that—I say to the Minister that it is not irresponsible to publish the new schedule. It is absolutely necessary to publish it, not least to allow businesses—importing and exporting businesses alike—at least a little certainty and to ensure that they can continue to operate within the law. The Minister is having a great time teasing us about when the schedule will be published, so may I ask him to publish it today so that businesses understand precisely what they are dealing with?
Conor Burns
Of course, I did not say that it would be irresponsible to publish it. I said that it would be inappropriate and irresponsible to comment on what is in it before it is published.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
High-value manufacturing and engineering are key to our economy, including in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend assure me that as we develop our independent trade policy he will take action to ensure our vital industries are protected from unfair trading practices?
Conor Burns
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are determined that the trade remedies body will be one of the most innovative and strong bodies in protecting not just free trade but fair trade.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (LD)
The Prime Minister talks about getting Brexit done by 31 October and indeed, the Minister has just referred to that, too, but is it not the reality that, if Brexit were to happen on that day, with or without a withdrawal agreement, no trade agreement, including a permanent tariff regime with our biggest customer, the EU, will be in place at the point of departure? Is it not the case that, to put in place a permanent trade agreement will take at least three years? If I am wrong about that, can he name one EU leader who is suggesting that we could get a permanent trade agreement in place quicker than that timeframe? Nothing is going to be done, really, by 31 October.
Conor Burns
If there is a deal by 31 October, as the Government wish, it is highly likely that the deal will come with an implementation period. That would give us the opportunity to come to a comprehensive free trade agreement with our European Union friends and neighbours before the end of that implementation period. I give the hon. Gentleman full marks for consistency on this, as he has never seen any opportunities in the idea of Brexit, and he believes—it is a perfectly logical and consistent position—that our current membership of the EU under the current terms is the best thing possible. Many of us believe that there are significant opportunities for the United Kingdom not only to trade with our largest and nearest trading partner, but to have new bilateral trade agreements with countries around the world—that is the opportunity that Brexit provides.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm whether an impact assessment will be published at the same time as the new schedule of tariffs to show the effect of these tariffs on both imports and exports, and hence on jobs within the United Kingdom?
Conor Burns
The schedule has been drawn up to take account of much of the lobbying and of the assessments that the Government have made, and by our drawing on wide expertise on the position that we would face in a number of scenarios. My hon. Friend will have to wait for the publication, but I assure him that he will not have to wait for very long.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
For manufacturers in the north of England, it is hard to know which is worse: the fact that this Government are prepared to countenance no deal, or the fact that the deal that they are proposing significantly disadvantages the north compared with Northern Ireland. Can I ask the Minister, therefore, further to the question from the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy): which representative organisations has he met that represent companies in the complex modern manufacturing supply chain?
Conor Burns
I have met both companies and representatives of companies—and, indeed, representatives of the two devolved Governments. My first visit as Minister of State for Trade was to Scotland, to meet Derek Mackay, and I then went to Wales and met Baroness Morgan; our two counterparts. I have met with various representatives of trade organisations and employers’ organisations. We are listening widely. The idea that the hon. Lady seems to be advancing that we are sitting in Whitehall dreaming up schemes that are completely and totally divorced from reality—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) really thinks that—well, how many years has he been in the House? Come on.
We have our own advisory body, which we set up within the Department, and that has multiple employer groups, business and representatives of the regions and nations of the UK. We seek to inform ourselves as much as possible before these decisions are made.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s point that the best way out of this situation is to pass a deal and avoid a no-deal outcome. However, I recently met arable farmers in my constituency who are profoundly concerned that, if there were a no-deal outcome, they could face tariffs of €90 a tonne. That would make their surplus unexportable through the port of Ipswich, especially as we seem to be considering nil tariffs on foreign wheat and barley. Does my hon. Friend understand that, from their point of view, that is not unilateral free trade, but unilateral protectionism for overseas competition? Whatever happens in the schedule, I urge him please to remember to support the bread basket of England.
Conor Burns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I point him to the comment that I made twice in my first reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie)—that this day-one tariff regime will apply for up to 12 months, and it will be reviewed during that time. We will be open-minded and open-eared to representations that are made to us. I would be happy to extend an invitation to people to meet me and to talk specifically about the point my hon. Friend made, which, if I may say so, he did robustly, as he always does, on behalf of those he represents.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Fawcett in Castleford, which exports malt to Europe, has described the tariff arrangements it will face in the event of no deal as manufacturing suicide. Tereos in Normanton, which imports sugar, expects a 50% increase in its costs as a result of tariffs in the event of no deal. Will the Minister confirm that these tariffs are not just costs that can be mitigated away by preparations or border changes, and that these are real costs to industry? If he has done all this work on the possible impact of different tariff schedules, surely he has a responsibility to publish the full impact assessment alongside the tariff schedule.
Conor Burns
I indicated the tests this tariff regime is set against. It is set to try to protect the interests of consumers and producers in the UK, and it will be kept under review. It will go for up to 12 months. However, I stress again that the best way to avoid any of this happening is for us to come to an agreement in this House and with the EU, and to get a deal through and leave the European Union on 31 October in an orderly way. Then, this would become an academic exercise.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition’s vision is for us to stay in the customs union. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that does not honour the result of the EU referendum?
Conor Burns
It will not come as an enormous surprise to my hon. Friend that I agree wholeheartedly. Indeed, at the time of the referendum, the Government, of which we were Back-Bench observers, spent over £9 million sending a leaflet to every home in this country making exactly that point.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I reiterate what I said at the start of this exchange, which is that people who arrived after it began should not stand and expect to be called—[Interruption.] No, no. No matter how illustrious they are, and irrespective of the exalted office that they occupy. Other Members of this—[Interruption.] Order. I am not debating the point with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). I am telling him what the situation is, and that is the end of the matter.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
One of the most successful exports from my constituency is Penderyn whisky, which comes from a small village in the Brecon Beacons. If the Minister went to Wales, he must have discussed the situation of an industry such as that with Baroness Morgan. Penderyn is obviously concerned about the impact on its export potential.
Conor Burns
I am incredibly grateful to the right hon. Lady, whom I hold in the highest regard, having worked with her on a couple of international issues. She almost invites me to trespass on the subject of the next urgent question on the potential imposition of tariffs by the United States on the whisky sector. I would be happy to respond to that question in detail during the course of my reply to that UQ, but the Government take this matter very seriously and will be working to try to persuade our friends and allies in the United States that the imposition of such tariffs is not the way to go, that they harm both of us, and that the best thing to do is to talk and come to a resolution.
Mr Speaker
I gently point out to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) that there is a later urgent question on a matter of which he has considerable knowledge and in which I think he will be interested. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to participate in that exchange, he will, of course, have the opportunity to do so, and the whole House and the nation will benefit from his eloquence.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Anybody with a ha’p’orth of understanding of the Canadian skill at negotiating trade deals should have foreseen in March, when we issued our day-one tariff schedules, that Canada would not sign a rollover for the comprehensive economic and trade agreement. As we move forward with these new schedules, will the Minister assure me that nothing in them will undermine the deal that the Canadian Government and the Canadian opposition both say they want to achieve? If we are unable to achieve that deal, will he assure me that the Department is beginning work on at least rolling over the provisions on labour mobility, which are so important when it comes to independent professionals and inter-company transfers?
Conor Burns
My hon. Friend yields to no one in his understanding of and expertise in Canada. I understand that not least because he never tires of telling us. I pay tribute to him for his work as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy. I am probably not allowed to say this at the Dispatch Box, but I hope that he will take up that position again in due course, because no one in this House is better qualified to do it. I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that we remain determined to come to terms with Canada. It is one of our closest allies, and we share so much in common in terms of values. A free trade agreement between us will be to the mutual benefit and prosperity of all our citizens.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Dairy Council Northern Ireland represents the four companies that account for over 90% of the milk collected from farms in Northern Ireland each year. We are talking about 3,000 farming families in Northern Ireland. I want the Minister to address the warning given by the chief executive of Dairy Council Northern Ireland, who said today:
“If we don't get a Brexit deal and cannot transport raw milk south, without significant delays and/or certification requirements, then our industry is facing a crisis of epic proportions”.
How will the Minister attempt to reassure dairy farmers in Northern Ireland?
Conor Burns
We are still seeking to come to terms and get a deal by 31 October. That is the Government’s ambition and, as the hon. Lady will know, I am more alive than most to the situation in Northern Ireland. The situation there is unique and complex, and I hope that our European friends would demonstrate some of the spirit of compromise that has been demonstrated in various parts of the House, including by Opposition Back Benchers, in helping us to get to that deal and to avoid the difficulties that she so rightly identifies.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Welsh farmers are still unclear as to how the Government intend to sustain Welsh farming, particularly the production of beef and lamb. Is it by long-term tariffs, is it by market-distorting subsidy, or is it by paying farmers to produce nothing at all?
Conor Burns
First, we still want a deal, and therefore we hope this does not come into play. I was in Vietnam only two days ago to push Welsh lamb to the Government there as we look to a deal, and that is just one of many places where we are looking for new export opportunities by removing barriers and doing free trade agreements. The Government are looking closely at how we would respond to protect such producer interests in the event of a no-deal situation, and I believe nothing is ruled out.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister and his Department have been in consultation with the British Ceramic Confederation on the impact that zero tariffs could have on the ceramic industry, which would affect many of my constituents. Can the Minister give me an assurance that on day one, if we have a no-deal Brexit, which I genuinely do not want to see—I think a deal is the way forward—no anti-dumping legislation and no anti-dumping duty on Chinese goods will be less than it was the day before under the European scheme?
Conor Burns
Not only would I be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this in some detail, but I would be very happy if he felt minded to invite me to visit some of the ceramic manufacturing businesses in and around his constituency. I am sure that will have been heard by people who can make it happen.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is reckoned that a quarter of rural businesses may face bankruptcy if there is a no-deal Brexit and we see the expected tariff schedule. Dairy has now joined beef and lamb in expressing an existential threat. How many rural businesses does the Minister think will survive in my primarily rural constituency if we have a no deal?
Conor Burns
I hope the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will help my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government by doing all they can to lobby our European friends and allies, and indeed Monsieur Barnier, to ensure that does not happen.
I hope the predictions of doom and gloom and bankruptcy that the hon. Gentleman makes again today prove as ill-founded as those he has made over the past three years.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister will agree that certainty is important for business, so will he give a guarantee that, on 1 November, all the necessary systems and technical infrastructure will be in place for businesses to be able to deal with any tariffs that are imposed? Particularly for small businesses, how far in advance of 1 November will advice and guidance on these systems be available?
Conor Burns
I have indicated several times that I do not think hon. Members will have to wait too much longer for the publication of the schedule. The Government are working with incredible energy to put out the information that businesses need. It has been more than three years since the referendum, and businesses have had plenty of warning.
By the way, recent surveys indicate that the behaviour of this House has made it more likely that businesses will not put in place the necessary measures to prepare for the event of a no deal, because this House continues to send a signal that it intends to do all it can to thwart that.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
Everyone seems to be interested in what is happening with Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Our farming industry has serious concerns about the tariffs that will potentially be imposed by Europe. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said, milk is exported to the Republic of Ireland, where it is mainly processed, before being sent back. Milk will have no tariffs on the way back, but it will receive tariffs on the way into the Republic of Ireland.
Conor Burns
As I indicated to the hon. Member for North Down, I am acutely alive to these very serious challenges. I spent the first eight years of my life in Northern Ireland, so I understand it pretty well. The best way to avoid these challenges is to come to a deal.
By the way, the best way to have effective government in Northern Ireland is for all the parties in Northern Ireland to get back together and get back into government. Let us get a functioning Executive and a functioning Assembly that can truly speak at a local level for the people of Northern Ireland.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The imposition of tariffs on the export of chemicals from Teesside will have a hugely detrimental effect on the region’s industry. That comes on the back of the decision by Ineos to close its plant, which is both a supplier and a customer within a complicated supply chain. What are Ministers doing about this additional threat to the chemical industry—over and above the tariffs—that will cost more than 220 direct jobs in my constituency, and potentially many more? Maybe the Minister could visit us, too.
Conor Burns
I always stand ready to visit colleagues from across the House and their constituencies, and their local businesses, to understand the background to commercial decisions that are being made. I am not particularly aware of the detail of that one, but, again, if the hon. Gentleman thinks it useful, I would be happy to have a meeting with him. It may be more appropriate for him to meet colleagues from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but I am very happy to talk to him.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I was approached by people from Stanlow oil refinery in Ellesmere Port over the summer as they were concerned about proposals to zero-rate certain petroleum imports. I therefore added my name to a cross-party letter from a number of Members whose constituencies were affected by those proposals warning the Secretary of State about the impact such proposals might have on the refinery sector. Will the Minister therefore assure us that these concerns have been listened to and the proposals will do nothing to impact the viability of the UK refinery sector?
Conor Burns
The issue of the refineries and how tariffs may have an impact there has been discussed and continues to be looked at closely at the heart of government. Those representations are having an impact and are being listened to carefully.
Mr Speaker
Ah, the competing claims of Edinburgh, Strangford and West Dunbartonshire. What a taxing choice. I call Deidre Brock.
Deidre Brock
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister consider that these new tariffs will be good for Scottish businesses? And how?
Conor Burns
Obviously, we do not consider that the imposition of the temporary tariff regime is, of itself, a good thing; we would much prefer to leave on 31 October with a deal. As I have explained, what these arrangements do is our level best to protect producers and, crucially, consumers in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his responses. The Ulster Farmers Union has consistently stated that it has worries about tariffs—I declare an interest, as a member of the UFU. I know the Government and the Minister are well aware of the position of Northern Ireland lamb, beef, pig and chicken producers, and I am keen to know what discussions he has had with the UFU in order to support, assist and protect our farmers in Northern Ireland. In addition, have any discussions taken place with the Republic of Ireland?
Conor Burns
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I have not had direct talks with the UFU, but the voice of Northern Ireland is very effectively represented in government by the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, and the voice of Northern Ireland will always be heard when the hon. Gentleman is in this House.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
In the last hour, the President of the United States has tweeted:
“As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!).”
So I wonder whether the Minister can tell my constituents who are producing and bottling fine Scotch whisky—this is especially in relation to the next urgent question—whether these arrangements are to be used as leverage against the unmatched wisdom of the President of the United States in a future trade agreement of a no-deal Brexit?
Conor Burns
I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. As I said, this is my first appearance at this Dispatch Box, but my cursory knowledge of these matters is that one is accountable at this Box for things within one’s responsibility. However vast the portfolio that I have the honour to discharge, the tweets of the President of the United States were not in my job description the last time I checked.
Mr Speaker
Very deft, if I may say so. Some of us might think, on the basis of personal experience, that there is an unmatched wisdom in Nancy Pelosi, but there you go.
US Tariffs: Scotch Whisky
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
We come now to the next urgent question. At the risk of embarrassing him, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) tells me that this is the first time he has asked a question from the Back Benches in 14 years, but I am sure it will not show.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
(Urgent Question): I know that you always indulge a novice in these proceedings, Mr Speaker.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade to make a statement on what discussions Her Majesty’s Government have had with the US and EU, following the announcement by the United States trade representative of their intention to impose tariffs of 25% on single malt Scotch whisky and other UK products on 18 October.
Mr Speaker
Oh, the Minister is making a second performance at the Dispatch Box. Excellent.
Conor Burns
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question.
The United Kingdom continues to be a champion of the international rules-based order of which the World Trade Organisation is the cornerstone. However, the United Kingdom is clear that resorting to tariffs is in no one’s interests. Low tariffs and free trade underpin prosperity and jobs in the UK and globally, which is why we are pursuing an ambitious free trade agenda, lowering tariffs and quotas where possible and working on an ambitious package of bilateral free trade agreements.
The Government are disappointed by the United States Administration’s announcement that they intend to impose tariffs on the UK and our European partners following the most recent ruling. My right hon. Friend asks what communications there have been between the Government and the United States. We have continued to raise this issue at the highest levels; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spoken to US Trade Representative Lighthizer, Commerce Secretary Ross and Vice-President Pence; my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has raised the issue of Airbus tariffs with the US Secretary of the Treasury; and the issue was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) with President Trump during his state visit to the United Kingdom in June this year.
The dispute has a long history; indeed, it goes back to 2004. I will not detain the House by setting out that history, but it is long and complex and has led to the WTO judgment. Although the UK, France, Germany and Spain took steps to bring their support into compliance with the WTO, the WTO ruled last year that further steps were required to bring that support fully into compliance. Following that ruling, the UK and other Airbus nations have now taken steps to bring their support fully into line. The Airbus nations are seeking confirmation from the WTO in the ongoing proceedings that those steps are sufficient to achieve compliance. A ruling is expected in the coming months.
However, WTO procedure allows for the US to seek authorisation to retaliate against the EU in parallel to the ongoing proceedings and before the WTO has confirmed whether the Airbus nations have now complied with their WTO obligations. On 2 October, the WTO announced that the US can be authorised to impose up to approximately $7.5 billion in tariffs annually. Following that, the US published a list of tariffs on the EU, targeting products produced by the Airbus nations and the wider EU. These measures are not in the interests of the UK, the European Union or the United States. Tariffs will only inflict damage on businesses and citizens on both sides of the Atlantic and harm global trade and the broader aviation industry at a sensitive time.
We are working closely with the US, the EU and our European partners to support a negotiated settlement to the Airbus dispute, along with the separate Boeing disputes. I reassure the House that we will continue to press the issue at the highest levels and urge the United States to withhold tariffs until the WTO has confirmed that we have complied in the compliance proceedings—something that we expect to happen within the next couple of months.
Single malt Scotch whisky has been tariff free with the United States for more than 25 years now, and whisky exports to the US are worth more than £1 billion annually. Single malt producers are often small and medium-sized companies, and the tariffs will hit those who can afford them least. We will continue to talk to the US at the highest levels to press for a settlement and for the US to hold off applying the tariffs until we have had time for a ruling.
David Mundell
I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box and thank him for his answer. I welcome the fact that this urgent question was chosen to be discussed, because the matter is urgent. There are 10 days left until the US proposes to introduce tariffs of 25% on Scotch malt whisky, which represents 60% of the UK-origin goods included on the list and 10% of the non-aviation goods from across Europe that are on the list. Curiously, products such as brandy and cognac from France are not included on the list.
As the Minister said, the US market is vital for the Scotch whisky industry, with a turnover of more than £1 billion. The distilleries involved in exporting malt to the United States are often small. They are often craft distilleries, whose establishment in recent years we particularly welcomed in Scotland. If tariffs are imposed, those industries will have to scale back their efforts in the United States. The industry estimates that there could be a loss of £228 million in revenue, and that 3,000 jobs, mainly in rural Scotland, could be affected by the proposals.
I want the Government to show even more urgency than they have done to date. There are two things that can be done immediately. First, the industry has made it clear that if the Government announce that when the UK leaves the EU on 31 October this year that they will not impose tariffs on bourbon or American whiskies, that would greatly help the dialogue with the United States.
Secondly, I know that the Minister has the close ear of the Prime Minister, and it is important that he urge him to intervene directly with President Trump. It was my duty to welcome President Trump to Scotland last year. During that event, he told me that he loved Scotland. If the Prime Minister could convey directly to President Trump the damage that the proposals would do to Scotland, particularly rural Scotland, that could have an impact. I would be pleased if the Minister confirmed that he would indeed urge the Prime Minister to make those representations.
Conor Burns
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those questions. He represents a powerful voice on behalf of the industry and the people of Scotland, along with my hon. Friends around him. It is not just whisky—but I will return to whisky in a second—it is pork, cheese and cashmere. There are a number of areas that will be harmed by the tariffs. Earlier this afternoon, I spoke to Karen Betts, chief executive of the Scottish Whisky Association, who is in South Africa. It is a measure of her concern that she took time out of her schedule to talk to me. The Government are enormously sympathetic, and as I said in my answer, we would urge the United States—tariffs are not in place, and there are 10 days before they are introduced, as my right hon. Friend said—to think again. These tariffs are in no one’s interest. The President of the United States prides himself on being the champion of the little guy, the little business. Well, it is the little business and the little guy who will be harmed most directly if the tariffs come into play.
I can entirely understand my right hon. Friend urging the Government to adjust section 232 countermeasures by removing the tariff on bourbon. We believe in the international rules-based order. It would be the easiest thing in the world simply to say to him, “Yes, we are going to do that.” However, while we remain a member of the European Union, we have to comply with the rules of the European Union. What I would say to him is that when we leave the European Union, nothing is off the table.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I welcome the urgent question asked by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). I welcome, too, the measured tone of the Minister’s response, the factual information that he provided at the Dispatch Box and his support for the international rules-based order.
It is no secret that the American President has sought to define his Administration as one of trade warfare, seeking to put the interests of America first and to repatriate jobs and industry to the USA. He believes that a trade war is one that the US can win. Does the Minister agree that no one wins in a trade war? That much is clear from the spurious Boeing case against the importation of C Series aircraft and the use of section 232 national security measures to prevent steel and aluminium exports to the US, and now again in respect of automotive imports.
The concern for British exporters is that the recent findings of the WTO in relation to aircraft subsidies will be used to secure an advantage for American producers and for American interests in any future trade agreement between our nations. The US trade representative has been clear that the US will impose countermeasures in the first instance and will seek to discuss how to resolve this dispute with the EU thereafter
“in a way that will benefit American workers”.
Other European leaders have been clear in their condemnation of the measures, but our Government have been decidedly more reserved, perhaps for fear of jeopardising any future trade talks. I note in the Government’s response published last week that the UK was seeking clarification from the WTO that the UK was compliant with measures regarding subsidies to Airbus, so I ask the Minister when he expects that such confirmation will be given and whether this indicates a divergence from the EU response.
Many products that these tariffs are being imposed on are subject to geographical indications, which are awarded under trade agreements to protect products of cultural heritage. It is no surprise that these products have been targeted first, as American producers of rival products have made no secret of their desire to destroy such protections. Does the Minister agree that this is not just about responding to the subsidies ruling, but about undermining and eliminating competition in favour of US producers who have long sought to do away with product labelling requirements, restrictive geographical indicators, and even sanitary and phytosanitary standards? Does he agree that going after some of our most iconic products is part of that strategy?
The Scotch whisky exports from this country amount to £6 billion a year—21% of all our food and drink exports, and 41 bottles a second. That is faster than I can drink it! Scotch whisky is so important to our exports. In fact, I think it is our third largest export, so the Government need to do all they can to protect it. These measures come at a time when the UK Prime Minister still insists that we could have a no-deal Brexit in a matter of days—a scenario under which substantial tariffs could be imposed on our exports to the EU. That would be a double whammy for British producers.
The impact of these tariffs on our biggest markets would be enormous, particularly for products such as Scotch whisky. No amount of new trade agreements overseas could mitigate that imminent threat. The EU is understood to be exploring what position to take in respect of these new tariffs. What role will the Minister’s officials be taking in those discussions, given our pending withdrawal?
Conor Burns
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his support; I think this is a relatively rare but very welcome moment where there will be an outbreak of consensus across the House.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the Scotch whisky industry to the UK. Whisky is the UK’s biggest single agrifood export, accounting for more than 21% of all UK food and drink exports. In 2018, exports of all whisky from the UK totalled £4.8 billion, of which the Scotch Whisky Association claims £4.7 billion is Scotch whisky. Scotch whisky is the biggest single contributor to the UK balance of trade in goods, and the largest single market for UK exports of all whisky—not just Scotch whisky—by value is the United States, which imported more than £1 billion-worth in 2018 or a volume of 84,791 tonnes.
Beyond that, a further £268 million is injected into the economy through the supply chain, leading to a UK-wide impact of just under £5 billion. Some 40,000 jobs are directly supported by the Scotch whisky industry, 7,000 of which are in rural areas of Scotland. This is an absolutely vital sector to the United Kingdom and one that we are determined to do everything we can to protect.
The shadow Secretary of State will have heard me say to Mr Speaker earlier that the dispute that has led to these threatened tariffs in 10 days’ time is a very long and complex one and is being governed by the investigations at the WTO. It is regrettable, although we accept it, that we were found not to be in compliance and the WTO has given the United States permission to go down this route.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about our belief that we are now completely compliant and have taken the remedial measures necessary to bring ourselves into compliance in this dispute. We hope that that will happen within the next couple of months. We are pressing the WTO for an early decision on that, because the evidence base on this stuff is incredibly important, particularly in our conversations with the United States.
I am anxious this afternoon to dial down the atmosphere and not engage in deep personal attacks on people in other countries. The hon. Gentleman was very restrained, and rightly so, in what he said. We want to keep it on the issues. We think that the proposed tariff is unfair, wrong and unjust, and if we can demonstrate that we are now in compliance in this very long-running dispute and have taken the necessary measures, I hope that we can engage calmly with the United States.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that one of the reasons why the United Kingdom is so internationally necessary, and why our taking up our position again in the WTO when we leave the EU is a good thing and is widely welcomed internationally, is that we believe in the international rules-based order. We believe that any fair, reasoned, rational observer who looks at this will conclude that these tariffs are unjust, unfair and wrong and are targeting people who have done absolutely nothing in terms of the dispute that has given birth to these retaliatory measures. I hope that, with constructive engagement and calm dialogue, we may persuade the United States to think again.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Mr Speaker, as you know from my application for an urgent question on this subject today, my constituency is severely affected by the announcements from the US last week. Moray is home to 40% of all Scotch whisky distilleries, as well as a sector that has not been mentioned so far: the biscuit industry. Some 50% of biscuits exported to the US are Scottish shortbread. Moray is home to Walkers of Aberlour, and when I spoke to Jim Walker earlier this afternoon, he wanted me to stress that figure. I met Lewis Maclean of Maclean’s Highland bakery in Forres on Friday, who expressed his concerns for his sector as well.
Can the Minister update the House on what steps the Government will take over the next 10 days to try to stop these tariffs taking effect from 18 October, which feeds into the important Christmas market? I also reiterate the point that a zero tariff on bourbon and American whiskey when we leave the European Union would send the strongest possible message to the US that the UK is on its side, and it should take away these tariffs?
Conor Burns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a doughty champion for his constituents and the commercial interests in his constituency. I was aware of the presence of Walkers Shortbread in his constituency and the fact that it exports more than £29 million a year and is a significant local employer. Before coming to the House, I asked for a list of all Members who represent Scottish constituencies and how many distilleries they have in their constituency. I was more than surprised to find that my hon. Friend has a significant number—I think more than 40—in his constituency, which makes the following offer very easy to make: I would be delighted to visit him in his constituency and see some of those distilleries, and perhaps also Walkers Shortbread.
As for what we can do to get this message across, the United States ambassador to the UK, Ambassador Johnson, is known to many of us, and he is known to be very close to President Trump. I encourage all Members across the House to contact the American ambassador and make him aware of the strength of feeling on this subject in this House and across the country.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
As the Minister will find out, it is quality rather than quantity that counts when it comes to Scotch whisky. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Scotch whisky, I have no doubt that these tariffs will have a hugely negative impact on one of our most important, successful and growing industries. The Scotch whisky industry employs 11,000 people directly. I encourage UK Ministers to do everything they can to resolve this as quickly as possible, because it is in no one’s interests to have a trade war like this, where everybody will almost inevitably end up on the losing side and jobs, confidence and future investment will be affected. I fear that these tariffs will disproportionately impact on the small independent distilleries, of which there are many in my Argyll and Bute constituency and, indeed, across the economically fragile, rural parts of Scotland.
The Minister listed a number of conversations that have been had, but I would like him to clarify what conversations have taken place since Thursday with both the EU and the United States? Is it not the case that a post-Brexit, isolated UK would have much less negotiating power than it currently has as part of one of the world’s largest trade blocs when it comes to fending off someone like Donald Trump?
Conor Burns
I am going to resist the temptation to launch on the last point. Tempting as it is, I would rather try to keep a degree of consensus on the issue, but I would say this to the hon. Gentleman. He opened by saying that it is quality, not quantity, that counts. I think that has been the cry of many down the generations. A trade war would be in no one’s interests: there will be no winners in a trade war. The thing that I think agitates and upsets us most about this, as I said earlier, is that those who have done absolutely nothing in the Airbus-Boeing dispute, with the rights and wrongs on both sides, and people who have had absolutely nothing to do with that, going back so many years, will now be hurt and harmed if these tariffs come into play. We will continue to use every opportunity to convey to our friends in the United States that this is—
Conor Burns
I am not sure that it is helpful to have a running commentary on everything that is being said. I think those who are employed in distilleries in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency would be much more interested in what the Government are trying to do to get a successful outcome. I have told the hon. Gentleman and the House the exchanges and the conversations there have been, and those will continue. We are determined to use the next 10 days to try to persuade our friends in the United States that this is the wrong way to go.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The decision by the US affects other iconic Scottish industries, such as cashmere and textiles. We have a long tradition in my constituency in the borders, and both Hawico and Johnstons in Hawick have been in touch with me in recent days, expressing severe concerns about the impact that these tariffs are going to have on their American business. Can the Minister assure me that textiles and cashmere are on his radar, and that he will be trying to find a solution for those sectors too? If no solution can be found by 18 October, will the Government consider compensating those businesses for the duties and tariffs they are going to have to pay out?
Conor Burns
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am happy to reassure him by reiterating the comments I made to our right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) about cashmere and other product lines. This is not confined to Scotch whisky, although Scotch whisky will obviously dominate the coverage of this because it is such an iconic Scottish, and indeed British, brand. It is known everywhere, and only two days ago in Vietnam we were having conversations about the labelling of imports of Scotch whisky through third countries and how that was leading to an increase in illicit sales of Scotch whisky products. Diageo has been very vigorous in lobbying the Government on that and other related issues. We are absolutely determined to support this sector, and indeed the other sectors that my hon. Friend quite rightly highlighted.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Knitwear is something that defines Shetland in the eyes of many across the world. Just in the last week, we have seen visitors coming to the isles from right around the globe as part of an enormously successful Shetland Wool Week—especially coming from the United States of America. Does the Minister understand that the damage that will be caused by tariffs of this sort is not just about manufacturing and exports, but about tourism? The communities that rely on our defining products, such as Scotch whisky and knitwear, are some of the smallest and most economically fragile to be found anywhere, and jobs that are lost there will not be easily replaced.
Conor Burns
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. Knitwear from his part of Scotland is a small but very well-known British-Scottish-UK brand. He is absolutely correct to suggest that if the tariffs did come in and those sole traders, partnerships or companies with two or three people working together folded, it would be unlikely that they would come back. They are a very precious part of our heritage and this microeconomy would be lost, which is why we will do everything we can to persuade the US to think again.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
As you know, Mr Speaker, not all whisky is Scotch. I happen to have with me a bottle of Filey Bay, Yorkshire’s first whisky. It was released on Saturday after the requisite three years and a day. It is from the Spirit of Yorkshire distillery in Hunmanby in my constituency. Will the Minister confirm that he will provide support for whisky producers wherever they are, whether from the great nation of Scotland or God’s own county of Yorkshire?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman loses no opportunity. Why will it not be a surprise to right hon. and hon. Members to be reminded that his successful business career was as an estate agent? [Laughter.]
Conor Burns
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Sparking a debate on what constitutes whisky is something I would not wish to do on my first outing at the Dispatch Box, Mr Speaker. I see some friends from Northern Ireland, although I am sure it has never touched the lips of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). Coming from Northern Ireland as I do, I know that some very fine whiskey is made there. I make this undertaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake): the Government will protect and promote whisky that is produced in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Bushmills is, of course, the only Irish whiskey made in the United Kingdom, and therefore the only British whiskey with an “e” in it, making it the most excellent whiskey in the whole of the United Kingdom. No doubt when the Minister was in his boyhood in Ballycastle he would have sampled the angel’s share of that product. Can he confirm the proportion of product sold by the Bushmills distillery that are blends with other whiskey products from the Republic of Ireland? Can he confirm that they will therefore be zero-rated for all future sales? Given that that will then create an unlevel playing field, will he ensure that the same advantage rests with single malt whiskey made in Bushmills?
Conor Burns
As the hon. Gentleman knows, these tariffs relate to single malt whisky products. I can say to him that I have visited Bushmills many times and that I am a fan of Bushmills whiskey. The old inn at Bushmills is among the finest places to stay anywhere in the United Kingdom. His father and my grandfather shared something in common: they never drank at all. I did not follow my grandfather’s example. I am sure he followed his father’s.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As the UK Government are rightly considering lowering some tariffs on food and drink products once we leave the EU, what opportunity will there be to get some benefit or leverage out of that spontaneous reduction?
Conor Burns
As my right hon. Friend knows, we are determined to take full advantage of the opportunities of leaving the European Union. We believe, as a Government and as a party, that low tariffs, preferably no tariffs, are mutually beneficial to us and to countries with whom we do business. Free trade creates jobs, prosperity and wealth. We have to continue to articulate that case, particularly to our friends in the United States who are normally free market in outlook and light touch in regulation, and who mirror our basic political philosophy. A trade war benefits nobody, not least those we are elected to serve.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Many years ago, Mr Speaker, when Mr Speaker Weatherill sat in your Chair, I was taking part in a filibuster and I mentioned Penderyn whisky at length. As a result, Mr Speaker Weatherill said that he would very much like to sample it, and I believe that he was sent several bottles. Earlier, the Minister asked me to return to the question of what will happen to Penderyn whisky—obviously, he wants to give me more information than he was able to during the previous urgent question. I repeat: Penderyn whisky is from a small distillery in my constituency on the edge of the Brecon Beacons. It is an important employer in an area of still high unemployment and it is very important that it is protected.
Conor Burns
The right hon. Lady makes a very powerful case. As I have said a number of times at this Dispatch Box in answer to several hon. and right hon. Members, we believe that it is terribly unfair that the small producer will be caught in the crossfire of a dispute in which they had no part and no part in making. I am very happy to meet her to talk particularly about her local employer and hear its local arguments, and she must feel under absolutely no obligation to come to that meeting with any whisky from her local producer.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to trying to protect the industries that could be affected if these tariffs come into place. I also welcome the UK Government’s commitment—specifically, when there are an additional 12 Scottish Conservative MPs—on support for the spirits industry across Scotland and in Angus. I ask him for reassurances that in an upcoming Budget, he will look carefully at the spirits industry as a whole and other industries that would be affected were these tariffs to come into play on 18 October.
Conor Burns
I congratulate my hon. Friend on yet another demonstration of what a powerful advocate she is for those who put their trust in her to serve as their Member of Parliament. I said earlier that the tweets of the President of the United States were slightly beyond my remit. I am afraid that the Chancellor’s next Budget falls into a similar but not distinct category, but I am sure that she will make that point very powerfully to our right hon. Friend, and that it will receive a warm welcome.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Airbus Industries will be heavily impacted by the decision last week. Has the Minister raised this issue with Airbus since Thursday, and has he raised with the United States ambassador the 275,000 jobs that are provided by Airbus in 40 states in America, as well as the thousands in my constituency and across the whole north-west?
Conor Burns
I have not yet had the opportunity to raise this issue directly with Airbus, but I have put out a call to the American ambassador. As I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand, the reason that I have not yet had the opportunity to talk directly to Airbus is that I returned to the UK only late last night after a visit last week to Vietnam. When I came into the office, I spoke to the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association and I reached out to our counterparts in Scotland and Wales. Such conversations will be happening urgently in the course of this week.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Ind)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s respect for the rules-based international order, but does he share my concern that the US, under this President, has by contrast ridden roughshod over multilateral institutions and agreements? This President has made it abundantly clear that he views trade negotiations simply as a means of reducing US trade deficits, subverting the rules of the WTO whenever they get in his way.
Conor Burns
I am very keen that we do not try to personalise this as a dispute between the United Kingdom and the person of the President of the United States. The relationship between the UK and the US is one between two great nations and two historical allies. It is the case that the United Kingdom continues to take strongly the view that we should uphold the international rules-based order. We see the WTO as a very important part of regulating and acting as a fair and impartial arbiter in international trade disputes. We have already said publicly that we do not think that the WTO is perfect and that we would welcome some reform—in particular, to increase the speed at which dispute resolution takes place. We will continue to engage with our counterparts in the United States, and we hope that we can persuade them that these are damaging measures that should not happen. There was chuntering when I said that I would continue to reach out during the course of this week—I mean by tomorrow, but I cannot guarantee that people will answer the phone.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Every bottle of Bowmore, Laphroaig, Ardmore, Glen Garioch and Auchentoshan malts are vatted, bottled and packaged by 200 skilled workers in Springburn in my constituency, so the impact of this could be devastating for that workforce. However, what was clear to me from a recent visit there was the symbiotic relationship between the Scotch whisky industry and the American bourbon industry, not least, brands such as Maker’s Mark and Jim Beam, because the casks are used to mature those Scotch whiskies. Will the Minister impress upon his counterparts in America that this is a mutually destructive measure by the American Government and that they ought to consider the impact that it will have on not just British industry, but American industry?
Conor Burns
The hon. Gentleman, if I may say so—[Interruption.] I am sure that Scottish National party Members would like to listen to the reply, because the hon. Gentleman made an excellent point that I had not thought of before. I welcome what he said and I would be very interested in talking to him more about that because that could be a very fruitful line of discussion between us and the United States. Perhaps we could have a conversation about that this week.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend advise me what steps the UK Government are taking to help to broker a negotiated settlement between the EU and the United States on what is essentially a long-standing issue regarding airplane manufacture between Boeing and Airbus, thus avoiding damaging tariffs for companies such as William Grant & Sons in Girvan, in close proximity to Trump Turnberry, and on cashmere produced by Begg & Co. of Ayr?
Conor Burns
My hon. Friend asks an excellent question. I have articulated what we are trying to do: first, to persuade the United States not to act in the timeframe that they have set out; and secondly, to work with our friends and colleagues in the European Union to press the WTO to come to judgment on the Airbus/Boeing case and our compliance with the judgment as quickly as possible, so that we can move on from this and get back to proper free trade. In terms of the textile and whisky companies that my hon. Friend mentioned, we are acutely aware of that and they have our support.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) outlined, Bushmills whiskey is defined internationally as Irish whiskey. Is the Minister aware that the Republic of Ireland seems to have negotiated an opt-out for its single malt Irish whiskey? Did he or the Department engage in renegotiations to try to get an opt-out for whiskies from the UK, and how does he intend to catch up with the Republic of Ireland on this issue?
Conor Burns
We want to deal with the macro on this issue. These are very bad tariffs that we believe have no foundation. We believe that they are wrong and profoundly unhelpful, and we believe that they undermine the whole concept of free trade and will damage people who are producing and employing. I would rather go down the route of trying to persuade our American friends to abandon this entire series of tariff attacks and look at the issue calmly and reasonably based on the current facts, not ancient dispute, than seeking to try to get an opt-out in some way, which in a sense would legitimise the underpinning of something that we consider to be wrong.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Whisky is an enormous employer in Ochil and South Perthshire, from Glenturret to Tullibardine to Diageo. They employ thousands of people across the constituency. What is my hon. Friend doing to limit the impact on the broader supply chain that will affect not only my constituency, but Scottish and northern English farmers? Will he join me and the rest of the Scottish Conservatives’ campaign for the Treasury to continue to freeze spirit duty in the next Budget to ensure that there is not a double hit for our producers in Scotland?
Conor Burns
I congratulate and salute my colleagues representing Scottish constituencies. To weave into this, my debut performance at the Dispatch Box, the writing of the Chancellor’s Budget shows a degree of ingenuity I welcome. I will certainly make representations on behalf of my hon. Friends, who serve the people of Scotland so well, about what the Chancellor can do in his Budget to help protect this sector.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) said, Airbus is a huge employer on both sides of the north Wales border, so when the Minister has his conversations will he emphasise that point and the point that the United States employs a significant number of people in the same industry?
Conor Burns
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and he makes it well, and he is correct.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
I warmly welcome my good friend to the Dispatch Box—he is doing a great job—and if he wants to visit Aberdeen on his way up to Moray, he will be more than welcome. Can he give a commitment that in future trade talks with the US his Department will prioritise the export market for the great iconic Scottish whisky industry, and does he agree that as we leave the EU we have the opportunity to open up new and growing markets, such as India and Taiwan?
Conor Burns
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who serves his constituents in Aberdeen so effectively. Absolutely, that will be the case when we start our discussions and negotiations with the United States. I chaired a trade discussion with the Taiwanese last week, before I went to Vietnam, and I was struck by how incredibly interested they were in growing the sector. Asia is a massive growth market for Scottish whisky. We are also determined to seek to remove some of the tariff and non-tariff barriers to other markets in the Asian region.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Minister said he did not want to personalise this, but even with a small urban constituency I have a maturation warehouse, a bottling plant and three cooperages. If the UK has such a special relationship with the US, why does the Prime Minister not just pick up the phone to Donald Trump and tell him to drop these ridiculous tariffs?
Conor Burns
I have no doubt that the Prime Minister, the next time he speaks to the President of the United States, will want to express his disappointment and concern at these measures and will urge the President to invite his Administration to think again. I say to all right hon. and hon. Members, however, that if our shared goal is not seeing these tariffs implemented in 10 days’ time, I am far from convinced that the best way of achieving that outcome is to personally attack the President of the United States.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is not often I say this, but I completely agree with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara): it is about quality, not quantity. I represent Scotland’s two finest distilleries, Royal Lochnagar and Fettercairn, and I think the Minister hit the nail on the head. My Scottish Conservative colleagues have mentioned the possible quid pro quo of removing the bourbon tariff in exchange for removing the 25% Scotch malt whisky tariff being imposed by President Trump. Can he confirm whether that suggestion has been made to the United States, and if it has, how did it go down?
Conor Burns
I can confirm to yet another powerful advocate for the Scottish interest on the Conservative Benches that I am not aware that that has been put to the United States. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), we are either a believer in the rules-based international order or we are not. We are still currently a member of the EU, and we have to comply with the rules of that institution as long as we are in it. I do not think that to do something unilaterally on bourbon at this time would be right. However, as I made clear to my right hon. Friend, when we have left the EU, if we have not resolved this, the Government do not take any option off the table.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
The Glenkinchie distillery, in my constituency, has been around since 1837 and is the finest lowland distillery in Scotland. Can the Minister confirm that, if we were to leave the EU, the US tariffs would not automatically fall but would indeed continue? To quote the advice of a former President to a former Prime Minister during the banana trade wars, politicians in America do not seem to have a lot of control over this. Who is the Minister reaching out to in the US beyond the immediate politicians to secure a revocation of the tariffs, hopefully before they are imposed?
Conor Burns
Ultimately, these are decisions for the United States Administration, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has reached out to her counterpart, why the Chancellor has reached out to his, and why my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) raised these points when President Trump was here over the summer. As I said in answer to a previous question, I am sure my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will want to make this point directly to the President the next time they speak. I say to all right hon. and hon. Members, however, that we are not bystanders in this process; we are participants, and everyone in the House has a perfect right—indeed, an obligation, if they have an interest in this—to make their views known to the United States ambassador in the United Kingdom, who will then be able to convey them back to his Administration at home.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
As well as the many distillers across Scotland, including the two wonderful distilleries in my constituency, Macduff and Glenglassaugh, the news of these tariff proposals will concern the many thousands of people involved in the Scotch whisky supply chain, including the farmers in my constituency who produce the finest malting barley for the Scotch whisky sector. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the UK Government will safeguard the interests of barley growers and all those who may be indirectly affected by these tariffs, in addition to the distillers?
Conor Burns
I pointed out in a previous answer—to the shadow Minister, I think—the degree of reliance on the Scots whisky sector within the supply chain. That supply chain adds enormous value to the UK economy, and hundreds if not thousands of jobs depend on it, so I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that undertaking.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I cannot boast any of the fine distilleries that other hon. Members have mentioned, but I do have a bottling plant with American connections and the global headquarters of Diageo, one of the world’s largest producers of spirits—indeed, the producer of the single biggest selling spirit in the world—and they will not be immune to this tariff. Does the Minister share our concern that this latest dispute with the United States simply illustrates the position we might be in if we leave the EU and depend entirely on the WTO—the very organisation that okayed these tariffs today?
Conor Burns
We should be under no illusion: in this respect, the WTO was doing its job. We were found not to have abided by the rules. In a sense, the WTO is obliged to allow the sanctions. As I have said repeatedly, the great sadness—the great sense of unfairness and foul play—is that the people who will be targeted, some of whom could be destroyed commercially, if the tariffs are implemented in 10 days’ time had nothing to do with the dispute where we were found not to have done the right thing. The best way to guarantee free trade is proper bilateral free trade agreements between us and other countries, and that is why we want a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU and a deal that allows us to leave in an orderly way on 31 October.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his debut at the Dispatch Box. If he goes on like this, it will not be long before he is presenting the Budget, and he will have a chance to sip the devil’s buttermilk as he does so.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that America is the largest market for Scotch whisky. What other levers can he pull to promote whisky in the emerging markets of Asia and further afield—for instance by using the efforts of the GREAT campaign? This is a real opportunity to push our whiskies into other markets.
Perhaps you should lead by example, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker’s 10-year-old single malt sells for £29 a bottle, which is a remarkable increase on what it retailed for 10 years ago. Perhaps as your parting shot, Sir, you should immediately commission, as a gesture of confidence in the Scotch whisky business, a new bottle of Speaker Bercow’s brew.
Conor Burns
I am incredibly grateful to my right hon. Friend. Indeed, having served as his Parliamentary Private Secretary from August 2010 for, I think, a couple of years, I now model myself on him, having watched his deft performances at the Dispatch Box from a position behind him.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the growing interest in Scotch whisky around the world. As I have said, the Taiwanese market has been discussed several times in Vietnam in the last few days. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend might be on to something. Perhaps we should tie it to the GREAT campaign, and perhaps we should invite our new prime ministerial trade envoys in the beefed-up programme to make this a priority.
Scotch whisky is genuinely one of those international iconic brands. It is up there with Rolls-Royce, and all the other brands that are instinctively recognised as British. It is as well known as Buckingham Palace or, indeed, this very building, and it is integral to our promotion of ourselves as global Britain.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) justifiably feels great pride in his protégé—the person whom, in fact, I might describe as his mentee. The mentoring skills have clearly had their impact.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Although Stoke-on-Trent does not make Scotch whisky, Wade Ceramics makes the ceramic bottles in which whisky is sold all over the world. In a similar vein to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), may I impress on the Minister that the supply chain for this product may be deeply impacted, and I ask what conversations he or the Government are having with the representatives of that supply chain to pass on in the negotiations, which I know they will welcome protecting their interests?
Conor Burns
As this session evolves, I am becoming ever more impressed by the ingenuity of colleagues who want us to write Budgets and also to raise the position of other sectors. I mentioned the supply chain a couple of times earlier, and we talked about the ceramics sector during the urgent question on the day one tariffs policy. We absolutely recognise the importance of that, and I am always willing to meet the hon. Gentleman and other representatives of the sector to discuss what more the Government can do to support it.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we should not engage in personal attacks on the President, but is it not nevertheless a strategic concern for us that we are seeing an Administration who appear to have a remarkable proclivity for protectionism? Does that not underline the fact that we as a nation need to be a champion of free trade, and that as we negotiate our exit from the EU we will have to have practical powers and instruments at our disposal, so that we can be that champion of free trade in practice?
Conor Burns
The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend’s question is yes, absolutely, we must remain a champion of free trade, and that we will do. The answer to the first part of his question is that we have to deal with the world as it is. The greatest strategic interest that we have—that the House has, that the Government have—is to try to persuade the United States not to implement these tariffs in 10 days’ time, and thereby to protect the Scotch whisky industry.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I must say that it is wonderful to hear a UK Government Minister recognise the enormous value that Scotch adds to the UK economy. I hope he will remember that next time his colleagues try to suggest that the Scottish economy is some kind of basket case.
The North British Distillery, which is in my constituency, is one of Scotland’s oldest and largest grain whisky producers, and is a very important employer in Edinburgh South West. While this tariff is of course aimed at single malts, it is a worrying indication of how the US Government may treat iconic Scottish food and drink products in any trade negotiation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) suggested, if the Prime Minister’s alleged good offices with President Trump cannot resolve this problem, what hope is there for future trade negotiations outside the EU?
Conor Burns
After—how long has it been?—quite a long time during which we have enjoyed such wonderful consensus, I fear that we have now entered the press release-writing section of this urgent question.
No Conservative Member would ever speak of the Scottish economy in such denigrating terms. It is, in fact, because of our respect for the people of Scotland and the Scottish economy that Government Members passionately believe in Scotland’s integral place as a part of the United Kingdom. It is we who passionately believe that we are better together, and it is we who passionately believe that the best interests of the Scottish people are served by membership of this United Kingdom. It is this Government, serving every part of the United Kingdom, who will do all that we can to protect that sector, and to protect whisky producers in every part of this country. But if the hon. and learned Lady, who has taken some time off from her court cases to come here today, genuinely believes that the best way of resolving this dispute is to attack and denigrate personally the President of the United States, I think that shows how naive she is.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Let me confirm to the Minister that no Scottish Conservative considers Scotland’s economy to be a basket case. What an insult that was from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). However, I am concerned about the single malt distillers in Stirling, namely Deanston and Glengoyne: I am anxious that they should be able to continue to prosper. Is one of the options that the Government might pursue in their representations to the United States that this date of 18 October might be postponed a little, to allow us some time in which to continue negotiations?
Conor Burns
As I have indicated on a couple of occasions, the Government think that the way to move forward is to ask our friends and allies in the United States not to implement these tariffs within the timeline that they are proposing, to work with the EU and the other countries within it which are affected by the Airbus-Boeing dispute and are therefore subject to these tariffs, to secure a judgment from the WTO that confirms that we are now compliant, and to talk to the United States about how we can withdraw the tariffs and allow a sector that is vital to us and to the United States to proceed unimpeded.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
This announcement has put the hard reality of trade disputes into sharp relief, but may I ask the Minister whether the tariff also applies to Welsh single malt whisky, such as that produced by Dà Mhìle Distillery in my constituency? In the harmonised tariff schedule published by the United States Government, the relevant subheading and description refer only to Irish and Scotch whisky.
Conor Burns
My understanding is that that applies to the whole United Kingdom, but I shall be happy to check and to write to the hon. Gentleman tomorrow.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
There is a huge sense of frustration in the Scotch whisky industry and, indeed, among other spirits manufacturers about the fact that several European spirits were not included in the list, and that they are being treated as collateral damage in a trade dispute that has nothing to do with them. As we move forward, what steps will the Government take to try to de-escalate trade disputes more generally, so that situations such as this do not continue to arise?
Conor Burns
As I have said several times, one of the great frustrations about this particular case is the fact that the Boeing-Airbus dispute goes back a long way. It was found that we had not behaved appropriately, hence the judgment. We would like to see reform of the World Trade Organisation to accelerate the dispute resolution process through the WTO so that the situation does not arise again, but we would also like to try to decouple that dispute and those judgments from this sector and other sectors that will be affected. We do not think that these tariffs are just; we think that they are wrong, and we want to work with our friends in the United States to try to persuade them not to implement them.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am surprised at the Minister’s tetchy and defensive response to the gentle questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara). All he was asking was how many meetings the Minister had had in the past five days since this was announced. His ill-mannered friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), suggested that there would be meetings tomorrow. The Minister himself has hinted that his phone calls will not be received or secured. He is a Minister of the Crown, for goodness’ sake! Get on with it! Make sure you are speaking to them! Get this sorted!
Conor Burns
I am incredibly grateful for that question.
The hon. Gentleman says that I should have had these meetings last week, but I was in Vietnam last week. I arrived back in the UK today, and my officials and I have been working today and reaching out. I am actually quite fond of the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he is deliberately teasing me and misrepresenting what I said. I hope to have those conversations tomorrow, but what I said was that I could not guarantee that people would pick up the phone.
Conor Burns
The funny thing about being a Minister is that it does not necessarily mean that everyone talks to you, and it certainly does not mean that they talk to you—[Interruption.] I did say to all colleagues in the House that we all have a role to play in this. It is not a matter of, as the hon. Gentleman says, “Give it to us”. We are all in this together, and the people who work in the sector will not care whether it is the SNP, the Tories or Labour. What they will want to see is this entire House of Commons coming together to support the industry.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Chambers of commerce and transatlantic trade bodies play a key role in shaping trade policy, including on the other side of the Atlantic. What engagement has my hon. Friend had with those bodies to open up trade and markets for our exports?
Conor Burns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, particularly as he is the last in the thin blue line between me and a barrage of questions from SNP colleagues for the remainder of these questions. He makes a very powerful point indeed.
Conor Burns
My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak) asked the question, and we speak through the Speaker, so I am looking directly at the Speaker. I say to the hon. Lady that I observe the conventions of this House.
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If we are going to advance our international trade objectives, that is done not just Government to Government, bilaterally; it is done trade organisation to trade organisation. To coin a phrase, we are all in it together.
Patricia Gibson
Clearly these punitive tariffs on Scotch whisky will be extremely damaging for distilleries such as those in my constituency in Lochranza and Lagg on the beautiful island of Arran. Despite the Minister’s words, it is clear that this damaging trade war we face does not sit well with our so-called special relationship with the US. A number of people have asked this, and I too want to press him on whether he shares the concern that this trade war is happening just as we are at the point of preparing to lose our collective trading strength as part of the EU.
Conor Burns
I share the concern of the hon. Lady, and of Members from every part of the House who have spoken this afternoon, that this is happening at all. It is the objective of the Government to try to persuade the United States to think again and not impose these damaging tariffs in 10 days’ time.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Mr Speaker, when you think about it, the most remote UK mainland jobs associated with Scotch whisky distilling are in my constituency by definition. I think of Old Pulteney in Wick and Glenmorangie in Tain, which are two examples providing vital jobs in places where jobs do not grow on trees. In all fairness, I wish the Government well in trying to get the United States to see sense, but the European Union is the biggest market for Scottish whisky—30% by value and 36% by volume—so surely the present trade deal we have in the EU is best for Scottish whisky.
Conor Burns
We want to try to persuade our friends in the US—I can go on repeating that; I will doubtless get into trouble with the Chair if I do so. He is no longer in his place, but as I said to the current hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna)—and, to judge from a leaflet that came through the door of my flat in London last week, the aspirant Member for Westminster —he has consistently taken the view that the membership of the EU on current terms was the best deal for the UK. That is a consistent, logical and admirable view to take. It is his view and I respect it. It was not the view of the British people in 2016 when they voted to leave the European Union. They knew what they were voting for because we sent a leaflet telling them what it meant, and we have to deal with that reality. Many of us on the Government Benches, and indeed in other parts of the House, think there are great opportunities for the United Kingdom outside the European Union. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is right that we should absolutely have an ongoing trade agreement with the EU, which is why I would urge him and others from across the House to get behind the Prime Minister in his moderate, sensible, flexible offer to the EU. Let us get a deal across the line. That would be much more constructive than his party’s position of arguing for the revocation of article 50.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
As well as having Edrington headquartered in my constituency, I have the Glasgow Clydeside distillery, which opened in 2017, and Douglas Laing & Co, whose plans for the Clutha distillery at Pacific Quay are moving on apace. However, all that is now plagued by uncertainty because of this trade dispute. What assurance and support can the Minister give to businesses in the Scotch whisky industry, particularly fledging businesses, to ensure that that investment is sound?
Conor Burns
The best support we can give them is to strain every sinew to persuade the United States not to implement these tariffs in 10 days’ time.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
These tariffs will cause concern not just in my constituency but across Scotland. Can the Minister confirm that since last Thursday there has been no direct contact between him or any other UK Minister and the US Administration over this issue?
Conor Burns
On this I can only speak for myself, having returned to the United Kingdom from Vietnam last night. I have not had a direct conversation—
Conor Burns
Because I was in Vietnam. I went to the office today, and we have been reaching out and having those conversations. I say to Opposition Members that the absolute determination that we must all share is to try to protect the Scotch whisky sector and persuade the United States not to implement these tariffs in 10 days’ time. That will be my focus for the rest of this week.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Like many Members, I have a constituency interest. One of the largest employers in my constituency is the Edrington bottling plant, which bottles brands such as Macallan single malt. I am amazed to hear the Minister say that we should be straining every sinew to get this sorted, when he cannot pick up a phone from Vietnam. That is incredible. This was a decision backed by the World Trade Organisation. Can he confirm that, post Brexit, we will simply be swapping one set of EU trade rules for a different set of WTO rules and that, as such, things such as Scotch whisky will continue to be bound by decisions made elsewhere?
Conor Burns
The hon. Lady talks about the WTO and decisions being taken elsewhere. The WTO is the international body that does dispute resolution between countries and endeavours to work for an international level playing field in trade. I am not particularly fond of the word, but I thought there was great consensus across the House on wanting to follow an international rules-based order.
By the way, on this point of who has spoken to whom, I outlined the representations made by this Government to our counterparts in the United States, which have been made at the level of the Chancellor and of the Secretary of State to Vice-President Pence and to her counterpart US trade negotiator. We have made incredibly high-level representations on this subject and will continue to do so, because we have a determination to try not to point-score, but to come to a successful resolution on behalf of the Scotch whisky sector.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
May I first congratulate—I think I might be the first Member to do so—the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this urgent question? It is an important question for the entire House, not just for those of us whose constituencies are home to Auchentoshan, which—I will chide some Members—actually finds its heart and its spirit in the Kilpatrick hills. I should know: I illegally played in its distillery as a child and first represented it in 1992 as a councillor in Clydebank. Indeed, this very House’s house whisky—or hoose whisky—is Loch Lomond, found in the beautiful vale of Leven, and our largest export to Europe is Ballantine’s from Chivas, found of course in Dumbarton.
The Minister will know that this White House is the most transactional in history and will have seen from developments in, for example, Ukraine that it has thought nothing of ratchetting up leverage in as many ways as possible, as a precursor to securing concessions at a later date. Can he therefore say what the Government are doing to limit those 25% tariffs, or whether we are going to become another Ukraine?
Conor Burns
We are doing everything we can to try to persuade the United States not to do this. That has to be the overriding ambition of us all, across the House. I have said this a couple of times already, and will do it again very briefly: we all have the ability to contact people in the United States on behalf of the UK Government. The party the hon. Gentleman represents—
Conor Burns
I was going to say to the hon. Gentleman —[Interruption.] If he wants to chunter, I can sit down—[Interruption.] Asking questions and then listening to the answer is how it sort of works, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to carry on chuntering rather than listening I can sit down and he can explain to his constituents why he did not get an answer.
Mr Speaker
That was rather unseemly. It has to be said that the Minister is being utterly courteous in his responses and it would behove Members to dignify the occasion with attentiveness to his answers.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
There are currently more Scottish whisky industry jobs based in my constituency than in any other, and the very nature of these jobs leaves my constituency and those workers extremely vulnerable to a whisky downturn. Will the Minister reassure them that no stone will be left unturned by this Government, including that of an urgent intervention from the Prime Minister to the President of the United States, in ensuring that this deeply damaging tariff is not applied?
Conor Burns
I am very happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will continue to make representations. As I have said, the Prime Minister follows proceedings in this House very closely, and I will make sure that he is aware of the strength of feeling across the House on this issue and of how important the House feels it will be for the Prime Minister to convey this message very strongly to the President on the next occasion on which they speak. I am sure that will be soon. I was going to say this to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), but as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) is listening very politely, I will say it to him: we should all be doing everything we can. The party in which the hon. Gentleman serves serves in government in Scotland, and the First Minister of Scotland herself will have a role to play in this. We must all pull on the rope together to deliver the result we want—that is, no imposition of these tariffs, which would be so damaging to the sector, in 10 days’ time.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
We know US trade groups have been pressing for any future trade deals with the UK to drop current EU requirements on the ageing of whisky so that their younger products can be labelled and sold as some sort of equivalent. How concerned is the Minister that this is just the opening shot in what will be a determined effort by the US to destroy the protections around this iconic Scottish product?
Conor Burns
As I said before, we view this round of tariffs as wrong, ungrounded and without foundation. I do not share the hon. Lady’s overall concern. It is very important to remember that this goes beyond Scottish whisky—there are other sectors, such as cheese, clothing and so on that are caught in the crossfire of an almost ancient dispute, which goes back to 2004. They should not be, and we will do everything we can to try to persuade the United States that this is the wrong course of action and of the damage it will do to small producers, who are exactly the sort of people for whom the President says he wants to stand up in the United States. I hope that we can persuade him to protect those people here in the United Kingdom.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Given that I do not actually have a distillery in my constituency, I am in the unusual position of having more workers in my constituency employed in the neighbouring aerospace sector, at Prestwick airport, and in the Airbus supply chain. It is important for both sectors that this trade dispute is resolved as soon as possible. It is also quite obvious that, although whisky is a by-trade of this, unilaterally taking tariffs off American whiskey will not solve this, given the amount of trade we send to America. These negotiations are therefore important. Given that the Minister did not pick up the phone to the US ambassador while he was in Vietnam, did he contact the EU to see what it was doing about this?
Conor Burns
Until the hon. Gentleman reached the very end of his question, I was going to say that I found myself in the very unusual position of agreeing with absolutely everything he had said. He is absolutely right that we need to decouple these tariffs and this dispute from the sector. We need to persuade the US that this is the wrong thing to do and that it is deeply harmful to people who had no role to play in the old dispute that has now finally reached judgment.
I am genuinely touched by the belief that my picking up the phone from Vietnam or anywhere else would have resolved this when people much higher up in the Government—at Cabinet level and at a very senior Cabinet level—have quite rightly been making these representations. I will now join in and support them in making these representations.
How many times do we say these things? The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy spoke to the Vice-President of the United States when he was here very recently. She spoke to her counterpart, and the Chancellor made representations to the US Treasury Secretary. I will endeavour to make sure that the Prime Minister, when he understands the strength of feeling here, raises these matters with President Trump. I will say it again: those who are watching this, those who have returned home and been foolish enough to put the Parliament channel on, will not want us to score points against each other. They will want us to deliver for the Scotch whisky sector.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
In the interests of brevity, I do not intend to reel off all the world-leading brands produced in my wonderful constituency, although I should make an exception out of deference to and respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). Killie will always be the home of Johnnie Walker, even though it is now produced and bottled in my constituency.
The world-leading brands that are produced and bottled by Diageo in Fife are almost exclusively blended whiskies, so on the face of it we are okay, but I am uncomfortable, partly because so many others are not okay and partly because something that damages part of our whisky industry damages all of it. Does it worry the Minister at all that without the UK Government being able to do anything about it we have been put into a position where it will be seen as a massive success just to get back to where we were before? Is that a precursor of what trade deals will be like in the brave new world of the WTO?
Conor Burns
In the interests of brevity, no, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Speaker
I think that the House is grateful to the Minister both for dealing with this urgent question and the exchanges on it the last 77 minutes, and for his efforts on the previous such question. He mentioned to the House that he was making his debut at the Dispatch Box. I cannot readily call to mind an example of a Minister who on making a debut at the Box has had to answer successive urgent questions, and the hon. Gentleman has done so with considerable commitment and élan. We are grateful to him.
Operation Midland Independent Report
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before I call the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) to ask his urgent question, I must inform the House that I have been advised that Carl Beech has appealed his conviction and sentence. Colleagues, those appeal proceedings are therefore sub judice under the terms of this House’s resolution and no reference should be made to the merits or otherwise either of that appeal or of the sentence imposed by the court.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
(Urgent Question): May I add my commendation to the Trade Minister who responded to the previous urgent question, who did so as to the manner born?
To ask the Minister for Crime, Policing and the Fire Service if he will make a statement on the Home Office’s response to Sir Richard Henriques’s independent report on the Metropolitan police’s Operation Midland.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and the Fire Service (Kit Malthouse)
This is a deeply concerning case. Operation Midland was the Metropolitan Police Service’s investigation into allegations of child sexual abuse made by Carl Beech against a range of public figures. Beech is now serving an 18-year prison sentence for perverting the course of justice. He has appealed his conviction and sentence, as you mentioned, Mr Speaker, and they are a matter for the courts to consider. This case has had a devastating impact on those he accused and their families. Sir Richard Henriques’s report on how the Met handled the investigation raises many concerns. The Met has already apologised for failings in the investigation and acted on many of Sir Richard’s recommendations, and we very much welcome the publication by the Met on Friday of the fuller detail of what Sir Richard found. I note that the commissioner of the metropolis has issued a further statement and apology today.
It is now vital that the public receive independent assurance that the Met has learned from the lessons identified in Sir Richard’s report and has made the necessary improvements. That is crucial to restoring public confidence that police handling of an investigation of such sensitive matters is both fair and impartial. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote last week to Her Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary and fire and rescue services to ask him to undertake an inspection at the earliest opportunity to follow up on Sir Richard’s review. It must be right that a body independent of Government take this work forward. She also asked that the inspection take account of the findings of the report of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which was published this morning, and which we will be considering carefully.
The public must have faith in the impartiality of their police service, and no one should have to suffer the ignominy of public false accusations of the most heinous kind. The Government are determined to ensure that the lessons are learned by the police and that the failings of this investigation are never repeated.
Mr Davis
The fundamental principle of our justice system is innocent until proven guilty—a principle undermined over the past decade when the rules of police forces were amended, particularly after the Jimmy Savile scandal. The entirely understandable aim of those changes was to increase the conviction rate for sexual offences, but that has been a complete failure, with conviction rates for sex crimes having dropped dramatically in the last five years.
The price that has been paid in terms of reputational damage and ruined lives has been enormous. High-profile figures investigated under Operation Midland have had their reputations disgracefully and unjustly tarnished. The IOPC, whose report was published this morning, has failed miserably to identify the Met’s failures, identify the culpable people or resolve the issues.
However, it is not just the Met. Other police forces across the country follow policy guidelines, automatically believing all allegations brought by complainants, and therefore disbelieving the defendants. This has damaged the reputations of Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini, Jim Davidson, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and many other, less well-known defendants. Will HMIC therefore review not just Operation Midland, but the judicial and policing rules and procedures covering all such cases, so that we get justice for victims and protection for the innocent?
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. Friend raises issues that are, of course, important. He rightly points out the devastating impact, as I mentioned earlier, that this episode has had on many significant public figures, one of whom was a much decorated war hero. I hope he will recognise that, in many circumstances, the police face a difficult task in trying to balance the need to give victims of crime the confidence to come forward, engage with them and report crimes, against the requirement to have justice or impartiality in an investigation at the same time.
The College of Policing, which looked at the guidelines, considered, for example, the tendency or policy that had been adopted for victims always to be believed. We have clarified the guidance that is available to police officers in those circumstances, such that, while a victim’s allegations must be heard with integrity and properly recorded once an investigation has begun, that must be done with impartiality. We hope and believe that the audit or inspection by Her Majesty’s inspector will look specifically at whether the Met has learned the lessons of this particular episode.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on securing this important urgent question.
Sir Richard Henriques’s report makes for extremely sobering reading. At the heart of this case are the victims and their families, who have faced years of questions and unthinkable damage on the basis of false and malicious allegations. It is clear that this case has exposed a serious failure of the police’s investigative functions and decision making, which has had profound consequences. Officers failed to present the whole picture when seeking search warrants, and the investigation into Lord Brittan went on far too long. Of that there is no question.
The question for the IOPC is whether the five officers involved acted deliberately or criminally. Its conclusion is that they made mistakes and that the processes failed, but that they were not guilty of gross misconduct. Indeed, Sir Richard himself acknowledged that, notwithstanding the many mistakes made, the officers conducted the investigation
“in a conscientious manner with propriety and with honesty.”
The question, therefore, for the police, for the Home Office and for us, as Parliament, is what needs to change organisationally and culturally to ensure that investigations are properly, objectively and successfully pursued. That institutional change must be our objective, but it is so often lost in the heat of the tabloids’ gaze.
It is right that our police are subject to the most intense scrutiny. The accountability of the police is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy, and many of Sir Richard’s recommendations must be implemented in the interests of accountability. Will the Minister therefore confirm exactly how many of his 25 recommendations have already been delivered and what the timeline is for further recommendations from both Sir Richard and the IOPC to be implemented and for HMIC’s review?
Does the Minister believe that there is a systemic issue on disclosure and search warrants that must be nationally addressed? What steps will the Home Office take to lead on this work? Will he specifically look into the recommendation around the audio recording of warrant applications? Furthermore, it was disappointing that the report was selectively leaked over the last week. Is any investigation intended into those leaks?
Finally, as has been touched on, this case has reignited the debate around belief of victims by the police. That debate cannot be had outside the context of record lows for rape prosecutions, with only 3% of cases reaching the courts. Our criminal justice system does not currently deliver justice to victims of sexual abuse, and it has not done historically. From Rotherham to Oxford, and from Torbay to Rochdale, victims have been failed time and again by all institutions of the state. We must therefore think carefully before imposing sweeping changes regarding the belief of complainants by the police that would have the effect of undermining genuine victims in coming forward.
As the Victims’ Commissioner has said, complainants’ rights do not exist in competition with suspects’ rights. That is why it is right that officers believe, take seriously and treat with respect every complainant of crime in the first instance and then investigate thoroughly, without fear or favour. Does the Minister therefore agree that the right approach is currently contained in the College of Policing guidance and that this approach must always be carefully balanced against the impartiality of the subsequent investigation?
Kit Malthouse
I thank the hon. Lady for a sensible intervention and for her questions. She is quite right that, as she concluded, we face the challenge of striking the difficult balance of ensuring that victims have confidence that they can come forward, that they will be taken seriously and that their allegations will be considered, but also of ensuring that those who are alleged to have carried out crimes know that the investigation will be conducted with impartiality and balance and that, in the end, justice will be served. That is absolutely the balance that we are seeking to achieve through the guidance, which was updated recently with the College of Policing to make that clearer. Part of the inspection that we have commissioned from HMIC into the Met police will be to make sure that some of these lessons have been learned.
The hon. Lady asked specifically about the number of recommendations in the Henriques report that have already been enacted, and part of our commission with the inspector is to find out exactly that—where we have got to in terms of progress. I will certainly look at the point she raises on audio recording and consider what more action we can take on that.
The hon. Lady will understand that both the report itself, which we have seen recently in full, and the IOPC report, which was issued this morning, are large documents and contain significant implications for policing into the future. That is something that we want to consider and that the Home Secretary wants to consider as well. As to the investigation into leaks, that would obviously be a matter for the Metropolitan police, should they wish to pursue it,
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I agree completely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis): the shining jewel of our criminal justice system is that somebody is innocent until proven guilty. That is their protection against the might of Government and, of course, the might of the media when they reach a speedy judgment. It has always been a concern that the processes we are discussing have casually turned that aside and that, as far as the public have been concerned, people have been guilty until proven innocent. I hope my hon. Friend will address that. Sir Richard makes that very clear.
The other vital point, which no one has raised yet, relates to interventions by public figures trying to get the police to pursue matters further. I refer in this particular case to the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson)—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman has informed the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) that he intends to raise this matter in the House.
Mr Duncan Smith
I am not making any further reference to him other than that he was raised in the report—
Madam Deputy Speaker
I advise the right hon. Gentleman that it is important that a Member is given notice if they are going to be referred to, so I am sure he will bear that in mind in his closing comments.
Mr Duncan Smith
I will. I was simply referencing Sir Richard’s report. My point is a general one. Will the Minister address the reality of the police finding themselves unnecessarily influenced by public figures as to the direction of their investigations? There needs to be some method by which they can resist that.
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. Friend raises some important issues, not least the much-debated challenge of pre-charge anonymity. The guidance is clear that those against whom allegations have been made pre-charge should generally be kept anonymous until they are charged. However, I am sure that he will accept that it is appropriate in certain circumstances for the police to release the name of somebody who is suspected of a crime, not least, for example, if they are conducting a manhunt looking for a suspect in a murder.
My right hon. Friend also raises the influence or otherwise of us and other public figures on police investigations. In his long years as a constituency MP, he will no doubt have had cause to write to the police on numerous occasions with regard to investigations into his constituents or on the behalf of his constituents, which is a perfectly legitimate thing for him to do. However, we all have a duty to bear in mind the protections and privileges that are afforded to us in this place and to use them as wisely and judiciously as possible
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
False allegations of sexual assault and abuse may be rare, but they do happen. They harm not only the wrongfully accused, but those who have been the victims of sexual assault and abuse by making it less likely that they will be believed, and I say that based on my experience of three years as a sex crimes prosecutor in Scotland’s national sex crimes unit. Does the Minister agree that the police owe it both to the victims of sexual crime and to the principle of innocent until proven guilty to carry out their investigations professionally and thoroughly without fear or favour? What steps will he be taking to reassure the victims of sexual crime that the mess that the Met has made of this case will not jeopardise future cases? Finally, there can be few things more serious than misleading a court, which is particularly serious when it is done by a police officer, so what repercussions will there be for the officers who unlawfully obtained warrants by misleading the court?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. and learned Lady raises an important point about the continuing confidence of victims to come forward. As she quite rightly says, false allegations not only betray those against whom the allegations are made, but those who come afterwards with similar allegations, who will naturally feel, in the wake of a large and difficult situation like this, that they are less likely to be believed. That is absolutely not the case, and we will do our best as a Government to continue the increase in public confidence, which has seen a significant rise in the number of historical allegations of child sexual abuse, into which an inquiry is under way already. People should have no fear that they will not be taken seriously.
The Home Secretary has commissioned an inspection of the Met police to ensure that it is learning lessons and embedding exactly the measures to which the hon. and learned Lady aspires. Once that concludes, the inspector will no doubt make a report available to the House, and I would be more than happy to come and update the House in the future.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I cannot say that on many occasions, but I agreed with every point that she made on this occasion. Following on from one of her points, the Sir Richard Henriques report is very critical of the then Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Rodhouse. The public will be surprised to learn that he is now the director general of operations in the National Crime Agency—an organisation for which the Minister has direct ministerial accountability. Does he have full confidence in Mr Rodhouse in that position? If so, will he tell the House why?
Kit Malthouse
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand that it is extremely important for credibility and trust in policing in this country not only that the police service is operationally independent, but that the organisations charged with its discipline and governance and for investigating complaints exactly such as this are also deemed to be independent. He will know that the IOPC, which is charged with that duty, has found no reason to conduct any action against that particular police officer. It would be inappropriate for me, as a Minister of the Crown, to intervene to countermand or to criticise that investigation in any way. However, both the Home Secretary and I will be carefully considering both the Henriques report and the IOPC report that came out this morning and what our next steps should be.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
If I went to the police to report that my car had been stolen, I would expect to be believed until the investigation or the evidence proved otherwise, but the situation is not the same if I were to report child abuse. I am concerned that commentators on the Beech case are using it as a way to discredit victims and survivors of child abuse and sexual assault. Will the Minister please confirm that if people do have the courage to come forward and report such crimes, they will be taken seriously, they will be supported, and the cases will be properly investigated?
Kit Malthouse
All allegations of crime, particularly such sensitive allegations, should be taken seriously, properly recorded, assessed sensitively, but then investigated with due impartiality. Those are the guidelines by which the police should be operating, and we will take steps to ensure that that is the case.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
As a neighbour of Ted Heath, an admirer of Field Marshal Bramall, a colleague of Harvey Proctor, a friend of Leon Brittan, and—this is a matter of public record—as someone twice accused of this sort of thing by people who were bad, mad or sad, I think the House can agree that we can support the police and let them account for their failings when they come.
Will the Minister also get the inspector to look at the GOLD Group on Operation GIANNA? A written parliamentary question on the matter was answered by his predecessor on 25 July about the case of Gurpal Virdi. A vertical slice through the Metropolitan police managed to accuse a good officer of things he had not done at places he had not been and when none of the evidence linked him to it. All the evidence showed that the complainant was untruthful, and the weapon that was supposedly used on the complainant was introduced to the police force eight years after the event that was supposed to have taken place. May I ask that Operation GIANNA is referred to the inspector to see whether it is appropriate for him to consider it as well?
Kit Malthouse
I am happy to look again at that case. I should declare that, as a previous deputy mayor for policing in London and chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, I did have dealings with Mr Virdi and his case, so it is not unfamiliar to me. I would be more than happy to meet with my hon. Friend to discuss what further steps may need to be taken, if any.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Having sent in a copy of the Geoffrey Dickens file, I was asked to meet Operation Midland, to which I explained in some detail why I thought its lines of inquiry were fundamentally flawed, providing some documentation to back that up. I also represented 30 of my constituents for four weeks in the Nottinghamshire strand of the child abuse inquiry when, it is a fair summary to say, those who had suffered abuse were unanimous in their condemnation of the police for not believing them when they came forward. When one case was reopened, one of my constituent’s assailants ended up getting a 19-year sentence, and there are other cases that I cannot comment on because they are currently sub judice. Will the Minister ensure that nothing is done that in any way impinges on the ability of the independent inquiry to report freely and openly next year, both to Parliament and Government, when it has had the chance to conclude its full investigation, including, of course, the Westminster strand?
Kit Malthouse
I can give the hon. Gentleman those assurances, and I hope that he will have adduced from my answers today that I am studiously attempting to respect the operational independence of these organisations and inquiries.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I was not only the policing Minister but the victims Minister, and I have real concerns following the two reports that victims need to be believed. We must make sure that the police work hard to ensure that victims have the confidence to come forward. I am deeply concerned that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which was created when I was the Minister, is perhaps not the right vehicle for such an inquiry, as it does not have the powers to sanction—not necessarily prosecute—police officers. This report clearly shows that not only did police officers make mistakes but that there was malpractice, which is probably the best word.
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. Friend is right about the limits on the powers of the chief inspector of constabulary. The organisation that has the required powers is the IOPC. The IOPC has produced this report, which we will consider carefully.
Once again, my right hon. Friend is correct that we all need to do our best to reassure victims that they will be taken seriously when they come forward. We are trying to make sure with inspection that the various steps, lessons and recommendations in these reports, not least the Henriques report, are being embedded in Met police practice so that we can promulgate them across the country.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
One of the worst things about deliberately false, vexatious or overexaggerated allegations is not only that the person against whom the allegations are made is put through hell but that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said, future victims may find it more difficult to get justice. But do we not also need to look carefully at another aspect? When the press and the police have too close a relationship and, by some miracle, the whole of the regional press turn up after, frankly, being tipped off by the local police that somebody is about to be arrested, it does no justice to anybody whatsoever.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman is right, and he will know there was a significant inquiry into the relationship between the press and the police that came to certain conclusions, and the practices, certainly the formal practices, within the police service have since changed. Having said that, although primary responsibility lies with the police, the media also have a responsibility to report such things responsibly and to recognise that they have a wider responsibility towards society beyond just selling headlines.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you may recall that, six years ago, the then chief constable of Sussex was found to have breached privilege after an investigation by the Standards and Privileges Committee into a vexatious investigation against me. It then took the IPCC over three and a half years to uphold four of my five complaints, by which time all the officers investigated had retired, and therefore no penalties could be imposed.
It looks as though the same has now happened with the IOPC. The investigation took far too long, and only one of the officers was actually interviewed face to face. How is it that the damning Henriques report talked about Operation Midland in terms of
“incompetently, negligently and almost with institutional stupidity”,
yet today’s IOPC report refers to “shortcomings” in the handling of the whole investigation. What will the Minister now do to ascertain whether the IOPC, almost two years after it took over from the IPCC, is actually fit for purpose?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the timeliness of IOPC investigations. Some of the timelines in some of these investigations are unacceptably long. We have plans to introduce measures next year to urge, compel or incentivise the IOPC to complete its investigations in under 12 months. If an investigation goes beyond 12 months, the IOPC will have to issue an explanation.
My hon. Friend knows that significant reforms were introduced during the transition from the IPCC to the IOPC to try to strengthen the organisation’s governance, not least by creating a board with non-executive directors in the majority, as opposed to the previous structure in which the investigators or inspectors themselves sat as an internal board. There is now some internal scrutiny, but there will be an opportunity to continue the path of reform. If he has ideas about how we should proceed, he should please let me know.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
In the past year, there has been a 27% decrease in convictions for rape. Only 2% of reported rapes end in a conviction, so does the Minister share my concern that the recommendations pursued by Sir Richard could have a chilling effect on the already unacceptably low prosecution rate for rape and domestic abuse?
Kit Malthouse
As I have said, I am genuinely concerned, notwithstanding the Henriques report, about the confidence of victims to come forward, not least in relation to crimes of a sexual nature. Although there has been some difficulty and disappointment with the number of convictions and prosecutions for rape, the level of recorded rapes and the number of victims coming forward has increased significantly. Although, from a headline point of view, the stats do not look good, it is actually good news because it means more and more people are confident about coming forward. The hon. Lady will have seen that the Government recently promised significant financial support for the kind of counselling services and independent sexual violence advisers across the country that will enable victims to come forward more confidently and be supported through the judicial process.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The good name of Sir Edward Heath was further dragged through the mud by the Wiltshire constabulary, led by the now thankfully suspended Chief Constable Mike Veale, when they appeared at his front gate in Salisbury to call for more victims. Some 32 officers spent two years investigating, at a cost of £2.3 million, despite the fact that the alleged perpetrator had been dead for many years. Does the Minister agree that, in addition to examining the report on Operation Midland, now is the time for the investigation into Operation Conifer—the Wiltshire police operation—to be reopened?
Kit Malthouse
As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the decision to investigate or otherwise is not for me, but the Henriques report has a section on Operation Conifer, which I will be considering carefully.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
I regret to say that I have not heard much this evening that will reassure the widow and family of Lord Brittan and the families of all those involved, including General Bramall. This House also needs to look at itself and at the role played by Members. The police admit they were encouraged to pursue these matters by various Members. If we cannot control the outcome of some of these investigations into the police, as seemingly we cannot, we can do something to make sure that no one in this House has fallen short of the high standards expected of Members of Parliament by exerting undue pressure on the police, hastening the death of Lord Brittan and causing misery to many people who have served this country rather better than some Members.
Kit Malthouse
I am sorry that the exigencies of operational independence, plus the fact that Mr Beech has lodged an appeal against his conviction, naturally limit what I am able to say, which may come as a disappointment to some of those against whom false allegations were made. However, on my right hon. Friend’s second point, as I said earlier, it is absolutely right that the House looks at how the protections, privileges and, indeed, power exercised by hon. Members on an almost daily basis are used responsibly by finding some mechanism to ensure that those who would seek to use them irresponsibly cannot do so.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
Of course, the immediate day-to-day responsibility for the Metropolitan police lies with the Mayor of London, as my hon. Friend perhaps knows better than anybody. The Mayor of London, as we know, is normally very vocal about pretty much anything that is not in his portfolio, but this is very much within his portfolio of interests. Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the Mayor of London has neither accepted nor even responded to the important recommendations in this report?
Kit Malthouse
Given my previous position at city hall, with responsibility for the Metropolitan police, I have been surprised at the lack of reaction from the primary accountability body for the Metropolitan police. I would certainly urge the Mayor and his deputy mayor for policing and crime to take a much more proactive and vigorous approach to making sure that this sort of thing never happens again.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
About five years ago, I raised some concerns about the case that has come before us here, and I got a letter from Patricia Gallan, assistant commissioner, specialist crime and operations. I will not name the Member concerned, as I am being very careful about this, but the letter completely contradicted what Sir Richard has said. It stated:
“I would like to take this opportunity to reassure you that”
the hon. Member concerned
“played no part in influencing the subsequent investigation and as a consequence the MPS has no basis to investigate the allegation contained within your letter at this time.”
I was bang on the nail with what I put in my letter on that day five years ago, and I would like the Minister to tell me whom I should take my file to for further consideration.
Kit Malthouse
Obviously, my hon. Friend is perfectly at liberty to submit his views and evidence to the IOPC for further consideration should he wish to do so. However, I have absolutely no doubt thats given the scale, nature and prominence of this episode, the Home Affairs Committee will wish, once it has digested both the IOPC report and the full Henriques report, to look further into this, call those people who have been involved, including Members, and ask them to account for their actions.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, following the release of one Australian-British national who was also imprisoned at Evin prison.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (Dr Andrew Murrison)
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on her urgent question and thanking her for the passion and persistence she has brought to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s case? Her constituent can be sure that she and her family have been well served by the hon. Lady as a constituency MP.
In recent weeks, we have seen further cases of unwarranted detention of foreign nationals in Iran. These cases are completely devastating for the individuals concerned and deeply and profoundly upsetting for their families. We are of course delighted to hear that Jolie King, a British-Australian national, has been released from detention in Iran. That is good news, but it invites us to think about others who are detained in Tehran.
Equating the cases of foreign nationals in detention in Iran and cases of British-Iranian dual nationals is unlikely to be helpful, as Iran perceives the two to be quite distinct, and it is Iran with which we have to deal. We want to do everything we can to resolve Nazanin’s case. We also want to see the resolution of the cases of other British-Iranians detained in Iran. The trouble is that the Iranian authorities do not recognise dual nationality; they consider Nazanin simply to be an Iranian national. Consequently, they do not grant us consular access; nor do they give us sight of legal process or changes, despite all of our efforts.
The House will be fully aware of the lengthy chronology of representations made at ministerial level on this issue. On 11 September, the Foreign Secretary again raised his serious concerns with the Iranian ambassador to London about Iran’s practice of detaining foreign and dual nationals. The Prime Minister raised his concerns with President Rouhani on 24 September, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did the same with Foreign Minister Zarif on 17 September. My colleague Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon hosted an event at the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September to bring attention to these incredibly important issues, as I did in Tehran earlier this year. I can assure the House that our efforts to raise the plight of those detained with the Iranian authorities at ministerial and ambassadorial level will continue.
It is a matter of deep regret that a country such as Iran, with such a rich and proud history, is failing to uphold its basic international obligations. That this sophisticated and cultured country is arresting individuals on unclear charges, failing to afford them due process and, in some cases, committing acts of torture and mistreatment on not only dual nationals but its own citizens is deeply disappointing, to put it mildly. Dealing specifically with dual nationals, we are absolutely clear that Iran’s behaviour is beyond unacceptable. The treatment of our dual nationals, including Nazanin, is unlawful and unacceptable, and it must end. Be in no doubt: this matter remains a top priority for the UK Government. We will continue to lobby at all levels for Nazanin’s unconditional release, so that she can return to her patient, long-suffering family in the UK.
Tulip Siddiq
My constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been imprisoned in Iran for three and a half years, during which time she has been in solitary confinement, she has been chained to her bed and shackled, she has been through depression, she has been suicidal, she has been on hunger strike and they have found lumps on her breast. Among all that, one of her biggest traumas is the changing fortunes of her fellow prisoners; prisoners will come in and she will become close to them, and then they will leave and go home, but she remains in prison. One such case is that of Jolie King, an Australian-British-passenger who was travelling in Iran and while she was flying a drone she was accused of spying, even though she was actually using that drone to take selfies with her fellow traveller. Nazanin was sharing a cell with Jolie and slept in the bunk above her. On Saturday 5 October, Jolie was released from prison, three months after she was caught. Australian Ministers said that their Government held very confidential and sensitive negotiations with Iran to ensure that Jolie was released and that she was treated appropriately while in detention.
Nazanin has said to her husband Richard, who is watching from the Gallery today, that of course she celebrates Jolie’s freedom but that she wants to know why her Government, the British Government, are not doing the same to get her out of prison. During this time, while the trauma is going on, the family are having to make a decision that no family should have to make, which is on where her five-year-old daughter, Gabriella, will go. Will she remain in Iran to be near her mother, or will she come back to London to be with her father, with whom she can no longer communicate because she has lost the ability to speak English, having spent most of her life in Iran?
Bearing that in mind, I have a few questions for the Minister. I am aware that no two consular cases are identical, but can the Minister explain to me, first, how the Australian Government have been able to achieve such rapid progress for another British national, whereas Nazanin remains in jail, three and a half years on? Secondly, in recent weeks, as the Minister and the House will know, there have been notable developments in British-Iranian relations. The first was the release of seized oil tankers. The second was a £1.2 billion payment from the Treasury to a private Iranian bank. Have the Government, at any point, threatened to withhold such enormous sums unless Iran releases imprisoned British nationals?
Thirdly, if Gabriella does return to the UK, can the Foreign Secretary assure me that the Foreign Office will provide security for her while she is travelling from Iran and when she comes to the UK? Finally, with the prospect of Gabriella returning home to begin school, I have enormous concerns about Nazanin’s wellbeing. Will the Foreign Secretary update me on how the Foreign Office will step up its efforts to provide full consular support for Nazanin in this case?
I ask you to indulge me for one moment, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am here for the fourth time before this House asking about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, because I am genuinely concerned about my constituent’s wellbeing. I want the Prime Minister and Ministers of this Government to be able to look themselves in the mirror in years to come and say that they did everything possible to ensure that my constituent did not die in prison in Iran and that they brought her back home.
Dr Murrison
I said in my opening remarks that the hon. Lady’s constituents can be proud of her, and they truly can be. Her passion shines through. I really do share her frustration, but I must resist the suggestion that the Government are in some way dragging their heels in this matter. That is absolutely not the case, and I think she probably knows that to be so. I have read out a series of diary dates on which we have made contact with the Iranian regime at the highest level, and we will continue to do so.
The hon. Lady has to understand that the tools we have in our toolbox are limited. She draws comparison with the Australians; I said in my earlier remarks that we have to accept that although Nazanin has Iranian-British dual nationality, Iran does not accept that she also has British nationality. That lies at the heart of this issue. Jolie King is a British-Australian national. That is the difference. It is invidious to compare consular cases and I am certainly not going to be drawn into doing so, not least because many of those who find themselves discommoded by the Iranian regime want us to keep their plight under the radar. That is their choice and that of their family.
In respect of any assistance that the UK Government can give in consular terms, of course we will provide that when the opportunity arises. We will do everything we possibly can to assist Gabriella if it is the family’s wish that she returns to the UK. As things stand, we do not have access to Nazanin, as we believe we should. We will continue to lobby hard; we should be able to access her and to have proper oversight of the legal machinations in Tehran so that we can assist her where we can, but we are up against a regime that has, up to this point, been impervious to our pleas on her behalf. We will continue to do that. I absolutely give the hon. Lady the assurance, which she requests, that we will continue to do all in our power to ensure that this poor woman returns to her family at the earliest opportunity.
Mr Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I understand the issue relating to how the Iranian Government treat dual nationals, but is it not imperative that we send out a signal from the House that every British citizen is equal and all British citizens will receive the highest standards of support from the British Government? My biggest sadness as Foreign Secretary was not being able to bring Nazanin home. Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that the highest duty of the state is the protection of its citizens, and that nothing—no other priorities—will stand in the way of reuniting this innocent woman with her loving husband and daughter?
Dr Murrison
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for the hard work that he put into this case and the cases of other dual nationals in relation to Iran. I have to say that, as a newly arrived Minister in the Department he used to lead, I was genuinely impressed by the attention that he gave to so-called consular cases. He was absolutely rigorous in the application of his time and energy to these cases, and the case of Nazanin was certainly top of his list. I pay tribute to him for that.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for so assiduously pursuing this issue and so eloquently explaining why warm words from the Government are no longer enough—if, indeed, they ever were. Like her, I welcome the release of Jolie King and her partner, and I applaud Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Marise Payne, whom I met recently in Canberra, on her work to secure their freedom. Her success shows what can be achieved, even with Iranian hardliners, when working with tact, diplomacy and dedication to the task—let us be frank: not what we got from the current Prime Minister when he was in charge of this brief.
I will not repeat the many excellent points that my hon. Friend made regarding Nazanin’s health. In the time I have, I wish to focus on one specific issue: the linking by Tehran of Nazanin’s case to the restoration of the money Iran is owed in relation to the tanks purchased prior to the Iranian revolution. I am absolutely clear, and I think we would all agree, that we cannot accept that a dual British national should be held hostage by a state power as a bargaining chip in diplomatic and financial negotiations. Those tactics will never succeed; otherwise, they will be repeated, not just in Iran but by other authoritarian countries around the globe.
However, regardless of the situation with Nazanin, the legal facts are clear, Iran is owed the money and the Treasury has set the money aside. All that remains is to determine the exact amount and to establish a means by which it can be paid over without breaching sanctions regulations. As has been demonstrated today, those questions are unlikely to be resolved by the courts. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on the Government to find a way to break this impasse without breaking our principles, so that we can take the issue of the tanks compensation off the table and then have a discussion with Tehran about Nazanin, based not on quid pro quo or diplomatic bargaining but on the simple justice, freedom and humanitarian care that are owed to this innocent woman?
Dr Murrison
I thank the right hon. Lady for her remarks. She dismisses warm words; I have to say that these are more than words. Words are important and it is correct that we get our language right in these matters. She refers to tact, dedication and diplomacy; we just had a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), and I have to say that the tact, dedication and diplomacy that he applied to this issue were exemplary. I very much hope that we all approach this matter in the same spirit.
The right hon. Lady is right to say that we appeal to Iran’s decency in this matter. That is where this issue rests and it is absolutely right that we should appeal to Iran in that way. I still hope that Nazanin will be released, because Iran is, as I said in my earlier remarks, fundamentally a decent, civilised nation. I want the Iranians to find that within themselves in order to do the right thing in this particular case.
In respect of the International Military Services debt, the right hon. Lady will know that the matter is before the courts. However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran has itself specifically decoupled the repayment of debt from Iran’s detention of dual nationals. It is not the UK Government who have done that; it is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran itself. The right hon. Lady seeks to join the two; Tehran says no, and that the two are separate. Given that Iran has said no, even if we were minded to do so it would be very difficult for us to proceed on the basis of, as she puts it, quid pro quo.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Ind)
I commend my right hon. Friend on the way in which he is handling this distressing issue, and I again commend the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on the way in which she raises it. The House is united in expressing concern and distress about the circumstances concerning Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as it has done before.
I have two questions for my right hon. Friend. First, is it not the case that even if Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe is treated as an Iranian citizen, she has now served enough time to be eligible for parole, and it is therefore open to the Iranian authorities, without making any concession in relation to the charges against her, to release her? Secondly, although there are no formal linkages related to her case, Iran covers a wide front in terms of its concerns about issues around it and the negotiations it takes part in, so will he simply confirm that the United Kingdom keeps an open mind in engaging in all those discussions, which will help to reduce tensions in the region? A reduction in tension may make it easier for other matters to be considered.
Dr Murrison
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, he had this file, as it were, as my predecessor, and I pay tribute to him for the time that he spent on this issue. Again, when I arrived in the Department in May, I was struck by how much the ministerial team had put into this matter. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend. The family need to know that the Government are behind them in doing everything that they possibly can to secure Nazanin’s release. I say that with my hand on my heart.
My right hon. Friend is of course right. Tehran will always say that this is a matter for its judiciary, but the longer this goes on, the more scope it has to be merciful, to do the right thing and to release Nazanin.
My right hon. Friend is right to comment on the general atmospherics. Although I have made it clear that the MFA in Tehran has decoupled the payment of any debt from the release of Nazanin and dual nationals in general, nevertheless we want to reach a position where the atmospherics are greatly improved. Clearly, those atmospherics are broad and wide right now, with recent events in the Gulf and further afield. I hope that we can move this on, and that we can, for example, re-engage Iran with the joint comprehensive plan of action, and give it something of what it needs and, bluntly, the respect that it feels—rightly in my view—is its due. In those circumstances, I think that things become easier—let me put it in those terms. To link things directly with events and actions and with the release of dual nationals will continue to be resisted by the regime in Tehran for the reasons that I have outlined.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
May I again thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this urgent question and for her ongoing efforts on behalf of her constituents? I hope that she does not mind, but I should like to pay particular tribute to Mr Ratcliffe for his tireless and brave efforts on behalf of his family and the wee girl, Gabriella. I am glad that the dual nationals were released, but we can understand Mr Ratcliffe’s frustrations, which we all share. There is no reason why this innocent woman should have been imprisoned in Iran for so long—she should not have been imprisoned at all.
The Prime Minister’s comments when he was Foreign Secretary that Nazanin was teaching journalism were wrong. He was right subsequently to correct those comments, but they were used incorrectly by the Iranian authorities. To be doubly clear, will Ministers make available all documents showing that they were wrong, including any documentation that was sent to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, so that this can never, ever be used by the Iranian authorities again? Will the Minister—I know that he has touched on this—reflect on the fact that Nazanin is still imprisoned wrongly. She is innocent. He made remarks about consular access. It is fair to say—and we heard the remarks of the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), of the shadow Foreign Secretary, and of others—that there is unity in the House that Iran’s actions are totally unacceptable. That is felt across all levels of the House. At all levels of the House, there must be representations to ensure that she receives assistance. If possible, can the Minister give us an update on the healthcare that Nazanin is receiving?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am not interested in political point scoring. I am interested in getting Nazanin back home. I pay tribute to Richard Ratcliffe, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting. I was struck by his sincerity. He has done an extraordinary job on behalf of Nazanin, and I salute him for that. The hon. Gentleman is right—Iran is acting unlawfully under international humanitarian law, which it has clearly breached. It needs to be brought back into line. My advice to my interlocutors in Tehran, if it were sought, would be, “Do so, and your reputation will increase. You will be one step closer to being shoulder to shoulder in the international panoply of nations, which is where you desire to be.”
This does Iran no good. I appeal on humanitarian grounds in relation to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I would also appeal on the basis of Iran’s reputation. While these harrowing, dreadful cases continue, it cannot possibly expect to be able to deal with the wider world in the way that, I think, it wishes.
The hon. Gentleman asked about access. He must know that our access to Nazanin is non-existent. We are forbidden by Tehran to access Nazanin in the way that we would expect to have access to British nationals. I regret that. It would be extremely helpful to move this on if we were allowed to have access to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I would strongly urge my ministerial interlocutors to consider that as a reasonable thing for us to have. That is what we require as a minimum in the near future so that we can determine for ourselves many things on which the hon. Gentleman touched.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In the middle of last month, it emerged that yet another person, Kylie Moore-Gilbert, a Cambridge-educated British-Australian academic, has been banged up in Iran, probably as a hostage for something as yet officially unspoken, for anything up to a year of a 10-year sentence for spying, so-called. Are there any other cases, without going into specifics, of which the Government are aware of people being held hostage in this way? Given the track record from the earliest days of the Islamic revolution in Iran of taking hostages and using them for nefarious purposes, what advice does the Foreign Office give to British dual nationals and others about the wisdom or otherwise of visiting that country?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Foreign Office advice is available on the Foreign Office website, and is updated periodically. On other cases, yes, there are number of cases with which we are dealing. I am afraid I cannot be drawn, for reasons that he will understand, either on the precise number of those cases or their identity, except insofar as they or their families wish the matter to be made public. We have to be led very much by individuals’ wishes, which is why I am being a little cautious about giving a full answer to the question that my right hon. Friend asked.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I know from working with the Minister in the past that he is a compassionate and determined man. Does he have any information at all about the medical assessment that Nazanin underwent today in prison, to judge whether she is fit enough to continue in prison? If he has that information, will he update the House on the Government’s assessment of her mental and physical health?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. The information that I have is the information that she has, as we do not have consular access to Nazanin. I read the newspaper reports, which I suspect that she has read, and I am deeply troubled by them.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The plain truth is that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was abducted and imprisoned illegally. The latest information that we have is that at the health hearing in Iran at which she appeared she complained that she had been deprived of her medication, was sometimes held in solitary confinement, and was suffering from deep anxiety. She fears separation from her five-year-old daughter, who is to return to England for schooling.
I say to my right hon. Friend—a personal friend, whose integrity is beyond question and whose determination is well known—that there are lessons to be learned from the recent Australian experience. Two Australians have been released. Will he enter into discussions with the Australian Government to discover what steps they took to ensure that release? No stone must be left unturned in the defence of British citizens at home or abroad.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. The truth of the matter is that Iran does not recognise dual nationals—that is the difference. The case to which he referred concerns an Australian-British national. Nazanin is a British-Iranian national. As far as Tehran is concerned—we can argue the point, but it will not do us much good—Nazanin is an Iranian national, which is why it will not allow us to have access. I regret that very much, and we push back on that all the time, but, very sadly, that is the position adopted by the Iranians.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
What more can the UK Government do to support Nazanin, Richard and their family, and to right this wrong?
Dr Murrison
I share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration in this regard; I really, really do. But it is a sad fact that the tools in our toolbox are limited. What we can do is continue to make it clear to our interlocutors that this is not acceptable, right or proper, and that if Iran wants to restore its reputation, the early release of Nazanin and other dual nationals will go a very long way. It is the right thing to do, and I urge Iran to get on and do it.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for constantly raising this case, and pay tribute to Nazanin, Richard and the whole family for their enormous courage in this terrible ordeal. May I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for what he, his colleagues and his predecessors have been doing? I think he is right that there is a limit to what can be done. Nevertheless, persistence in raising this case day in, day out and week in, week out is so important to show that this House and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will never forget it.
Dr Murrison
I absolutely agree. Look, we want to make progress with Iran on a whole range of fronts, but it is difficult to do that when high-profile things of this nature remain to be dealt with. My constant message is: let us deal with this; let us get this done; let us do the right thing; and let us bring Nazanin and other dual nationals home.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
As a doctor, I have extremely grave concern for the mental and physical wellbeing of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. While the Prime Minister suffers from a textbook case of moral bankruptcy, I believe the Minister to be a good man who works with integrity. We are sitting on a ticking time bomb. The poor lady has depression and is suffering so greatly, and now we are looking at her being without her daughter—potentially the only lifeline she has left. I therefore ask the Minister today whether he is sure, with all his conscience, that he is doing absolutely everything he can.
Dr Murrison
I very much appreciate the hon. Lady’s remarks. Her passion does her great credit. As a doctor also—and having read what I have read in the press about Nazanin’s case—I too feel real sadness that somebody should have been brought to this pass mentally and physically. I can genuinely say to the hon. Lady that I and the Department that I have the privilege of working in have done everything we can to move this on, and we will continue to do everything we possibly can, but I do share her frustration.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Minister has used words such as “mercy” and “clemency”, which are fundamentally, in the end, religious words. I would have thought that, to many of the people who run Iran, those words would be intrinsically interesting. I just wonder—if I can put this question to him again—whether it would not be a good idea to ask the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York or maybe the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to lead a religious delegation to Iran to see whether there might be a way of their asking that the quality of mercy be not strained.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. We discussed this on 17 July when I was here talking about Nazanin. I have to say that it would be a bit of a challenge if any group of people were to act in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described with the Government’s fingerprints all over them. I do not think that would be very helpful. Such a thing has to be truly independent. I would need to stand here at the Dispatch Box with my hand on my heart and say, “Genuinely, this is not something that is Government-inspired or Government-delivered.” But I do know that there are people and organisations that are doing what they can to improve the relationship between this country, and the international community in general, and Iran. I continue to encourage them to do that.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for continuing to pursue this case on behalf of her constituent. I also want to say to Richard and Nazanin that the people of Glasgow Central are asking after them and hoping that they will be reunited soon.
I have had a number of constituents who have experienced significant delays in their asylum cases and in getting leave to remain in this country who are originally Iranian nationals. I also have constituents who live here with leave to remain in the UK who wish for a family member to visit them from Iran. In both cases, delays do not help those individuals. Given the particular risks of people from this country going to visit Iran, would it not make sense for the Minister’s colleagues in the Home Office to allow people to come here to visit their family, and to do so quickly and easily?
Dr Murrison
I share the sort of constituency issues to which the hon. Lady has alluded. I am sure that my colleagues in the Home Office will have heard what she has to say, and I will certainly draw their attention to her remarks.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family are going through mental and physical anguish that we cannot even begin to imagine, although we do all we can to support them. Her case and those of other imprisoned British nationals raise questions about the effectiveness of consular services provided to UK nationals in prison—particularly, for example, in supporting them through mental anguish and helping them with their mental wellbeing. Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful for the Foreign Office to conduct a wider review of the support offered to British nationals in similar cases? A constituent of mine has recently been in prison in Ghana for 18 months in a case of mistaken identity and received almost no consular support.
Dr Murrison
I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent. If she sends me details of the case, I would be more than happy to look into it. I think there is very often some confusion as to what our consular services can and cannot do. It might be helpful if we were to write to the hon. Lady with an account of what our consular service can do in country and what it cannot do, since there is often confusion about the role of consular services that can cause some misunderstanding.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (LD)
As has been said, one cannot imagine what Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family have gone through. Like others, I commend the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for raising this issue.
The Minister talked about three and a half years of lobbying—essentially without success. As has been said, Iran has clearly breached human rights and international law, but from its point of view it has been able to do so with impunity and without consequence. Surely that is part of its calculation. I am not clear from this exchange what exactly the Government are saying to the Iranian Government will be the consequences of continuing to behave in this way—breaching international law and somebody’s human rights. From Iran’s perspective, it is able to do this and currently there is no consequence.
Dr Murrison
Well, I am open to suggestions from the hon. Gentleman. What is he proposing the British Government do beyond that which we are already doing? On a number of occasions today, right hon. and hon. Members have expressed frustration, which I certainly share. As I have said before and I have to say to him again, the options open to the UK Government are limited, but the reputation of Iran is on the line here. In my conversations with my interlocutors, I make it very plain that unless they address these issues and the general environment in which these issues arise, they are simply not going to make progress.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I would like to raise the serious plight of my constituent Robert Urwin, who is being failed by our consular services. He is being held in Ukraine after an Interpol red notice request from the United Arab Emirates for his extradition was dismissed and denied by the Ukrainian authorities—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I must ask the hon. Lady to be very brief because this matter is really outside the scope of the urgent question. She needs to be able to relate her point to the urgent question.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am aware that my question is a little out of scope. Despite my constituent’s innocence, the Interpol red notice has not been removed. As a result, Ukrainian authorities are refusing to allow him to leave the country. As the Minister will know, an Interpol red notice can remain active indefinitely. My constituent has been held against his will because of what appears to be a bureaucratic error. Although no longer incarcerated in Ukraine, he has been stuck there for over a year—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I think the hon. Lady has made her point. I am sure that the Minister will say that he will look into the case, but it is not within the scope of this urgent question.
Dr Murrison
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—that is precisely what I was going to say. The hon. Lady has been extremely ingenious in pushing the case of her constituent. Of course I will look into it. If she writes to me with some details, I will ensure that I deal with it.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (IGC)
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) drew attention to the 40-year-long pattern of behaviour by the Iranian revolutionary regime of taking hostages. It is clear from what the Minister said that Nazanin’s case is different from that of the Australian dual national, but there are other people detained in Iran—Canadian-Iranians, Austrian-Iranians and American-Iranians, as well as our own citizens. What discussions have the Government had with other countries whose nationals are detained in Iran, and has there been any co-ordination on how we might approach these questions collectively to pressurise this vile regime?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman is correct: there are other dual nationals who are discommoded in a similar way. Of course we talk to our interlocutors in other countries where people are dealt with in this way, to ensure that we see what common ground we have and what we might do together to address these issues. But the fact remains that Nazanin is an Iranian-British dual national. That makes her case different from the other case that we have been discussing today.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I do not doubt that the Minister is doing everything within his power, despite the constraints he has laid out. Given the previous Foreign Secretary’s involvement in this case, has he committed personally to raise the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe with the Iranian authorities, now that he has been elevated to Prime Minister?
Dr Murrison
Yes. He raised this with President Rouhani on 24 September in New York.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his excellent responses. We know that he is a Minister with compassion and understanding, and he is the right person for this job. As other Members have mentioned, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been arbitrarily and unjustly detained by the Iranian authorities. Unfortunately, that is not an uncommon occurrence in a country where, over the past 10 years, it is estimated that more than 1,000 members of the Baha’i faith community have been arbitrarily arrested by Iranian authorities simply for holding their beliefs. Does the Minister agree that the Iranian Government must respect the rule of law and the right to freedom of religion or belief and release all those who have been imprisoned unfairly?
Dr Murrison
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has been a real champion of the Baha’i people, and I pay tribute to him for that. He is right; these people should not be disadvantaged in any way by any regime, and I urge a change of heart by the Government in Tehran.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) raised the safety of Gabriella’s passage from Iran to Britain in her opening question. I understand that Iran has yet to grant a visa for Mr Ratcliffe to travel to Iran to collect his daughter. What encouragement can the Foreign Office provide to ensure that a father has the right to collect his daughter?
Dr Murrison
Gabriella is a British national. We will provide her with every assistance we can to return to the UK if that is the wish of the family.
Point of Order
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and the Fire Service (Kit Malthouse)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a small correction to the record. In my answer to one of the questions in the previous urgent question, I said that the Henriques report contained a chapter on Operation Conifer. It does not. That was an inadvertent slip, for which I apologise. I have made that correction personally to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), who raised the question, and I apologise to those on the Opposition Front Bench and others for my slip.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for his point of order and for giving me notice of it. He has come speedily to the House to correct the record, and I am sure the House will appreciate that.
Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Jeremy Quin)
I beg to move,
That, in pursuance of paragraph 2A of Schedule 3 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, Mr Peter Blausten be appointed as a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years from 27 January 2020 to 26 January 2025.
The Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is not a conventional Committee of this House. It is a statutory Committee, and its establishment, role and membership are determined by the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended. The Committee has two responsibilities: first, to consider the candidates proposed by the Speaker, following a fair and open competition, for the posts of Chair and members of IPSA; and secondly, to approve IPSA’s annual estimate of resources.
The legislation sets out the membership of the Committee, which comprises the Speaker, the Leader of the House, the Chair of the Standards Committee, five further Members and three lay members. The three lay members have full voting rights. They were added to the Committee under the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, following a recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. They are intended to bring an external view and provide greater transparency and independence in the exercise of the Committee’s statutory functions.
The motion before the House seeks to appoint Mr Peter Blausten as a lay member to succeed Bronwen Curtis CBE, whose term will end in January 2020. Ms Curtis has served the Committee and the House diligently, and I know that Mr Speaker and the other members of SCIPSA would wish to place on record their gratitude for her advice and service.
The motion seeks approval for the appointment of Mr Blausten to take effect from 27 January 2020 for a period of five years. At the Speaker’s request, the recruitment panel was chaired by Dr John Benger, then Clerk Assistant. The other panel members were: Sir Hugh Bayley, formerly the Member for York Central; Michelle Barnes, an independent HR consultant; and Mike Page, HR business partner in the House of Commons Service. The board was assisted by a specialist recruitment agency, and the recruitment process involved stages of advertisement, longlisting, shortlisting and interview.
The candidate named in the motion, Mr Peter Blausten, is a former FTSE 30 and 250 group HR director and civil service commissioner. He is currently a partner in Alvarez & Marsal, an international management consultancy. The interviewing panel concluded that Mr Blausten’s analytical approach and experience as a human resources director would support and greatly assist the Speaker’s Committee in its dual role of scrutinising IPSA’s estimate and overseeing the recruitment of new IPSA board members.
The statute requires that the motion is tabled with the agreement of the Speaker, and I can confirm that the Speaker has signified his consent. I have been assured that this process met the requirements of statute, and I hope that the House will support Mr Blausten’s appointment.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for what I think is his first outing. It was remarkable, and he has had some friends here in support of him.
I thank the Minister for moving the motion. I too want to thank the board, which was chaired by the then Clerk Assistant, now Clerk of the House, Dr John Benger, and its other members: Sir Hugh Bayley, Michelle Barnes as the independent HR consultant and Mike Page from the House of Commons Service. I also thank the outgoing lay member, Bronwen Curtis, whose appointment will end on 26 January 2020. She has been assiduous in the way she has carried out her independent functions and incisive in her contributions on the Committee.
The Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has published a helpful explanatory memorandum for Members, which is available in the Vote Office. Peter Blausten was selected following a fair and transparent competition. The board was assisted by specialist recruitment agency Veredus, and the recruitment process included an advertisement, shortlisting and interview. The interviewing panel concluded that Mr Blausten’s analytical approach and experience as a human resources director would support the role of scrutinising IPSA’s estimate and overseeing the recruitment of IPSA board members. Her Majesty’s Opposition support this motion.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) to the Dispatch Box, and I know he will serve with distinction from our Front Bench. I agree with those on both the Opposition and our own Front Benches about the motion that stands before the House.
I must welcome, provided this motion goes through, Peter Blausten to the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA. I have to declare an interest because I sit on SCIPSA, as it is affectionately known, with—I am going to say this—my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), because we do truly represent a cross-party approach to looking at the budget and the ways in which IPSA operates.
It would be wrong of me to let this motion pass without thanking Bronwen Curtis wholeheartedly for her service to the Committee, the House and every Member of Parliament in this place. She has brought a very challenging commercial voice and, I have to say, often a completely refreshing perspective to the way in which we look at ourselves and the way in which we approach this very important part of parliamentary life. I also think that she has brought—dare I say it?—a woman’s eye to the way in which this place operates when we are looking at estimates and how this should operate.
I also thank Shrinivas Honap—I always get his name wrong, but I am absolutely sure he will forgive me—who is one of our lay members, and Cindy Butts, but particularly Shrin because he has also brought a fresh voice to the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA. It would not bode well if we did not thank them. These lay members are selected by a very stringent process, and there is no doubt that they provide a complementarity to our proceedings that is welcome. However, I do think, as the Speaker’s Committee looks particularly at the estimates, that any new lay member joining the Committee should be aware of some of the problems that face us in SCIPSA.
Just speaking as an individual Member, since the new computer system was brought in, I have experienced some personal problems. Rather than refer to anybody else’s, I would like to leave with the House a few problems, which are being sorted out, but which have caused great anxiety and reflect on the new computer system that has come in. For example, incorrect information was put through in the preparation of my P11D, which was not exactly welcome. Money was paid into the wrong account when reimbursing me for valid expenditure, and a member of my staff received a pay increase higher than I had agreed with that member of staff, and I was not informed until I read those numbers. So anybody coming in as a lay member should know that all in the garden is not entirely rosy—[Interruption.] I am sorry; no pun intended, Madam Deputy Speaker. We would welcome those fresh eyes on our systems and the way in which we operate, because I think they can make a valuable contribution.
These issues affect not just 650 Members of Parliament, but of course the thousands of people who work with us and for us, and that is why it is so important we get this right. We often forget the people who stand behind Members of Parliament, to whom we owe a great debt of thanks, and we must get their payroll right. We must get their remuneration right, and we must ensure that IPSA goes on the right path, so that it can provide what anybody working in the commercial world would accept was normal practice. I do think that, when salaries are adjusted without the boss knowing, that needs putting right.
May I say that the job we do here—I think everybody would agree—is not a normal job? It takes a great deal of understanding. Although Peter Blausten comes to us with a fantastic pedigree, I would like to issue an invitation, which may come from anybody else in the Chamber: I hope he will come and work shadow, perhaps me or somebody else, so that he can gain an understanding of what happens in a Member of Parliament’s office and how we need to be so careful in an area that has caused so much agony in the past for many Members of Parliament. We need to get it right, and we need the public to have confidence in the process. We need our staff and also every Member in this House to have confidence in the process, and I very much hope that Peter Blausten will arrive on the Speaker’s Committee able to make a valuable contribution.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I do not intend to say much in this debate, but I would like to express an incredible amount of thanks to Bronwen Curtis. I have been on the Speaker’s Committee for just over two years now and, like the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), I found everything she said in those meetings to be incredibly useful and insightful. It was from a position of great knowledge, and also from a position of not being a Member of Parliament, which I think is incredibly useful because she could perhaps see things from outside and take a step back from those of us involved in the minutiae of problems and discussions with IPSA.
I would not like Members in this House to think that SCIPSA is a Committee where we sit quietly. At every meeting that I have had, particularly when IPSA has been represented, we have taken it to task over various issues and problems that have arisen. I would agree entirely about the issues that there have been with the online system. I would also raise the issue that the online system has cost an awful lot more than we expected it would, and SCIPSA has not been backwards in coming forwards on that. We have said to IPSA on many occasions that this is a real problem.
I think Mr Blausten, if the motion is approved, will find the Committee incredibly interesting. I hope that he will go in trying to learn as much as possible about it and, as the right hon. Lady said, perhaps shadow a Member of Parliament, so that he understands exactly how things work in Parliament and how the Member of Parliament’s job works. As I say, the main thing I wanted to do was to thank Bronwen Curtis for all her incredibly hard work and the way in which she treated me, as a new member, when I joined the Committee. I found she was very kind, and she looked out for me a bit when I first joined the Committee, so I am pleased that she was on that Committee.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I, too, commend the Minister for his latest outing at the Dispatch Box. Many Members of the House think of him as a very nice man, and it is nice to see him here with us today.
I wholly concur with the points that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan)—I return the favour—and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) in relation to Bronwen Curtis. In fact, one of the keenest points that she made repeatedly in SCIPSA was that if IPSA wants a significant increase in capital expenditure to pay for a new IT system, it had better prove it is worth it. If I am honest, I think an awful lot of Members this year would have said, “Well, actually, the way it was introduced, with too few people to answer the telephone—the answers and the conversations you had to have were sometimes so complicated that they went on for 45 or 50 minutes—there are some serious questions about whether public money is being spent properly”.
This goes to the heart of something I think was wrong with the original legislation that was introduced. The Minister said that SCIPSA—the Committee—has two roles, and that is absolutely right, but IPSA itself has two roles as well, and I think they are mutually exclusive. One is to support Members in doing their job of trying to ensure that all those letters from our constituents are responded to quickly and all the rest of it, and that we are able to do our job of representing our constituents well. However, the second part is regulating Members. I think that all too often IPSA relies too much on the regulating element, rather than the supporting element. That, for instance, is why decisions that should have been taken swiftly about providing finance for security measures in Members’ constituency offices and in their homes—where it is not primarily about ourselves, but actually about our families and our staff members, to whom we have a duty of care—have been delayed far, far too long. All too often, it is left to the House authorities to take up the slack. That is a shame and a mistake, and we need to rectify that in the future.
Chris Bryant
I will give way, but I was hoping to come to an end very soon.
Dame Cheryl Gillan
I was just going to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he was supportive of seeing those two functions split into different bodies at some stage in the future.
Chris Bryant
I think I argued at the beginning, when the whole thing was set up, that the two should be in separate organisations. I understand that there is a model of regulation, which we have adopted in many areas now, where the regulator is intimately involved in the industry. I think that that is a mistake. It would be better to separate the two, but that requires primary legislation. It would be a brave Government at the moment who introduced legislation in this particular area—well, introduced any legislation at all. We in SCIPSA need to make sure that we enable IPSA to do a better job to recognise the two halves of its role, supporting and regulating.
I am very confident that Mr Blausten will be a very significant addition to the Committee. We take our job very seriously. I say to hon. Members that, if they have issues that they feel need to be raised with IPSA, all the members of SCIPSA are available. I am sure that Mr Blausten will do a good job. The independent people sometimes say to us, “You know what, MPs? You should be arguing for better support, not the opposite, because you need to be able to do your job properly. If you were in any other industry you would quite simply expect to be able to do your job properly.”
Jeremy Quin
I thank the shadow Leader for her kind words directed at the panel, Bronwyn Curtis and also me, for that matter. I am most grateful. It is very kind of her. I am also grateful for her support for the motion.
I was delighted that the House was able to hear from three other members of SCIPSA. We are indebted to the work they do on our behalf in serving on the Committee: my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), and the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). It was great to hear them, with their personal experience, thanking Ms Curtis for her work and her service. I think that they all mentioned the importance of lay members of SCIPSA understanding all aspects of MPs’ role and the importance of SCIPSA getting it right. I know that is invaluable for their work of studying the IPSA estimates. I trust that Mr Blausten will do just that, if this House is pleased to agree to his appointment. It was a great pleasure to move the motion.
Question put and agreed to
Northern Ireland
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Robin Walker)
I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointment Functions) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 11 July 2019, be approved.
May I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, what a pleasure it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) at the Dispatch Box? He was a superb Parliamentary Private Secretary and a superb Whip, and he is already showing that he is a natural at the Dispatch Box.
This statutory instrument will allow for certain critical appointments to be made under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018. I am very glad that we have been able to bring it forward today. I know that Northern Ireland Members have been calling for it to be brought forward for some time.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I should just like to put on the record my enormous gratitude to the Minister, a very fine Minister and a great addition to the Northern Ireland Office, for making sure that this very important statutory instrument has been brought before the House today. As he will know, because I have scolded about it, the unlawful prorogation of Parliament by the Prime Minister on Monday 9 September meant that this statutory instrument, which was due to be debated in this Chamber on 10 September, did not get addressed. I am therefore enormously grateful to the Minister for ensuring it is here today, earlier than anticipated. It had been thought that it might have been delayed even more to 21 October. Thank you to the Minister.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Minister knows we are well known for looking forward rather than backwards, but the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is right that the statutory instrument had been scheduled for 21 October. I thank the Minister for all that he did to ensure the provisions were brought forward to this evening. As a former member of the Bar Library of Northern Ireland—I have raised this point with him—we will be able to proceed with Queen’s Counsel appointments in Northern Ireland, something the profession has been looking forward to for some time. Individuals have had a tap on the shoulder. This is an important step to progress their professional development and appoint them to the positions they rightly deserve.
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He has been forthright in pressing for this to be brought forward. I am glad we are able to do so today. He says that he is looking forward rather than backward. I want to set out some context in my opening remarks, so he will have to excuse me if I look briefly backward before focusing on what the statutory instrument achieves.
The Government are committed to the Belfast agreement. At its heart is a devolved power-sharing Executive Government, and restoring that Executive remains our priority. Northern Ireland needs the fully functioning political institutions of the Belfast agreement and its successors. That being said, in the absence of devolved Government, the UK Government continue to have a responsibility to ensure good governance and that public confidence is maintained in Northern Ireland.
In November of last year, primary legislation was brought forward, which among other measures addressed the need for urgent appointments to be made to a number of bodies. The initial phase of appointments under the Act enabled: the reconstitution of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, which continues to fulfil its important functions, including the recent recruitment of a new chief constable; the replacement of the outgoing chair and board members of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland; and the appointment of a new police ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
Under the 2018 Act, the Secretary of State also gave a commitment to make further appointments that may arise in the absence of an Executive. A statutory instrument was subsequently approved by the House in February 2019, which added six additional offices to the 2018 Act. As a result of that piece of legislation, critical public appointments were made in Northern Ireland, including that of the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland and appointments to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The Government maintain that it is important, while prioritising the restoration of the Executive, to ensure the maintenance of good governance and public confidence in Northern Ireland. The appointments made to date under the provisions of the 2018 Act have contributed to that.
This new statutory instrument specifies further critical offices to be added to the Act, allowing for appointments to be made that will continue to safeguard the quality and delivery of public services in Northern Ireland. In preparing this instrument, my officials have worked closely with the Northern Ireland civil service to identify those critical appointments that will arise between now and the end of the year. The instrument would add to the list in section 5 of the Act, thereby enabling the Secretary of State, as the relevant UK Minister, to exercise Northern Ireland Ministers’ appointment functions in relation to the following offices: the board of the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment; the board of the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland; the board of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company, or Translink as it is formally known; the Drainage Council for Northern Ireland; the Agricultural Wages Board for Northern Ireland; the board of National Museums Northern Ireland; the Northern Ireland Historic Buildings Council; and the Arts Council of Northern Ireland. Those are the bodies that the Northern Ireland civil service has put forward as the most critical at this time.
As has been raised, the instrument would enable the Lord Chancellor to make Queen’s Counsel appointments, a matter whose urgency has been raised a number of times in this House by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly). These are important offices for which the exercise of appointment functions in the coming months is vital for the continued good governance of Northern Ireland. I commend the regulations to the House.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. We welcome this statutory instrument, but not the basis on which it has had to be brought forward. Like the Government, we want to see our devolved institutions restored in Northern Ireland—and restored immediately. That is important for us because, as we know, a date is looming on the horizon—21 October—whereby certain laws will be enacted flowing from the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, which was approved by Parliament. Those measures will fundamentally change the law in Northern Ireland on abortion and marriage in a way that lacks public scrutiny, that has not allowed for consultation with the people of Northern Ireland, and that crucially, has not allowed the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to have their say on what kind of law we need in both those very important areas.
This is a real challenge. On our part, we want to be clear to the Government—and I want the Minister, if he will, to pass a message to the Secretary of State—that we believe that the Secretary of State should convene a meeting of the Assembly before 21 October, invite the political parties from Northern Ireland to come and nominate their Ministers to form an Executive, and allow the proper functioning of devolved Government once again in Northern Ireland. On our part, we in the Democratic Unionist party will respond positively to such an invitation. We will be at the Assembly. We will appoint Ministers to an Executive and get on with the job that the people of Northern Ireland elected us to do: to govern and deal with legislation that is relevant to Northern Ireland.
As important as this measure is this evening, I say to the Government that it can only be of a temporary nature. It is not a substitute for local Ministers in Northern Ireland taking decisions and making appointments, and crucially, for the Northern Ireland Assembly, as the legislature in these matters, to be attending to the business of making law in Northern Ireland that is relevant to Northern Ireland’s specific needs. That is the whole purpose of devolution.
We want to see a devolved Government restored before 21 October so that, through the Assembly, we can deal with legislation relating to the sensitive matters of abortion and marriage, rather than having a situation prevail whereby we have a vacuum in which the law on abortion is decriminalised, we have no statutory basis for abortion in Northern Ireland beyond that of legislation going back to the 1940s, and we have a regime that would allow for abortion for any reason up to 28 weeks. I do not believe that that would be acceptable in any part of the United Kingdom. We believe, therefore, that the Northern Ireland Assembly should be restored to examine this issue and same-sex marriage. We should have a debate among the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland about what is relevant and appropriate for Northern Ireland, having regard to what the people of Northern Ireland want. We want to see that happen. While this statutory instrument is a necessary step by the Government to fulfil certain responsibilities that currently cannot be fulfilled by the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, it is no substitute for devolution.
I want to make a final point: if we cannot get the Assembly restored and if we get a deal on Brexit, as I hope we will, and the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, a multitude of decisions will need to be taken as a consequence, not least in Northern Ireland. In those circumstances and in the absence of a devolved Government, I say to the Government that they need to start planning for the reintroduction of direct rule for a period of time until we get those decisions made. We cannot continue with the current vacuum whereby some decisions are taken and others are not. That will not wash when it comes to the crucial ministerial decisions that flow from Brexit, from the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, and that are particularly relevant to the needs of Northern Ireland. If the other political parties—in particular, Sinn Féin—are not prepared to take responsibility, form a Government and take these decisions, it will fall to this Parliament and the Government at Westminster to start taking more of them. That will be essential. It will not be optional, and when Brexit happens, we—this Parliament—will have to take on that responsibility if the political parties in Northern Ireland are not prepared to.
I say to Sinn Féin, who say that they will not accept direct rule, that they have an opportunity. The Secretary of State should take the opportunity, convene the Assembly, call the parties and see who is prepared to form a Government. If Sinn Féin does not want direct rule, there is one step it must and can take, and that is to join with the other parties in forming an Executive. Then we can deal with the issues and outstanding matters that need to be addressed in Northern Ireland. Whatever they may be, let’s deal with them. The people of Northern Ireland want a Government, and sooner they get it the better.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I also thank the Minister for introducing the regulations today and for the appointments that clearly have to be made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) is right that it would be much better if it was the Northern Ireland Assembly making these decisions—no one in the House would say anything different—but that has not been possible, so the Government in Westminster need to make the decisions and put the regulations in place.
I am ever mindful that probably all my colleagues have at some time served in local government and that many government appointments are done through councils. In my case, it was Ards Borough Council, now Ards and North Down Borough Council. These are government appointments and their importance is clear. They enable departments to function and to turn the wheels. They do not take away the legislative power, which still lies with the Northern Ireland Assembly, or the importance of having locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland doing the real work, as my right hon. Friend said. That is everyone’s ultimate goal: to see the Assembly back in place and functioning as it should.
The importance of some of the things the Minister referred to is very clear. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), through the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and other Northern Ireland Members, often raise the importance of the Northern Ireland Policing Board and its appointees. To see that in place therefore is something we welcome right away. The Minister mentioned the police ombudsman and the probation board as well. There is a probation board next to my office in Newtownards, so I understand the work it does. We need someone in place to keep the wheels turning.
My constituency office is always getting issues with the Commissioner for Children and Young People. It is so important to have someone in place who can respond, in departmental ways, to the needs of victims and survivors. On there being a chair or vice-chair of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, I read in the press Friday past that the executive had £110 million in reserves. My goodness! I find that quite incredible. Yet it is unable to deliver its maintenance. If having a chair or vice-chair enables the system to work better, let us get it together. As one who spent 26 years in local government, I am pleased to see that the Local Government Officers Superannuation Committee is also to have someone in place.
Just last Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) had the opportunity to meet the General Consumer Council and the retail Minister in Belfast. He and I and others understand the importance of having the consumer council in place—we write to it all the time—and we need to have a chair or vice-chair to make sure those things happen. On the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, education—again, how important. We are talking here about major issues—benefits, education, health—that are departmental responsibilities. We need someone in place to make things happen.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley mentioned a friend of ours who who sat on Ards Council with me many years ago. The council always appointed someone to the Drainage Council. Many people ask what it does. Well, Simpson Gibson, former councillor, a friend of ours, a member of our party, served on the council and used to tell me how important it was for the farmers and the rural community to have someone on it who understood their business and could get a response. Some people might not be able to say what the Drainage Council is, but I can tell the House that it plays an important role in the agrifood sector across Northern Ireland.
What we have here, at long last, are appointments to the positions of chair, vice-chair and members, to enable this skeletal business to move forward. It is not ideal—it would be better if the Northern Ireland Assembly did this by means of legislation—but let us get it done. Let us put the first stages of the mechanics of responsibility for Departments in place, and then bring accountability, and help those Departments to work.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to what I believe is one of his first outings on the Front Bench. I understand that he has other territorial responsibilities. We are not unfamiliar with double-jobbing in Northern Ireland, but I think that if anyone can do it, he can, and he is very welcome.
It is not usually the convention for the Opposition to speak last, but on this occasion I felt it was appropriate. I thought that we should hear the Northern Irish voices first, and I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)—but how much better would it be if those Northern Irish voices were resonating in the halls of Stormont rather than in this building. This is a bittersweet occasion. On the one hand, thank heavens, we have finally got round to making these appointments, particularly the Queen’s Counsel appointments, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast East. On the other hand, I feel shame for our politics in this United Kingdom that we in this House are having to consider matters that are so utterly and totally the business of Northern Ireland.
We heard about many of the positions that have finally been filled, but others were not mentioned, including the
“Member of the Drainage Council for Northern Ireland”.
Why are we here, in this Chamber, discussing an appointment to the Drainage Council of Northern Ireland? No doubt it is an important position—unbelievably important—and I am sure that they have been flooded with applications for the post—[Interruption.] I am sorry. I understand that there was a leak earlier on; I do apologise. In all honesty, why on earth are we discussing these matters in the House? I think that it is so inappropriate and so wrong, in so many ways, but it has to be done.
I want to ask a couple of small questions. We were provided with a rather interesting explanatory note, and the impact assessment contains something rather unusual:
“There is no, or no significant, impact on the public sector.”
I am not sure what that means. Is there an impact on the public sector, or is there not an impact on the public sector? If there is no impact, there is no need to mention it. If there is an impact, why say that there is no impact?
I do not want to become involved in dancing on the head of a pin, but I think that we should look at the issue of consultation. The explanatory memorandum tells us that the Northern Ireland Office and the Minister have consulted with political parties in Northern Ireland, but there is no mention of civil society. I think that civil society should have been involved in the consultation, because that would have addressed the impact on the public sector. I should be very interested to know whether it was the case.
However, the main point—the most significant point—of all this is quite simple. While the Opposition support the statutory instrument, as we have supported all previous ministerial appointments legislation, we need to know from the Government what they are doing about the pace and intensity of talks to restore devolution. We would like to hear from the Minister what is happening. Will he outline the ongoing talks process, and will the Secretary of State, at some stage, make a statement?
We should not be undertaking this business here. It is Northern Irish business, which should be settled in Northern Ireland. I do not want to get into the blame game. “The Blame Game” is, as I am sure the House will agree, an excellent television programme on BBC One Northern Ireland, featuring Tim McGarry, Neil Delamere, Colin Murphy and Jake O’Kane; but in this context, the issue is not whose fault it is. The fact remains that we in this House are having to deal with this business tonight, which we should not be doing. It is not fair on the House, but, above all, it is to the shame of our politics, and it is not fair on the people of Northern Ireland. However, let me repeat that we support the statutory instrument.
Mr Robin Walker
I thank the House for what has been a sensible and consensual debate on this statutory instrument. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who described the debate as bittersweet. I think that we all recognise that concern. It is somewhat bittersweet to be welcomed by him to the Dispatch Box after three years, although perhaps people were fed up with hearing from me as a Minister at the Department for Exiting the European Union and are pleased to hear from me in a new capacity.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) said that he welcomed the instrument but not the basis of it. I absolutely recognise that. I think that we would all rather that these appointments were made by a properly constituted Executive and supported by a properly constituted Assembly. These are important offices, as we have heard from Northern Irish Members. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) neatly illustrated when he talked about people turning the wheels, these are offices that are necessary for the functioning of government. The other place has already approved this statutory instrument. So long as this House approves the motion today, we can get on with making these important appointments.
The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) asked about the process of consultation. All these appointments are ones that have been recommended by the Northern Ireland civil service, which will of course engage in appropriate consultation. I can also reassure him that the Commissioner for Public Appointments will continue to regulate all these appointments, which will ensure an important check.
The people of Northern Ireland deserve strong political leadership from locally elected, accountable devolved Government. Achieving that and delivering a positive outcome from the talks remains our absolute priority. Northern Ireland has made huge progress in recent years. While the UK Government will do all that is necessary to ensure that good governance and public confidence is maintained in Northern Ireland, we can achieve even more with a devolved Government and legislature that unlocks all the potential that Northern Ireland has to offer. We remain focused on achieving that outcome. As we have heard again today, it is an outcome that we all want to see. I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Census (Return Particulars and Removal Of Penalties) Bill [Lords]
Monday 7th October 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Act 2019 View all Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 7 October 2019 - (7 Oct 2019)
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 2 and 3.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Kevin Foster)
I will not prolong this part of our debate. The purpose of the clause is simple. It amends the Census Act 1920 in respect of England and Wales to remove the penalty for not responding to census questions on sexual orientation and gender identity. This means that those questions will be voluntary. As I am sure hon. Members will recall, this reflects the approach taken by the Census (Amendment) Act 2000, which removed the penalty attaching to a failure to answer a question on religion in the census.
Clause 2 amends the Census Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 to remove the penalty for not responding to census questions on sexual orientation and gender identity, in order to replicate the changes that we are making in law for England and Wales. The power to include questions on sexual orientation and gender identity already exists under the Northern Ireland legislation. Clause 2 does not create new powers to ask those questions; it simply ensures that if they were asked in a future census in Northern Ireland, they would be voluntary.
Finally, clause 3 sets out the territorial extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. The territorial extent of the Bill is England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Bill does not extend to Scotland, where the matter is devolved and where the Scottish Parliament is dealing with the relevant legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 2
Questions on gender identity
“(1) Any question or questions asked about gender identity under the Census Act 1920 or the Census Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 must be framed so as to enable statistical information to be obtained about gender identity within different ethnic groups.
(2) The ethnic groups in subsection (1) must include Sikhs.” —(Preet Kaur Gill.)
This new clause would mean that if the census included a question on gender identity, it would have to be written in such a way as to provide information about gender identity in different ethnic groups.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to new clause 2, at end insert “, Jains and Zoroastrians”.
Amendment (b) to new clause 2, at end insert “and Kashmiris”.
New clause 3—Homeless people and questions on gender identity and sexual orientation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make a statement to both Houses of Parliament on what steps the Office for National Statistics will take to ensure that people who are homeless have an opportunity to answer any questions about gender identity or sexual orientation under the Census Act 1920 or the Census Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.
(2) The statement in subsection (1) must be made within two months of the passing of this Act.
(3) In this section, “homeless” is defined as set out in section 175 of the Housing Act 1996.”
This new clause is intended to ensure that the Office for National Statistics takes steps to increase the participation of homeless people in the Census so that data on sexual orientation and gender identity includes information from people who are currently homeless.
Preet Kaur Gill
Sikhs are being discriminated against. This new clause tabled in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members would mean that if the census included a question on gender identity, it would have to be written in such a way as to provide information about gender identity in different ethnic groups.
Discrimination exists in different ways within different communities and the only way to successfully understand the outcomes and the reasons behind discrepancies as well as to provide services is to look at intersectional areas, including the breakdown of gender within different ethnic groups. At the national and local level, public bodies including schools, hospitals, police forces, local authorities and central Government Departments only use ethnic group categories specified in the census to collect data for public service planning and decision making. I want to make it clear that contrary to what the Government have stated, public bodies do not use the religion category to provide public services. That is an important point. In total, there are 40,000 public bodies across the country. This amendment will allow the underestimation of Sikh numbers and inadequate allocation of resources to Sikhs based on current census statistics to be overturned.
According to the Women and Equalities Committee, the quality and depth of data on ethnicity collected by Departments varies widely, which is hindering efforts to tackle racial discrimination in public services. As a result of not being monitored as an ethnic group, Sikhs of all genders are left out of the equation in policy decisions. The Government have stated that the option to tick “other” and write in Sikh as an ethnicity in the census is adequate, knowing full well that public bodies ignore the “other” option and that this will do nothing to counter discrimination against Sikhs in their own right.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling this new clause, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, in which the Sikhs are a stakeholder, I think that her point is very important. I support wholeheartedly what she says and I think that the Government need to be responsive to a changing society in which Sikhs are playing an important, crucial and critical role. I therefore urge the Government to support the new clause.
Preet Kaur Gill
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has taken on board the issue of ending discrimination, because that is exactly what this new clause does, and that he fully backs it. As legislators, we should uphold the law and, given that Sikhs are already classed as an ethnicity in legislation, we should end this kind of discrimination—that is what we are here to do.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (IGC)
My hon. Friend knows that my name is among the six at the top of this new clause. She will know that the Sikh community is very concerned to have this level of recognition, and that there are many people who have been pressing for many years for the resolution of this issue and for a box on the census that Sikhs can tick. Does she not agree that it is time this matter was dealt with seriously by the Government?
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and he is absolutely right. There has been cross-party support. This campaign commenced in 2001 and has had immense support in favour of addressing the discrimination Sikhs have faced in this country because of the fact that they are not counted and that, as a result, public bodies do not recognise that they need to provide services.
The relevance of the new clause and the importance of gender equality in the Sikh community date back to Guru Nanak Dev Ji, whose 550th birthday we are celebrating this year. He promoted fairness and gender equality and denounced discrimination of the sexes. My new clause would allow us, as parliamentarians, to do what we are elected to do and to challenge inequalities and unfairness. It would enable us to understand the obstacles facing the Sikh community in greater detail and to ensure that every public body knows what it is supposed to be doing and what impact it is having.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
May I speak briefly to new clause 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett)? It calls for the Minister and the Office for National Statistics to produce a report on the important issue of homelessness and particularly to ensure that people who are homeless have the opportunity to answer questions about gender identity and sexual orientation in the census. I was pleased to receive a letter from the Minister just this morning detailing exactly what was asked for in new clause 3. As such, it is not our intention to press it any further, and I am grateful to the Minister for his actions in that regard.
Let me turn now to new clause 2, which was moved so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill). As she said, it would further enhance the data gathered about minority ethnic groups in society and would help us to understand the discussion about creating a Sikh ethnic tick box. I had thought that this was a contentious proposal, but my hon. Friend’s eloquent and comprehensive contribution put that incorrect view firmly in its place. In fact, she tells me that as many as 80% to 85% of Sikhs have expressed a desire to have this tick box.
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Why is the ONS ignoring the legal status of the Sikhs as an ethnic group and continuing to discriminate against them by refusing to include a tick box despite evidence of cross-party support?
Christian Matheson
It is Labour’s hope that the ONS will listen to the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, and I will deal with that in a moment.
The campaign for an ethnic tick box turns on the recognition of Sikhs as an ethnic community by law, and many in the Sikh community feel that individuals should be able to identify as ethnically Sikh in the next census to ensure a more accurate picture of the community. The primary concern, as my hon. Friend stated, is that public bodies do not currently have enough information about Sikhs. I found the homelessness figures to be shocking and was unaware of the situation. More data would help inform the approach of the education, health, local government and business sectors towards the Sikh community. It is important to target services effectively, so data about such minority groups is vital because underreporting could allow discrimination to go unnoticed.
Labour fully supports the campaign by my hon. Friend and the all-party parliamentary group, which has been tireless and persuasive in pressing for a change so that the census includes a section on ethnic identity, with an option to choose being a Sikh. Indeed, to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith), I believe that there is not only legal precedent in this matter, but a pending court case that will seek a judicial review of the ONS’s decision.
However, in conversations with the Minister outside the Chamber, he convinced me that this particular Bill might not be the appropriate vehicle for that matter to be addressed, so I ask him to address that concern in his contribution. I understand that today’s Bill is concerned only with the section of the census relating to sexuality and gender identity. Will the Minister explain how the way in which new clause 2 is worded may cause difficulty for that section? Will he also address the view presented by the ONS that questions on gender, identity and sexual orientation may not be included if new clause 2 is passed at this stage?
I hope that the ONS listens carefully to the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, because the discussions around having a Sikh tick box within the overall question on ethnicity may have been going on for 20 years and will not go away anytime soon. The sooner we can resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the Sikh community, the sooner we can get things right.
Kevin Foster
I thank the Members who have contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) said that he would not press Labour’s new clause 3. I am glad that the Labour Front-Bench team found the letter of interest and that it answered their concerns. From conversations with the ONS, I know that it is keen to ensure that everyone is counted in terms of the homeless community, that outreach work is done and that special measures are put in place to try to ensure as many people as possible fill in the census form. The Labour Front Bench raised the particular issue of those in the LGBT community who may be affected by homelessness in a different way and have a fear of it that differs from the rest of the community. A very worthwhile issue was brought up. I was therefore only too happy to send the letter, rather than wait until tonight. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses if Members want to consult the Government’s comments.
Turning to the substance of the debate, new clause 2 was passionately moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) and it confirms the importance of ensuring that the 2021 census provides detailed information on our society, and especially the Sikh community. The Government will be guided by the advice and recommendations of the Office for National Statistics, which has advised that the new clause’s effect can be achieved through analysis of information collected under its existing proposals for the 2021 census.
Most importantly, the new clause is potentially damaging to the integrity of the census and threatens the inclusion of a question on gender identity, which would be counter to the whole aim of this Bill. For clarity, the new clause would not make any changes to the proposals for a question on sexual orientation; it would make changes only to the question on gender identity. Under the ONS’s existing proposals for the 2021 census, it will already be possible to produce statistical information about gender identity within different ethnic and religious groups.
As in previous censuses, there will continue to be separate questions on ethnicity and religion, and the data from the ethnicity, religion and gender identity questions can be analysed to provide detailed information on gender identity across different cross-sections of the population.
Mike Gapes
From what the Minister says, I am unclear on whether it will be possible for Sikhs to tick a specific box on the 2021 census. Can the Minister please clarify?
Kevin Foster
I am happy to clarify that there will be a tick box for Sikhs under the religion section but not under ethnicity. There have been 55 requests for particular tick boxes on the census that the ONS is not recommending, and having a Sikh tick box under ethnicity is one of those that the ONS is not recommending.[Official Report, 14 October 2019, Vol. 666, c. 2MC.]
As I said, the Government will be guided by the ONS’s recommendations on what the census should include. Of course, Members can discuss the issue more fully when Parliament considers the main census orders that set the questions, but the Government will be guided by the ONS’s recommendations in this area.
Anyone who wishes to identify in the 2021 census as having Sikh or Kashmiri ethnicity, or Jain or Zoroastrian religion, will be able to do so under the existing proposals using the write-in option or the new “search as you type” facility.
Preet Kaur Gill
Will the Minister meet me to discuss this? I have had numerous meetings with the ONS, which has not been able to explain how it will use the tools because they have never been used before. This conversation has been had on many occasions. I know he refers to religion, but we are talking about how we deliver public services in the United Kingdom. We do not use the religion category. I challenged the ONS and asked it to make that category mandatory. It said there was no public acceptability in respect of that.
What I am requesting from the Minister is some challenge back to the ONS. If there is no data on Sikhs, especially when the Cabinet Office has looked at a hundred datasets across Government, surely we should present some challenge back. In the last census 90% of Sikhs—83,000 Sikhs—ticked “other” and wrote in “Sikh” as a protest vote. I would like to feel assured that he will present some challenge back, especially given that, as legislators, we should be upholding the law and Sikhs are classified as an ethnic group.
Kevin Foster
I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to have a more in-depth conversation about this issue, and I will make sure that ONS representatives are also present so that she can put her point directly to them.
I make it clear that the census is about data collection, and it is a criminal offence for a person not to respond to the overall census, but it is right that the questions are seen as having been professionally recommended for data collection purposes, rather than a Minister personally choosing the questions and tick boxes that are included.
Today’s debate is about the questions on these two issues being voluntary, rather than coming through schedule 6, which would make them compulsory. For reasons with which many of us will agree, this is a very sensitive area of data.
Given that these analytical possibilities already exist, we believe there are no grounds for this new clause, which is potentially damaging to the integrity of the census. It would require changes to questions that have been extensively researched, tested and consulted on by the ONS in its independent advisory capacity over the three years of evidence gathering to inform the proposals for the 2021 census. It would also serve to introduce the risk of confusion and concern for individuals completing the gender identity question. My early discussions with the ONS indicated that, as was referred to by the shadow Minister, it would be likely to recommend that this question was not included in census 2021 if this new clause were passed, given the changes it would make to that question.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the Minister for his comments. It is worrying to hear him say that the ONS would think about pulling this whole section if this proposal went through, because, as the ONS will know, disaggregating data is very important and we know that there are a lot of issues to address on the data on gender and especially on ethnic minority groups. I am grateful to him for offering a meeting to discuss this further. As elected legislators in this House, it is our duty to challenge all public bodies, especially when they are not working to ensure that communities that have not been counted are. There is a real need here, because the ONS has said time and again that it accepts, recognises and understands there is a demand to have a Sikh ethnic tick box. Despite that it is not prepared to do this. All we are asking for is the option of a Sikh ethnic tick box, which is very doable. We all know that when the census order comes to this House it will be very difficult to make any amendments at that time, so any work that needs to be done needs to be done between now and the laying of that order. Once again, I thank the Minister. I would not wish to jeopardise this section on the basis of what I am pursuing, but I will persist and I am grateful to him for offering a meeting. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As indicated on the Order Paper, Mr Speaker has certified that clause 1 relates exclusively to England and Wales and is within devolved legislative competence. As the Bill has not been amended during Committee, there is no change to that certification.
The appropriate consent motion has been tabled. Does the Minister intend to move it?
Kevin Foster
indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M).
[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I beg the Whip’s pardon; this sort of yo-yo-type procedure can be a little confusing. In order to avoid confusion, I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales.
Resolved,
That the Committee consents to the following certified Clause of the Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Bill [Lords]—
Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83J as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence
Clause 1 of the Bill (Bill 412).—(Kevin Foster.)
Question agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.
Third Reading
Kevin Foster
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I am grateful for the support for the Bill, especially from the main Opposition parties, with which, as I touched on earlier, we have had some constructive discussions, not only on the Bill but on how the census can be taken forward to be the best it can be.
The 2021 census will provide decision makers and citizens with comprehensive data on our society. Getting the best information is essential to inform policy, planning and funding decisions across national and local public services. The Bill is simple: it provides that two questions —on sexual orientation and gender identity—could be asked in the census in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, on a voluntary basis. It does not mandate that those questions should be asked, but it does give the opportunity for them to be done on a voluntary basis. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Christian Matheson
We learn something new about procedure every day in the House—and I say that having been here for four and a half years.
I return the Minister’s compliments. He has worked openly with me and my colleagues on this important piece of legislation, which represents a positive step forward for LGBT+ rights in the UK. The Opposition proudly support the Bill, building on a long Labour party legacy of defending minorities and fighting for equality. As the Minister says, it will provide for voluntary questions on sexual orientation and gender identity to be asked in the England, Wales and Northern Ireland censuses.
Consideration of the Bill has seen Members make welcome points about the recognition of minority and ethnic groups. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for her continued and tireless promotion of the questions we have discussed about the inclusion of Sikhs in the census.
It is vital that the Bill is passed and that work begins promptly on consulting a wide range of stakeholders across the community. Particularly at a time when the LGBT+ community continues to face widespread abuse, the inclusion of the tick boxes in the census is significant both practically and in principle. I should like to pay tribute to the work of Dr Laurence Cooley, the Economic and Social Research Council research leader, and lecturer in the School of Government and Society at the University of Birmingham. His research, which was published by the London School of Economics, outlines the dangers of an under-count of the LGBT population and the detrimental impact that that could have on the fight for full LGBT equality. On Second Reading, I cited some of Dr Cooley’s work without giving him the necessary credit, simply because that was knocked out for some reason from one iteration of the speech to the next. I apologise to him, and thank him for the gracious way in which he let me know that I was citing his work. Academics earn their living by informing public policy and by producing research that informs other work, and I am pleased to pay tribute to him.
The Minister has kept my colleagues and me informed about progress ensuring the participation of homeless people in the census. I pay tribute to him again for the letter that he has sent the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), tonight, and which he is going to put in the House of Commons Library. Hopefully, we will meet staff and officials from the Office for National Statistics to discuss their work with charities and outreach programmes. We have seen reports that a record number of homeless people died last year—the biggest increase in deaths since reporting began.
LGBT+ homeless people warrant particular attention in this discussion, not least given the shocking statistic that up to 24% of the youth homeless population are from the LGBT+ community. Clearly, we are far from solving the issue of LGBT+ discrimination, but I hope that measures included in the Bill will give us the statistics and therefore the tools to help us solve that.
We still have a long way to go. The abuse suffered by LGBT individuals across society is shocking. Indeed, any abuse is shocking, but I hope that as the Bill becomes law and we prepare for the census we will be able to reflect better the society that we seek to represent, and that the mirror that we hold up gives us an accurate representation. I support Third Reading of the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I pause in case anyone has an inspirational contribution to make. [Interruption.] No.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed without amendment.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, I propose to take motions 6 to 13 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Animals)
That the Animal Health and Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1229), dated 5 September 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
That the Specific Food Hygiene (Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1247), dated 9 September 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9 September, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Animals)
That the Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Legislative Functions) and Veterinary Surgeons (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1225), dated 5 September 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Civil Aviation)
That the Air Services (Competition) (Amendment and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1224), dated 5 September 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.
Local Loans
That the draft Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 26 September, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Customs)
That the Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1219), dated 4 September 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services and Markets)
That the Financial Services (Electronic Money, Payment Services and Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1212), dated 5 September 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services and Markets)
That the Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1232), dated 5 September 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.—(David Rutley.)
Question agreed to.
Reclassification of Ministers of Religion under Immigration Rules
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to present a petition entitled “Call to revoke the decision to reclassify Ministers of Religion under immigration rules” on behalf of the residents of Glasgow North East at St Augustine’s parish church, Milton, Glasgow.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of Glasgow North East,
Declares that visiting clergy offer respite to dedicated Ministers and bring enormous cultural benefit to the communities they serve; and further that the introduction of severe conditions regarding English language proficiency and the sharp rise in fees for visas for Ministers of Religion would cause detriment to the communities they wish to serve.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Minister for Immigration, the hon. Member for South Ribble, to revoke the decision to reclassify visiting Ministers of Religion as being Tier 2 visitors under immigration rules.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002526]
Hypermobility Syndromes: Healthwatch Calderdale’s Report
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Healthwatch in Calderdale, like Healthwatch organisations across England, is the voice of people in its area on health and social care matters. It tells NHS service providers and commissioners about patients’ experience of care and holds them to account, and has a say in how local services are delivered and designed.
As a very rough rule and guide at Healthwatch Calderdale, a trigger to indicate that there is a particular issue in an area of health or social care is when it receives about three complaints on the same issue at the same time. Hon. Members can therefore imagine the concern when Healthwatch Calderdale began to hear of difficult NHS experiences from a large number of adults with hypermobility syndromes, both at events and via its telephone advice service. The level of concern was so great that, for the first time since its inception, a joint piece of work was undertaken between all local Healthwatch areas across Yorkshire and Humber, with Healthwatch Calderdale taking the lead. Approximately 250 adults with hypermobility syndromes took part in the project—all relating stories of difficult NHS care. I will speak more about the findings of the report shortly, but first I want to give the House an outline of what hypermobility syndromes are.
Hypermobility is the term used to describe the ability to move joints beyond the normal range of movement—something that I have not been able to do for many, many years. Joint hypermobility is common in the general population, especially in childhood and adolescence, in females, and in people of Asian and African-Caribbean descent. In many people, joint hypermobility is not problematic at all. It can even be a bonus, especially for sportsmen or sportswomen. However, this debate is neither about athletics, nor is it about party tricks. It is about problematic hypermobility linked to chronic ill health. It is about people who experience symptomatic hypermobility that not only affects the joints, but also causes very challenging symptoms in many other body systems including the digestive system, the nervous system, the skin, the bladder, the cardiovascular system, the teeth and the immune system. It is these people who are described as having a hypermobility syndrome.
The most common of these syndromes is hypermobility spectrum disorder. Other conditions include heritable disorders of connective tissue such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, Marfan syndrome, osteogenesis imperfecta and Stickler syndrome. Although these are all conditions in their own rights, they are all complex, chronic conditions that are frequently associated with co-morbidities that require multi-disciplinary healthcare teams to diagnose, treat and manage.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bringing this matter to the House for consideration. People suffering from hypermobility syndrome feel that they have to fight to be believed, fight to be seen, fight to be diagnosed and fight to receive treatment—they are tired of simply fighting. Does he agree that the NHS in Calderdale and further afield must do better and must believe and treat these people?
Craig Whittaker
The hon. Gentleman is right in a lot of what he says, but the thing about hypermobility syndromes is that they are incredibly complex. As I said earlier, things like the digestive system, the immune system and teeth can all be factors. It is not like when someone goes to hospital with a broken leg, and we know what the problem is. There are multiple complexities around this disorder, so it is difficult from a professional point of view, which I will speak about later, but he is right in much of what he says.
From the Healthwatch work on the subject, it is clear that many people—specifically those with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome or hypermobility spectrum disorder—are not receiving the appropriate NHS care, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) indicated. It is not clear how many people in the United Kingdom are affected by hypermobility syndromes. Hypermobility is often misdiagnosed as fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, seronegative arthropathy, psychogenic rheumatism, depression or chronic fatigue syndrome. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but after that description, I need to lie down in a darkened room. So imagine how patients with hypermobility-related problems feel when they have to battle alone with immense health problems, often for years before obtaining a diagnosis, only then to face immense difficulties in accessing appropriate NHS healthcare to manage their complex and multi-system disorders and conditions. These patients describe feelings of being let down by the system, as well as huge frustration at both the widespread lack of understanding about their condition from medical professionals and the lack of appropriate care for their condition.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to my neighbour for giving way. I thank him for securing the debate and congratulate him on articulating a number of those medical conditions incredibly well. I have two constituents I am aware of who have a diagnosis of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. I was incredibly disappointed earlier this year when the clinical commissioning group informed me that Manchester Royal Infirmary, which had been delivering a degree of care for those with hypermobility, was going to have to stop accepting tertiary referrals for that support. Not only are people struggling to get a diagnosis after years, but regional specialist care is then not available once they have received a diagnosis. We really need to address that.
Craig Whittaker
My hon. Friend and neighbour is right. Because there is a lack of understanding about this syndrome and because, not only at GP level but in some specialist areas, areas that do particularly well on this issue are now having to close the list to outsiders because they are becoming over-subscribed. She is absolutely right; that is one of the issues. When I get to the end of my speech, one of my recommendations, which the Minister can hopefully address, is having a regional centre for this condition.
Healthwatch’s report was published in July this year, and it focuses primarily on patient experiences. It presents the overwhelming negative NHS experiences of adults with hypermobility syndromes, and it makes for challenging reading. It is 70-odd pages, and it is not a pleasant read at all. The report took evidence from 252 people via focus groups and a questionnaire. Approximately 86% of the participants had a diagnosis of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, or what would now be termed hypermobility spectrum disorder. A further 13% had other diagnoses linked to hypermobility syndromes. It is precisely those people who are presently excluded from NHS specialised rheumatology services, and it is those people on whom I would like to focus this evening.
The report identifies problems with NHS care in many different areas. It highlights that people are experiencing difficulties obtaining a diagnosis: 76% of respondents indicated that obtaining a diagnosis had been challenging; 22% described the process as difficult; and a staggering 54% stated that it had been very difficult. Frequently, people described the diagnostic process as leaving them feeling depressed, alone and isolated as a consequence of the lack of understanding that appeared to be the norm among professionals. This and the level of disbelief by professionals, as the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out, have led to people doubting themselves, despite their symptoms and, of course, their experiences.
Common terms used to describe how the diagnostic process made people feel included being angry, belittled, desperate, and feeling like a liar or a fraud, and some even said they were feeling as though they were going a little crazy. By contrast, obtaining a diagnosis generated feelings of hope and reassurance, and the feeling that they had been vindicated or were relieved at having an explanation of their difficulties.
On the road to diagnosis, many tests and procedures were commonly performed—sometimes repeatedly, sometimes in isolation and sometimes in conjunction with others. Many people reported that they had had many blood tests, scans and X-rays. A number of respondents spoke of being tested exhaustively over many years. For some people, this extensive testing was a route to an eventual diagnosis and, in some cases, supported interventions, but for others, this resulted in delaying the diagnosis, misdiagnosis and delayed support. A pathway would not only be beneficial to patients, but would also reduce the costs and associated wastage to the NHS of all the unnecessary tests, which are often carried out on a repetitive basis, as they are not giving the anticipated results at the time.
Participants reported that between one and six health professionals were involved in the diagnosis. One significant theme of the responses generally was the failure of medical professionals to link together the variety of symptoms and health issues being reported and a focus on the presenting symptom only. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many participants said that they had received other diagnoses, rather than a diagnosis of hypermobility syndrome. Altogether, a staggering 62 other conditions were named during the process.
The complex and diverse symptoms resulting from hypermobility syndromes have led to many people being misdiagnosed. They were told, for example, that their symptoms were related to mental health issues or mental illness, such as depression, anxiety or stress, and this resulted in subsequent referrals to mental health services, as health professionals could not find a physical cause of the symptoms. People also reported that health professionals had ascribed the symptoms to excess weight, clumsiness or lack of physical exercise. Misdiagnosis, partial diagnosis or stereotyping left people feeling upset and patronised by health officials and led to feelings of anger, frustration, rejection and defeat.
Inadequate knowledge among health professionals was another key theme of the report, and that also emerged from the data. The majority of the respondents referred to health professionals as not aware of, not knowing about or not believing in the wide-ranging symptoms and the health and life impact of hypermobility syndromes on the patients. GPs were specifically mentioned in this regard, and rheumatologists and physiotherapists also received mixed feedback about their knowledge. Some people who had a diagnosis also talked of medical professionals disbelieving the conditions, with some being told, “It’s all in your head,” or assuming that people were just after drugs, rather than genuinely being in pain, despite the diagnosis.
Another key theme that emerges from the data is poor communication between health professionals, both between departments in the same service and between one medical facility and another. Communication between professionals is by no means consistent. Communication failures occur frequently and conversations are repeated at consultation. Again, this experience is described as exhausting and demoralising. A number of participants also reported difficulties in persuading GPs to refer them to consultants. Most people who responded to the survey said that they had either no NHS care or inadequate NHS care. The life impact of these difficult NHS experiences is significant, with people having to give up work, experiencing difficulties in education, having problems with social relationships, the breakdown of families and financial problems, too.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He outlines the case for people physically, emotionally and mentally, but it is also about the follow-on. If people cannot work, they need benefits and help. If doctors do not understand the intricacies of the health condition, how can they back up constituents’ claims for benefits? Does the hon. Gentleman sometimes become bewildered with the system?
Craig Whittaker
It is not I who become bewildered with the system, but the patients who are incredibly frustrated at the whole process. As the hon. Gentleman says, not just with pre-diagnosis but post-diagnosis, there is a lack of professional understanding. Unless someone has a good consultant or GP who understands the system, the things we have talked about—the frustration, pain, stress and anxiety—go on for years. The hon. Gentleman is, again, absolutely right.
Ironically, people feel that they have to manage their own cases entirely without medical support and sometimes without fully understanding it themselves, researching the condition so that they can then ask for what they think they might need. This was often stressful for the respondents, with the stress causing further problems. Some people spoke of having some NHS care, but for some people the only care they received was pain management, often without review. There are several examples of respondents being prescribed opium or strong medications, but they said it was without adequate medical support or review. In the few cases where people reported having good experiences of NHS care—there were some—this appeared to be generally after moving around the country, changing GPs or hospital specialists. This usually occurred over a long period.
It should be noted that not many people commented on social care experiences and this in itself may—there is no evidence—reflect the lack of involvement and awareness of the issues among social care staff. A few people have received some care or support via social care. The most frequently reported were aids and adaptations for the home. Some people have also been given additional support for personal care and social support.
The report details exactly what actions all the local Healthwatch organisations in Yorkshire and the Humber will take to raise the issues with local NHS service providers and commissioners. What is it that those who have experienced this poor level of care are asking for from the Government, NHS England and our strategic health authorities? I have gone through the common asks, but I have come up with five that I and the authors of the report think are probably the most important.
First, we are asking for improved knowledge and awareness of hypermobility syndromes and the related conditions among health professionals across the whole of the NHS. Secondly, we are asking for a dedicated care pathway with faster referrals and a specialist service of some form, such as a specific regional specialist centre. People felt that that would help to address the current fragmented care that many are receiving. Thirdly, we are asking for the ability to access medical support where needed for services such as physiotherapy, without the need for a new referral. Each time a course of physiotherapy is required, people currently have to go back through the process to be referred for it. Fourthly, we would like to see the use of technology, such as video or telephone appointments, to access medical professionals. This would help people to better manage fatigue by removing the requirement to be physically present at the appointment. Finally, we would like improved communication, co-ordination and information sharing between health and social care, either as part of a specialist service, as we have discussed, or simply just as good practice.
Some of those suggestions regarding better care, such as digitalisation and integrated care, fit very well with the NHS long-term plan. It is very clear, however, that other additional actions are required to improve NHS care for this group of patients. It is important to remember that the vast majority of people who responded to the Healthwatch hypermobility syndromes survey are not those who are referred to the specialised rheumatology services, which are commissioned by NHS England. They have hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome or what is known as hypermobility spectrum disorder. They are specifically excluded from the Ehlers-Danlos national diagnostic service and, at present, have very poor experiences of that NHS care, which, they report, impacts incredibly negatively on their lives.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your time this evening, and I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) on securing this debate on such an important issue, and for taking the first step to bring the broader element of education and communication to the Chamber tonight by outlining the report from Healthwatch Calderdale on hypermobility syndromes. I join him in commending the work of local Healthwatches in championing the patient voice and in doing all that they do.
My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted how critical it is for those living with hypermobility syndromes to be able to obtain the right diagnosis and sometimes how challenging that is, because of the nature of all the different elements of the syndrome involved. This is also about people having their symptoms taken seriously by healthcare professionals. As he and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch) outlined, sometimes just being taken seriously is the first step on the path to accessing the relevant treatment that they need. Those professionals need to be aware of the spectrum of the condition. All those things are incredibly important so that patients can access the right care at the right time. For example, someone may access physiotherapy if they feel particularly unwell, but if they then feel like they have to go back down the snake, it can often seem like more of a fight, as the hon. Member for Strangford alluded to, so making sure that pathways are streamlined is exceedingly important.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley will be aware, the NHS England specialised commissioning team in Yorkshire and the Humber responded to the report only last month. I gather that the specialised commissioning team and the clinical commissioning group continue to engage with Healthwatch Calderdale on the report’s findings. Ensuring that that engagement is beneficial and delivers what patients want, and that it is as broad as possible, is important. I urge both him and the hon. Member for Halifax to make sure that they are engaged with the process and with holding the CCG and Healthwatch Calderdale to account in understanding whether objectives are being met and a better service is being delivered.
We have heard from my hon. Friend that hypermobility syndromes can have devastating effects on quality of life but often go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed for many years, which also adds to the stress. This situation must improve. As he pointed out, good communication and information sharing could make a big difference to how an individual feels their journey is progressing, and I assure him that we are committed to improving the diagnosis of rare diseases and to assisting patients so that their diagnosis feels less like a fight, as the hon. Member for Strangford put it.
Craig Whittaker
One of the key problems is that the hypermobility syndromes are treated by NHS England as rare diseases. As we have heard, Healthwatch Calderdale has 11 complaints on the books, but if we times that across Yorkshire and the Humber, it means there are several hundred complaints, and that is only people who have complained, not people who have been diagnosed. My challenge back to the Minister is this: we keep calling it a rare disease, but is it really a rare disease?
Jo Churchill
The challenge with rare diseases is that they are collectively common but rare in and among themselves. As my hon. Friend articulated, there are many different elements to this syndrome that may be diagnosed as Ehlers-Danlos or a plethora of other things. That makes treating them more of a challenge and is why there has to be communication and information sharing to make it a proper pathway for an individual. Although for each life it is really challenging, 11 is not a large patient cohort. That is one of the challenges when dealing with diseases and syndromes such as Ehlers-Danlos and hypermobility syndromes more broadly.
Improving the diagnosis using cutting-edge technology is key. The genomic medicine service, which was announced last October, aims to provide consistent and equitable access to the most up-to-date genomic testing in England, which may help, and I am pleased that hypermobility syndromes are included in the national genomic test directory, which underpins this service. That may provide more of the cohesion that my hon. Friend is looking for.
As my hon. Friend points out, improving awareness of hypermobility syndromes among healthcare professionals, particularly general practitioners, is key. It is critical to ensuring better diagnosis and treatment of these conditions and is vital if we are to build trust and confidence in the system and actually help those with rare diseases. As I say, they are collectively common—3.5 million people across the UK are affected—but there is a significant gap in our understanding of their diagnosis because of the number of different ways they can present.
On raising awareness, there is always more that can be done, and we must learn from areas of good practice. For example, Ehlers-Danlos Support UK has developed a toolkit in collaboration with the Royal College of General Practitioners. I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend’s clinical commissioning group, NHS Calderdale, has issued the links to the EDS toolkit to its GP member practices and encouraged clinicians to consider adding this topic to their learning needs, because building awareness is very much part of the answer.
Recently, a clinical update on Ehlers-Danlos syndromes was published in The BMJ. That is another excellent example of how the clinical community is working to improve knowledge and awareness and help provide positive NHS care for patients by transferring that knowledge into better diagnosis.
NHS England commissions specialised diagnostic services for hypermobility syndromes, including Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, osteogenesis imperfecta and Stickler syndrome. It is currently implementing a new “rare disease insert”, which aims to improve the patient experience through provision of a single person responsible for the co-ordination of care for hypermobility patients; I think that that was one of my hon. Friend’s constituents’ main asks. It also aims to improve the transition pathway from child to adult rare diseases services, including services for those with hypermobility syndromes.
Several centres in England deliver services for hypermobility, although, as we heard from the hon. Member for Halifax, not all of them are always accessible to everyone. They include two centres delivering complex EDS services, four delivering osteogenesis imperfecta and childhood osteogenesis imperfecta services, and a specialist centre for Stickler syndrome. Those centres help to co-ordinate specialist regional care and manage the transition to non-specialist NHS care. I did very much hear my hon. Friend’s request for a more co-ordinated service for his constituents. I encourage him to engage with his clinical commissioning group, as the idea has much merit. It could potentially secure better diagnosis and provide a better pathway for patients through discussion of the single point of contact, giving them much-needed continuity and a timeline for provision in Calder Valley and for patients more broadly.
My hon. Friend said that he thought virtual GP services would help people with hypermobility syndromes, because they would no longer have to travel all the time. He will be pleased to hear that virtual GP services are beginning to be rolled out in general practice. That means that patients will have the right to web and video consultations by April 2021, which I hope will also be of benefit.
As was announced by my colleague Baroness Blackwood this summer, we need a national conversation on rare diseases to help to inform and communicate. We will be engaging with patients, researchers and clinicians, gathering evidence, and identifying the major challenges faced in the field. We welcome the input from the hypermobility syndromes patient cohort and from healthcare professionals, and the work that they have done on the report.
Let me end by thanking my hon. Friend, who has spoken so passionately and so knowledgeably about this issue. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss such an important report in the Chamber. We are dedicated to trying to improve the lives of all patients living with hypermobility, and, as my hon. Friend said, that is laid down in the NHS long-term plan and our implementation of the UK strategy. I hope that I have given a little reassurance to patients who are struggling for diagnosis that we are here to try to make the pathways stronger and diagnosis easier, and to improve the lives of all those affected by hypermobility syndromes and other rare diseases.
Question put and agreed to.
CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1232).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. As the Committee will be aware, the Government had made all the necessary legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to ensure that in the event of a no-deal exit on 29 March 2019, there was a functioning legal and regulatory regime for financial services from exit day. Following the extension to the article 50 process, new EU legislation will become applicable before 31 October. Under the 2018 Act, that new legislation will form part of UK law at exit; further deficiency fixes are therefore necessary to ensure that the UK’s regulatory regime remains prepared for exit.
The regulations deal with one of the new pieces of EU legislation that has recently become applicable. They resolve deficiencies in the EU’s prudential regime that will be retained in UK law at exit. The regime sets out how much capital credit institutions such as banks and investment firms need to hold; these rules are currently set in the EU capital requirements regulation, as well as in UK secondary legislation to implement the fourth capital requirements directive. The CRR is a directly applicable EU regulation that has applied since 2013. A statutory instrument to correct the deficiencies in this retained law was laid before and approved by Parliament last year: the Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
Earlier this year, the European Council and European Parliament finalised a revised banking package, which included several amendments to the capital requirements regulation made by an amending instrument known as CRR II. This gives effect to some of the internationally agreed Basel reforms, which are the centrepiece of the post-crisis reforms aimed at making banking safer. Similar changes are expected in all G20 economies that follow the Basel guidelines. Through the UK’s membership of the G20 and the Financial Stability Board, we have committed to the full, timely and consistent implementation of the Basel III reforms.
Several of the amendments made by CRR II are already in force and will therefore become retained EU law on exit day. This retained EU law will contain deficiencies that need to be fixed and that have not been addressed by the 2018 SI because they relate to changes that have come into effect since it was made. There are three main areas in which fixes are required.
The first area is third-country treatment. Consistent with the approach taken in the 2018 SI to amend the CRR, the regulations remove the preferential treatment given to the largest banks and investment firms in the EU27 to reflect the fact that the EU and the UK will treat each other as third countries after exit. It must be stressed that this is not about the ability of EU firms to carry on doing business here after the UK has left the single market; through comprehensive temporary permissions and transitional regimes, we have done everything we can to support EU firms that already have business here to continue with that business while they become UK-authorised.
The second area is transfer of functions. In line with the Government’s approach to all onshored financial services legislation, the regulations transfer a number of functions currently within the remit of EU authorities to the appropriate UK bodies. Such functions, such as the development of detailed technical rules on certain provisions of the regulations, will now be carried out by the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority or the Bank of England. That is appropriate, given the regulators’ responsibilities for prudential and resolution policy and the supervision of global firms, and the major role that they have already played in the EU to develop CRR technical standards. Where CRR II confers delegated legislation-making powers on the Commission, those powers are converted into regulation-making powers conferred on the Treasury. Their use by the Treasury will need the approval of Parliament.
The final area is updates to definitions. CRR II amended some definitions used in the CRR; the regulations correct those updated definitions so that they can operate in a UK-only context. Here, too, the approach is consistent with fixes that Parliament has already approved in the previous CRR SI.
In drafting the SI, the Treasury worked closely with the financial services regulators, and we have engaged extensively with the financial services industry, incorporating feedback from industry players that will be significantly affected.
Before I conclude, it is important to address the procedure under which the SI has been made. Along with three other financial services SIs, the SI was made and laid before Parliament under the made affirmative procedure provided for in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. It is an urgent procedure that brings an affirmative instrument into law immediately, before Parliament has considered the legislation, but it also requires that Parliament must consider and approve a made affirmative SI if it is to remain in law.
The Government have not used that procedure lightly, and it must be remembered that, across Departments, we have laid more than 600 exit SIs under the usual secondary legislation procedures. As we draw near to exit day, however, it is vital that all critical exit legislation is in place, including legislation necessary to ensure that our financial services regulatory regime continues to function effectively from exit. It would have been reckless to leave that until the last minute. Industry and our financial regulators need—and needed—legal certainty on the regime that will apply from exit. Without addressing the deficiencies in the new CRR rules, there would be significant legal uncertainty, disruption for firms and increased risk to financial stability.
The SI is essential to ensure that the prudential regime applying to credit institutions and investment firms works effectively if the UK leaves the EU without a deal on 31 October. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
May I, too, say what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Bailey?
The statutory instrument returns the Minister and I to our preparations for the country’s potential exit from the European Union without a deal. For the avoidance of any doubt, let me state that the Opposition believe that a no-deal Brexit would be extremely damaging and grossly irresponsible, and would return the Brexit process to square one rather than be the clean break that some would, erroneously, have us believe. However, we acknowledge, as we always have, the need for a functional regulatory regime in the eventuality that we have to fall back on it.
The issue relating to the capital requirements regulation was first addressed by the Minister and me in Committee on 12 December 2018. The Opposition retain our concerns about one of the central tenets of the instrument, which is the removal of the preferential treatment for EU sovereign debt. That raises the risk of a potentially costly, disruptive and unnecessary sale and repurchase of assets immediately upon a no-deal Brexit. The trade publication GlobalCapital expressed it succinctly last year as proposing
“a hit to UK bank capital ratios at the worst time imaginable.”
However, I am mindful that we have had that substantive debate before, and the Government and Opposition do not agree. Hopefully we will never have to find out who is correct on that point.
The explanatory memorandum highlights that the reason we are going round this matter again today is to account for changes that have occurred between the original proposed EU exit date of 29 March and the revised exit date of 31 October. However, that seems to be a convenient means of avoiding the resurrection of the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill on in-flight files. To remind colleagues, the Opposition were put under significant time pressure on the in-flight Bill in March. We were given very short notice to scrutinise and table amendments to that piece of primary legislation. When it became apparent that the Bill would not be passed by Parliament unless it was amended to strengthen money laundering and anti-corruption provisions, the Government withdrew it.
Today’s instrument will seemingly implement some of those in-flight changes. The capital requirements regulation was named as one of the relevant files in scope of that original Bill. I ask the Minister whether he can clarify that point and, if so, how it can be that those changes have been demoted in importance from primary to secondary legislation. Is it the intention that the entire in-flight Bill will be broken up across several statutory instruments to conceal the fact that it cannot be passed on the Floor of the House of Commons?
The changes contained in the statutory instrument again give new responsibilities to UK regulators. The capital requirements regulation is an important part of the post-financial crisis regulatory regime, and I am sure that we all wish never to find ourselves in a repeat of the circumstances of 2008. Yet new requirements are being loaded on to UK regulators regarding macro-supervisory obligations that have previously been conducted at an EU level. Will the Minister assure the Committee that that is the right supervisory model?
Furthermore, in almost all the substantive changes to the capital requirements regulation—for example on internal modelling, reporting requirements and reporting on prudential requirements—there has been an important change of language. Where the original EU legislation states that the European Banking Authority “shall” make standards, that has become,
“The FCA and PRA may…make”,
on pages 11, 13, 15, 17 and so on.
I read that as a shift from mandatory action to optional action by the regulator. Why has that new distinction been made? The argument has always been that this process simply transfers responsibilities, with no policy decisions being taken, but surely this decision could lead to a change of regulation. Will the Minister elaborate on why that change of language was made, and on the Treasury’s intentions behind it?
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bailey. I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said; the SNP shares the official Opposition’s suspicions about areas related to the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill, which—as hon. Members will remember—did not even reach Report.
The regulations flag up the fact that this will be an ongoing issue. As the EU continues to make changes, we will have to make changes here to get any type of equivalence with it. I remind the Minister that equivalence determinations are akin to building a house on sand: they are very much at the discretion of the Commission and can be withdrawn at very short notice. If we do not match the EU’s regulations, that equivalence may end up being withdrawn, to the detriment of our financial services industry in the UK—particularly in Scotland, which did not vote for this but is being left to deal with the consequences and chaos that result from it. The Minister said that the regulations reflect a new piece of EU legislation that has recently become applicable. I suppose that that is part of the chaos that we now face: the EU is moving on without us, and we are left picking up the pieces.
On the financial services Bill and the suspicions of the hon. Gentleman, I must ask the Minister: are the regulations a workaround for the Bill? Are they a means of escaping the scrutiny and the amendments that I supported for the greater regulation that we need?
Will the Minister tell us more about the powers that are going to the FCA and the PRA and away from this House? How will the House maintain scrutiny of those institutions and of the rules and regulations? There will be a need for adaptation and change; how will he make sure that the House is given a full part to play—not just a statement or an update—in administering the regulations in the years ahead?
This all highlights our lack of voice and influence in future EU reforms. We will be abiding by the rules, because otherwise we will lose the opportunities for our financial services market, but we will not necessarily have influence in making them—in areas in which for many years we have had the advantage because we have a large majority in the types of industry that will be affected. We will end up in a weaker situation than we are in at the moment, particularly in a no-deal Brexit in which we cannot guarantee that we will have the equivalence or access to markets that we require.
Further to that sense of weakness, we have yet to see from this Government a full picture of what the financial services framework will look like. I have asked for that on all the Committees that I have been on, because we need to know what the framework will look like. This is being done with a hasty, piecemeal approach. We are being asked to come here not quite at the last minute, as the Minister pointed out, but with 24 days to go till Brexit, when we may end up with no deal. There are Committees sitting all the way along this corridor this afternoon and later this evening to get these last-minute preparations done, but we do not know what the picture will look like in the year ahead.
To give some degree of stability in planning to the organisations, institutions and people in the financial services industry, I urge the Minister to bring forward some kind of clear framework so that we can see where we are going. This piecemeal approach, this last-minute chaos of bringing things forward, this move towards more Brexit red tape rather than less, as I am sure the Brexiteers would want—none of it is adequate or particularly seemly. I urge the Minister to do a lot better on this, because it is absolute chaos.
John Glen
I will endeavour to address the points raised by the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Glasgow Central. The hon. Gentleman referred to our conversation on 12 December regarding preferential sovereign debt and preferential capital treatment. In the circumstances of no deal, the consequences will be the inevitable result of leaving the EU: the UK and the EU27 will no longer be part of the same overriding legal infrastructure.
It is Government policy not to provide unilateral preferential treatment, but the hon. Gentleman made a reasonable point about different scenarios that might ensue. In practice, the impact would be largely mitigated by the transitional powers that we have given through this process to regulators, enabling them to phase in the new requirements between now and 31 December 2020.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the provision of the changes with respect to the in-flight files Bill. Only legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act can onshore legislation before exit. The IFF Bill would have been for new files after exit, but we are dealing with all the immediate risks prior to exit. Given that there was an evolution in the corpus of EU material and directives over the summer, it is within scope of this mechanism.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the “shall” versus “may” language, and whether action is optional for regulators. That fits with the UK’s existing regulatory framework. Parliament has already delegated responsibility to our regulators for technical rules. That approach has been accepted in the UK and is supported by industry. I am happy to look carefully at what he said and see whether there is an issue. I will write to him, but I do not think that we have changed anything from previous approaches.
Like the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central made a number of wider political points that I will resist responding to now. However, I will try to address the specific points regarding the use of SIs. Again, it is completely consistent with the approach approved by Parliament, and it would not be feasible to use primary legislation for onshoring.
The hon. Lady asked about the future regulatory framework, and made some wider observations about the potential diminution of UK influence. Obviously, we will always be part of wider bodies globally in terms of regulation in this area, but the aim of the onshoring legislation for financial services has always been to ensure that we are at a base point in terms of a functioning regime in all scenarios. Onshoring is designed to provide continuity and to minimise disruption, as well as to provide time for the Government and Parliament to design a regulatory framework fit for the future.
The first step in that has already taken place with the call for evidence document of 19 July, which set out the context of a long-term review of the regulatory framework and the key issues that we will need to consider for a regime that operates outside the EU. The document also requests views for the Treasury and the regulators in terms of short-term changes, and how the co-ordination of UK regulatory activity can be improved to manage the combined impact of regulatory change on firms and their customers. The call for evidence ends on 18 October and is the first stage of a longer review. Obviously, the nature of our exit from the EU will determine the way that evolves in subsequent stages.
I hope that that addresses the substantive points that were raised. The Government believe that the SI is essential to ensure that prudential regulation of credit institutions and investment firms continues to work safely and effectively if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. I hope that the Committee has found the sitting informative and will join me in supporting the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1219).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I welcome Members to the Committee. The Government’s aim is to leave the European Union on 31 October 2019 with a deal that works for citizens and businesses. Until that final deadline, we will make every effort to reach an agreement with the EU, but we also have a duty to prepare and plan for all scenarios, and to prepare comprehensively for Brexit. Today we are considering a statutory instrument that is part of the Government’s package for preparing for the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.
I hope the Committee will allow me to set out the context of this provision, which the Government wish to introduce to manage the safety and security risk of goods entering and leaving the UK. The measures maintain many aspects of the current safety and security regime. They will facilitate the flow of trade, while working to ensure the continued safety and security of our borders.
In 2005, the World Customs Organisation adopted the SAFE framework of standards as a deterrent to international terrorism, to secure revenue collections, and to promote trade facilitation. As a result, safety and security declarations became required when goods moved across borders. Previously, as part of the EU, the UK required safety and security declarations only for goods leaving or entering the EU. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, UK importers and exporters will be required to complete safety and security declarations for goods moving to and from the EU, as well as to and from the rest of the world, as happens at present.
The statutory instrument has four key purposes. First, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has listened to industry concerns about the readiness of businesses to comply with UK-EU safety and security requirements on trade from day one, so the instrument gives businesses more time to prepare to start to submit declarations to HMRC for movements to and from the EU. The instrument introduces a 12-month transitional period until 1 November 2020, during which there will be no requirement for entry summary declarations for goods imported from territories where the UK does not currently require the declarations. That means that entry summary declarations will not be required for imports from the EU.
Entry summary declarations will continue to be required for goods imported from the rest of the world. The UK will therefore continue to receive the same safety and security import declarations in a no-deal scenario as it does today. The transitional period introduced by the instrument applies to declarations that the UK does not currently receive. As a result, there is no increased security risk to the UK from this approach.
Secondly, the instrument gives HMRC a discretionary power until 1 November 2020 to allow businesses to submit safety and security declarations for certain exports after the goods have left the UK. That is a contingency power, subject to HMRC’s discretion, and the specifics will be set out in a public notice. The power will be used, if required, in combination with a similar power granted in a previous statutory instrument to extend the period in which the export customs declaration has to be provided. Together, that will be used to allow more time, if needed, to provide the combined export customs declaration and export safety and security declaration. If needed, HMRC will use these powers to facilitate the movement of goods and assist with the continued free flow of trade.
Thirdly, the instrument removes until 1 May 2020 the requirement for exit summary declarations for empty containers, empty pallets and empty vehicles moving from the UK to the EU. They are also not required for any spare parts, accessories and equipment for pallets, containers and means of transport. Those declarations are not required at present, so the Government are giving businesses a longer time to prepare.
Finally, the instrument also clarifies that a combined export and safety and security declaration can be accepted when exporting goods, so that exporters are not required to submit separate exit summary declarations.
The instrument does not apply to movements of goods between Northern Ireland and Ireland. A previous statutory instrument set out that in a no-deal scenario there would be no safety and security declarations between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The Government are committed to supporting the all-Ireland economy by avoiding checks and infrastructure at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Under no circumstances will we put in place infrastructure, checks or controls at or near the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
In conclusion, this instrument strikes what we believe is the right balance between giving traders time to prepare for new arrangements with the EU and maintaining the safety and security of the UK, and I commend the regulations to the House.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson. I was confused at the beginning of this Committee when the right hon. Member for Central Devon came into the room; I thought he was going to sit in the Minister’s place again, and that there had been a coup d’état, but alas, there has not.
The Minister spoke about the readiness of business. Well, business is not ready to exit the European Union; that is why we are considering these provisions. The Government have not prepared as they should have done. Instead, they have extended the time for business to prepare. Why? Because businesses are not ready. He said that there will be no safety and security declarations. He gallantly kept a straight face when he said that, but then he went on to talk about introducing this measure in order to avoid checks. The only thing it is avoiding is reality.
I hope that Government Members will not take this personally, but it is not the same pleasure to see them as it is to see you, Mr Hanson, because of the out-of-kilter numbers on this Committee and their dominating effect. The Government have no majority, no authority and no hope, but they have stitched up and stashed out this Committee. The Government majority is fewer than 43, but the proportion of Members on this Committee is still out of kilter. When I was a councillor in local government in 1986, the Conservatives introduced legislation that made it illegal to have a committee on which the numbers were completely out of kilter, but this Committee is out of kilter. I must make that protest today.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman has put that point on the record, but it is not actually within the scope of the Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019.
Peter Dowd
You have been completely indulgent in that regard, Mr Hanson. Notwithstanding that point about the nature of the Committee, I start by saying that this statutory instrument follows on from the broad powers that the Executive accumulated through the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 of fond memory, the Trade Bill and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which allowed them to make shifts in policy via secondary regulations—powers that make Henry VIII look like a wilting flower. That method seemed designed specifically to undermine proper scrutiny. We are trying to undertake proper scrutiny today, but that is undermined by the lack of balance on the Committee that I referred to. We see the processes subverted time after time.
In recent weeks, there has been an excellent article that the Minister might find useful by Alexandra Sinclair and Joe Tomlinson of the UK Constitutional Law Association. It is called, “Eliminating Effective Scrutiny: Prorogation, No Deal Brexit, and Statutory Instruments”. There are several articles in the series.
As hon. Members are aware, these regulations relate to the Union customs code and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446. I turn to regulation 2, as you will be pleased to hear, Mr Hanson. It is on the modification of the regulation laying down the Union customs code, and appears to smooth the seams between the Union customs code and the more recent customs Act, the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, which introduced far-reaching powers to amend the UK customs procedure that I mentioned. If I am right, regulation 2 seems to be a tidying-up measure to align UK legislation with the Union customs code. Specifically, it seeks to ensure that an export declaration, as defined by the 2018 Act, is included under the Union customs code definition of a customs declaration, and as we speak, there is an urgent question in the Chamber on the schedule of tariffs in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Regulation 3, headed “Modification of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 supplementing certain provisions of the Union Customs Code”, perhaps provides more interest. Its first part, which inserts a new article 104(6) in the Commission delegated regulation, appears to gives broad powers enabling us to override EU legislation and apply import duty to pallets, which the Minister mentioned, spare parts, containers and means of transport. Can the Minister explain why that waiver is necessary, and in what circumstances he could see import duty needing to be applied to those goods?
Regulation 3(3) inserts a new paragraph after article 244(4) of the Commission delegated regulation. That paragraph proposes that the time limits that apply to pre-departure declarations on travelling by different means of transport should continue to apply until November 2020, as the Minister said. If I have got this right, 1 November 2020 will fall slightly before the end of the proposed transition period. Can the Minister explain why?
Regulation 3(4) inserts a paragraph after article 245(2) that extends the power to waive pre-departure declaration in certain circumstances. That paragraph creates a new class of goods for which a pre-departure declaration would not have to be lodged. Unfortunately, though, the class of goods created is
“goods that would benefit from the waiver”
and
“goods that would so benefit if Article 104(1)(e) applied to goods carried under a transport contract.”
That does not clarify matters. This appears to be a rather circular piece of legislation, allowing a waiver to be applied to any good that would benefit from it. I am afraid that that will provide little certainty for businesses that are trying to understand how the regulations will affect them. Where is the Government guidance on this proposal?
Perhaps the Government are too busy using taxpayers’ money to advertise the point that the UK is leaving on 31 October to do what they should be doing, namely pulling their finger out and giving useful or credible guidance that might, God forbid, actually be of some help to businesses. Perhaps the Minister could clarify how a business will know what is waived under proposed new article 245(3). Can he give examples of goods that would qualify for the waiver?
The final regulation, regulation 4, amends the date set out in earlier regulations. I am afraid that the Government appear to have bungled this. The original Commission delegated regulation said:
“Until 1 October 2019, the lodging of an entry summary declaration shall be waived in respect of goods which before then are in transit to or are brought into the customs territory of the Union from a place where, in relation to that territory, such a declaration was not required before exit day.”
As hon. Members will note, it is 7 October—6 days after the end date set out in the above passage. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. Has the waiver been dropped since last Tuesday, only to be re-introduced should these regulations be agreed to? What are the implications for this gap in the law for business? Could businesses be legally liable for not lodging an entry summary declaration over the last 6 days? Is this competent on the part of the Government? It is a wonder that they want to centralise all these powers when they get things wrong in doing so. With these regulations, the Government have sown more confusion in an environment where exactly the opposite is needed.
In conclusion, today’s process, aligned with the illegal prorogation of Parliament, the stifling of Opposition day debates in the Chamber, the unprecedented use of “no amendment to the law” clauses in, I think, the last four Finance Bills, the stitched-up Committee membership, the use of unbridled secondary legislation and a Prime Minister who, with the connivance of Conservative Members, cannot even have a veracious discussion with a 93-year-old woman—namely the Queen—is deeply worrying.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a joy to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, discussing customs once again. Along with the hon. Member for Bootle, the right hon. Member for Central Devon and many others, I have fond memories of going through the customs Bill in the House.
I have quite a few questions, mostly about the process that the legislation has followed and the logic behind our discussing the regulations today. I am very keen to know why this delegated legislation was not brought before the House in good time, before the Prorogation that did not exist. Given that we knew that the previous legislation, as the hon. Member for Bootle mentioned, took us up to only 1 October, why was this change not made previously?
Added to that, why was the change not introduced in good enough time for it to go to the sifting Committee, the European Statutory Instruments Committee, where it could have gone through the normal sifting processes and been looked at by that group of people? I am a member of the sifting Committee, and I have found it incredibly useful to go through the instruments that require sifting. We are able to give Committee members, and other Members across the House, a heads-up on things that require more scrutiny. More notice for Members is always a good thing. We have a ridiculous number of statutory instruments on the agenda today, and we have had a fairly short time to look at them. I would not imagine that the scrutiny that has been done is the best it could possibly have been, as we have not had as much time as we should have had.
The reason why I believe that the Government should or could have brought forward the information before now is the fact that they mention in the explanatory memorandum that an event was held with industry in January, when HMRC heard from industry that it did not have the capacity to comply with the security and safety changes as of exit day. The Government should have known at that point that changes would be required to the legislation, and should have made them much earlier. I would appreciate it if the Minister could let us know why that has not happened. I am focusing particularly on giving HMRC discretionary power to allow up to 12 months extra for a waiver to be granted to individuals.
Paragraph 13.3 of the explanatory notes states:
“Guidance will be published online and on social media platforms and HMRC have customer contact centres that can provide advice on what to do leading up to the UK departure date.”
Can the Minister confirm whether that guidance has already been published, seeing as this instrument was put forward in made affirmative form, and that the Government could therefore have assumed that it was likely to go through, given the choice of process? Has that guidance been published?
This morning, when I walked to school with my daughter, she asked me how many days until Halloween, because Halloween is much more important to her than Brexit day. I looked at my watch and said, “It’s 24 days.” That is 24 days for these companies to look at potential new guidance that may or may not be online at this moment in time. I do not think that that is enough time for companies to work out what they will need to do, or not do; as the hon. Member for Bootle said, there is not a huge amount of clarity about which goods, companies and organisations will be able to get the waiver, and which ones will not.
There are a huge number of instances, especially in the customs Act, but also in a number of areas around financial services, for example, in which HMRC has been given a huge amount of discretion on how to take things forward. It is being given a huge amount of power as to how to take things forward and write guidance. I understand that HMRC is the expert on this and needs a certain amount of discretionary power, but it seems to me that we are giving quite a lot of discretionary power to HMRC on this basis.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady is making an important point about an area of concern. The explanatory memorandum says,
“HMRC will only use the power if needed to respond to business un-readiness that is greater than anticipated.”
It is not clear how “greater than anticipated” will be determined, how transparent the use of the power will be, or who will not be granted an extension.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. In reality, the legislation does not provide more clarity to businesses. In fact, it provides less, because they do not know whether HMRC will be able to grant them the waiver using this discretionary power. Businesses will still have to prepare to put in safety and security declarations because there is no clarity from the Government on whether they definitely will or will not be included in the new regime. It would have been sensible of the UK Government to lift the clauses from the Union customs code and use them to make the customs Act work, but they chose not to.
Peter Dowd
On readiness, as the hon. Lady points out, we are less than a month away from leaving the EU, which we have been told will happen come what may, ditches included. It says on Gov.uk:
“Contact your vehicle insurance provider 1 month before you travel to get green cards for your vehicle, caravan or trailer.”
How many of those who know that they are going away in less than a month have their documentation ready?
Kirsty Blackman
Certainly too few. In fact, I discovered relatively recently that France and Spain, for example, have different regulations for those taking caravans, trailers or cars abroad. If someone were planning to do some kind of tour around those countries—that is perfectly feasible, given that they have much warmer weather than us at this time of year—they would need different permissions, depending on the country that they are going to. I am particularly concerned that many individuals will not have contacted their insurer in good time.
More specifically on businesses and the waiver, we know that businesses are not prepared for Brexit. If the Government are setting out to try to make things easier for businesses, they are abjectly failing to do so. In reality, the Government chose not to lift and shift the Union customs code. Had they chosen to lift and shift from the code, they would have had to take out certain parts because of the way that it works, but when the customs Act was written—I made this point at the time—the Government chose to bodge some parts of it and do them completely differently, with no rhyme or reason about the way to take it forward. For businesses, that has made things much more complicated than they needed to be. The Government have chosen that route and made the nuts and bolts and red tape much more complicated for businesses.
In circumstances where HMRC does not decide to grant the discretionary waiver to businesses and requires them to submit two separate declarations of security and safety work, how much additional money will that cost businesses? I understand from the explanatory memorandum that an analysis of the cost to businesses has to be done if it is likely to pass a certain threshold. The explanatory memorandum does not state the amount that it would cost businesses to submit those two separate declarations if HMRC decides that it will not use its discretionary power.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston mentioned the “greater than anticipated” wording. What level of unreadiness is anticipated? Do the Government anticipate that 50% of businesses making declarations will fail to do so adequately? Does the power kick in only if 51% of businesses fail to do so adequately? What is the anticipated failure rate by businesses before the legislation kicks in for HMRC? I feel that this has been put together in a shoddy way, and that it could have been done much better. Better scrutiny could have been applied if the Government had chosen the better processes that the House agreed for the sifting Committee. The reason we are in this mess today—aside from Brexit in general—is that the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 was not good enough and did not give enough certainty to businesses. That is why we have had to amend it a number of times before exit day.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I have a question for the Minister that builds on those that have been asked. I understand that safety and security information will be required on all goods transiting between the UK and the European Union. That has not been necessary before; it is onerous, difficult and complex, and both entry summary and exit summary declarations would normally be required. I can well see the sense of the UK authorities deciding that they do not want those declarations for the first 12 months, or six months in some cases.
What I do not think the Minister has told us is whether the EU side will still require those declarations. When there is an entry declaration required of the EU, presumably the EU would require an exit summary declaration. Similarly, when the UK would require an exit summary declaration, the EU would require an entry summary declaration. It is a good thing that, at least for a period, the UK will not require all those difficult and costly declarations, but can the Minister tell us whether the EU will issue a similar waiver for the first 12 months, or will all that information still have to be compiled in order to satisfy the needs of the EU authorities, even if HMRC will not require it? That strikes me as yet another very damaging burden that is being imposed on UK firms—perhaps not for the first 12 months but certainly thereafter—if we leave the EU without a deal. Under these proposals, in a year, that damaging burden will be imposed anyway. That strikes me as another good reason why Parliament has determined that if we do not have a deal by the end of this month, the Government need to apply to the EU for an extension—precisely so we do not have to impose those costly and difficult burdens on UK firms.
Jesse Norman
I thank colleagues for the peppering of questions about this piece of legislation. Let me start, if I may, with the hon. Member for Bootle, who was very dismissive of business’s preparedness. He did not recognise the Herculean efforts made to assist businesses with that. If there had not been the delays to Brexit, business would take the current work of the Government more seriously. The Government are attempting to make people understand the reality of the departure from the EU on the 31st of this month.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the Government for making powers via secondary legislation. If the Labour party wished to eschew secondary legislation—if it ever came to power, God forbid—that would be an interesting declaration, and we would look forward to hearing it. Secondary legislation has been a very important part of our system of government for many a long year. It is particularly helpful in areas where regulations can be used to give effect to primary legislation, as in this case.
The hon. Gentleman raised a whole series of questions, which I will go through before turning to others’ questions. He asked why 1 November 2020; as I mentioned, hauliers and carriers have consistently told us that they require 12 months to prepare to submit safety and security declarations. They are increasingly asked to fill these things in directly themselves; they have asked for that extra time, and we are seeking to accommodate them. He asked why there should be a six-month waiver on applying security declarations for empty pallets on exit. The matter is relatively straightforward: if the pallets themselves, or the empty vehicles themselves, are not being exported, there are no goods being carried by them for which safety and security declarations would be required.
The hon. Member for Bootle and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked about guidance. There are two forms of guidance. As regards the SI, the guidance the hon. Gentleman seeks is in the explanatory memorandum. As regards the policy roll-out, HMRC has already set out that it will provide guidance and support to assist businesses when the time comes for them to submit declarations.
Kirsty Blackman
Will the Minister clarify whether HMRC has published that guidance already?
Jesse Norman
HMRC has published some guidance already, and plans to publish more in time for the moment when declarations may come into force.
The hon. Member for Bootle asked whether these powers have the effect of undermining scrutiny. He should be aware that of course Border Force will continue to run checks on goods in the way it does at the moment, and these declarations are independent of customs declarations that might be made.
Peter Dowd
I wanted clarity about the declarations because one has to be prepared in advance of the potential for a declaration. Rather than having the guidance only when one gets to the declaration, would it not be much more appropriate to have that guidance laid out clearly and unambiguously much earlier, in advance of the need to make the declaration?
Jesse Norman
I think the hon. Gentleman is making my point for me. The instrument introduces a 12-month transitional period until 1 November 2020, during which there is no requirement for entry summary declarations for goods imported from territories where the UK does not currently require them. That is precisely in order to allow people to adopt guidance as necessary.
Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that the UK authority is not going to require these declarations, but what about the EU side? Will the EU still require them? He makes the point that businesses need 12 months to prepare. Are they going to be ready to meet the EU’s requirements, which obviously are not covered by the SI?
Jesse Norman
That is true. The right hon. Gentleman raises the question he asked in his speech, so let me take that point out of order. The EU has indicated that it will still require declarations, and of course declarations are required already on goods imported from outside the EU. That structure is not changed as regards imports; as regards exports, exporters will need to adjust.
Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but if the information and declarations are still required by the EU side, what is the benefit in not requiring them on the UK side?
Jesse Norman
The benefit is that we require, for imports, declarations of safety and security that are reasonably full and cover a whole variety of different elements, and we will need to assure ourselves in due course, if and when we introduce declarations following a no-deal scenario, that that data is being provided. Of course, not to have to provide that, and to give oneself the opportunity to put in arrangements that allow it, is a considerable benefit.
Stephen Timms
I think the Minister is telling us that businesses need 12 months to prepare for providing these declarations, but he is also telling us that, from day one of a no-deal Brexit, the EU is going to require those declarations from our businesses. How are they expected to cope with that?
Jesse Norman
It has always been built into the situation that we cannot control what EU countries may insist or demand. There have been plenty of other areas in which the EU has sought to give reliefs or allow easements for the first period. It has chosen not to do so in this case, but that does not bear on the question of what we require as a matter of import security declarations from our own hauliers and others. That is what the statutory instrument seeks to address.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked about the timing and the process by which the statutory instrument was laid before Parliament. As she will be aware, it was laid on 4 September, which was in plenty of time before 31 October. It should be understood that it was thought at that point that Parliament was going to be prorogued, and that there would have been time to assess the instrument after that, but the timing reflects the reality.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked how the SI relates to the earlier SI introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon. Being in front of him is like being a young priest being pushed up for ordination with the Pope sitting behind him in St Peter’s. It is a great privilege and honour to have him behind me. He will know better than anyone that the SI replaces the earlier one and will come into effect from day one if we have a no-deal scenario.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raises an important question about whether too much power has been given to HMRC. She will know that, more widely, I have asked HMRC, alongside Her Majesty’s Treasury, to conduct a serious investigation into the balance of its powers, and to make recommendations on how those can be adjusted. In this case, the power is relatively limited. To remind the Committee, it is a discretionary power, lasting for a year, that allows businesses to submit safety and security declarations for certain exports after the goods have left the UK. It is subject to HMRC’s discretion, but it is required to be exercised according to a public notice.
The broad point is that this is designed to be an intervention that allows HMRC discretion to give additional easements. HMRC does not believe that it needs to do that at the moment; it wishes to have the power to make those easements, conceivably for a 12-month period. In order to do that, it will have to consult Ministers and publish a public notice. It would be a matter of intense public interest if there was any suggestion that those easements picked out a particular subsection in a discriminatory or unfair way, so there are implicit constraints, both of time and of public pressure, on how those powers can be exercised.
Kirsty Blackman
I suppose my concern was not just about this SI, but about the fact that I have sat on so many Delegated Legislation Committees, and Committees scrutinising primary legislation as well, that have given additional discretionary powers to HMRC that it can exercise just by means of a public notice, potentially in consultation with Ministers. It seems that HMRC now has a huge amount of these powers that it did not have two or three years ago. I am concerned that it now has too much power, or that nobody is doing an assessment of the powers. I am pleased about the overview. It would be incredibly useful if the Minister could assure me that it will look at all the new discretionary powers that HMRC has gathered.
Jesse Norman
That is a very interesting suggestion. The work that is being done at the moment has to do with the way HMRC exercises powers in relation to UK taxpayers, particularly individual taxpayers. Once Brexit has taken place, it would be a very interesting idea to consider whether there should be a further piece of work to assess whether there has been a ratchet in some way that has granted HMRC powers that it ultimately should not have. If the hon. Lady is happy with this, I will take that away and reflect on it, because it is an interesting suggestion. I am grateful to her for it.
I was asked how much declarations and the full panoply of the costs associated with Brexit will affect businesses. The Committee will be aware that this has previously been estimated at £6.5 billion, a fact that has been in the public domain for some time. The impact assessment that has just been published has pushed the figure up to £7.5 billion. Although that is a significant increase of £1 billion, it appears to be related mainly to an increase in business activity and trade over the period measured, and also to a slight tweak to the methodology, rather than to any large rise in underlying costs.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised the issue of the UCC. She will be aware that the Union customs code requires safety and security declarations. We are seeking to waive them and have clarified that we will continue the process of combining export and safety and security declarations. It has been deemed straightforward to incorporate aspects of this directly into our law, rather than to go via the UCC, but I am thankful for the question.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1219).
Draft Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Tachographs) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Tachographs) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. It is my first time, so I hope you treat me gently in your rulings.
The draft regulations will ensure that enforcement action can be taken against non-compliance with new tachograph rules that came into force in June 2019. They will update the provisions already in place for older tachographs so that they apply to breaches of the new smart tachograph requirements, which have applied from 15 June. The new smart tachographs are required in most large vehicles used for the carriage of goods or passengers by road that were first registered from 15 June, including most goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes and passenger vehicles with 10 or more seats. The smart tachograph is intended to reduce fraud, allow easier enforcement and reduce administrative burdens on drivers through increased automation.
For the benefit of hon. Members who may not know the details, tachographs monitor and record the time that a commercial driver has spent driving; the data is then used by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the police to enforce the rules on drivers’ hours. The rules, which set maximum driving times and minimum break and rest times for most commercial drivers of lorries and coaches, mean in practice that a driver must take a 45-minute break after four and a half hours’ driving, and that their daily driving time is normally limited to nine hours. The consequences of driving any vehicle when fatigued can, of course, be catastrophic; the potential risks associated with heavy commercial vehicles are particularly severe.
Breaches of drivers’ hours requirements by drivers of vehicles fitted with the new smart tachographs are covered by existing enforcement provisions and will not be affected by the draft regulations. There are also existing rules for tachograph equipment relating to the new smart tachographs, which aim to reduce fraud and falsification.
The draft regulations will ensure that those who breach the new tachograph requirements face an unlimited fine in England and Wales and a fine not exceeding £5,000 in Scotland. Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency enforcement officials also have the option of issuing a fixed penalty of £300 or a prohibition notice.
Changes will be made to the Transport Act 1968 on exit day by the Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which the House approved in February. Those regulations were drafted for an exit day of March 2019, so they did not anticipate that the changes in the draft regulations would be made until after the exit day changes had come into force. Consequently, the draft regulations will amend those regulations to ensure that they continue to operate effectively in the light of those changes.
Policy on drivers’ hours is devolved to Northern Ireland, where the devolved Administration have prepared equivalent amendments to Northern Irish law.
These rules are at the heart of the road safety regime for commercial vehicles, and I am sure that hon. Members share my desire to ensure that they can be fully enforced as soon as possible. I hope that hon. Members support the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The draft regulations concern tachographs—basically, they just put them into domestic law. The Opposition have absolutely no objection to this instrument; in fact, we support it. However, I had an email from a constituent, Mr Jamie Graves, who is a heavy goods vehicle driver. I think I know the answer, but he has asked me directly to ask the Minister about prosecution powers in the event of breaches of the regulations. Are the prosecution powers the same? I think they are, but my constituent asks the Minister to confirm that.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I, too, will be short and sweet. I understand that the Government’s intention is to provide some sort of continuity, and—regardless of people’s views on the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union—that is what the draft regulations are designed to do. I have one question, which is from Unite the union: will the Minister confirm that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the regulations will still apply?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank hon. Members for their questions. I have relatively quick and simple affirmative answers to both. In answer to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull and his constituent Jamie Graves, prosecution powers will remain the same. To the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, my answer is a simple yes.
I hope that the Committee has found the debate informative and will join me in supporting the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Risk Transformation and Solvency 2 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Risk Transformation and Solvency 2 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1233).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. The Government made all the necessary legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to ensure that, in the event of a no-deal exit on 29 March 2019, there was a functioning legal and regulatory regime for financial services from exit day. During the article 50 extension period, the Treasury has continued to work with UK regulators and the financial services industry to ensure our regulatory regime remains prepared for exit on 31 October. This statutory instrument ensures that our regulatory regime for insurance and reinsurance business will continue to work effectively from exit.
First, the instrument updates UK law to ensure that EU revisions to the Solvency 2 delegated regulation made since 29 March operate without deficiencies. Secondly, the instrument makes amendments to the UK’s domestic risk transformation regulations, which govern the UK’s regime for insurance-linked securities.
I turn first to the provisions that deal with revisions to the Solvency 2 delegated regulation. In January this year, the Solvency 2 and Insurance (Amendment, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were approved by Parliament. Those regulations addressed deficiencies in Solvency 2 legislation as it will form part of UK law at exit. Since then, revisions by the EU to the delegated regulation made under the Solvency 2 directive have updated aspects of the approach to setting solvency requirements for insurance firms, including the simplification of capital calculations and greater alignment of capital requirements across insurance and banking legislation. Those revisions took effect across the EU on 8 July 2019 and will form part of UK law after exit.
The substance of those revisions will not result in deficiencies after exit, and the updated provisions will continue to operate in the UK as they do now. However, routine deficiency fixes, including removing references to the EU and EU institutions, will be needed to ensure Solvency 2 regulation continues to operate effectively in the UK. This instrument also replaces references to EU law with references to relevant UK law at exit.
I turn to the amendments to the UK’s risk transformation regulations. The Risk Transformation Regulations 2017 set up a new regime for insurance-linked securities. ILS are an innovative form of risk transfer that allow insurers and reinsurers to transfer risk to a special purpose vehicle. ILS are now an important and rapidly growing part of the reinsurance market, and the new regime for ILS was introduced as part of our efforts to help ensure that the UK remains a leading global centre for specialist reinsurance business.
As the risk transformation regulations were designed to follow Solvency 2 requirements, they rely on references to and definitions in EU law. This instrument fixes those by using references to relevant UK legislation and importing certain definitions into Solvency 2 as it will form part of UK law at exit, with those definitions adapted to work in a UK stand-alone regime.
Before I conclude, it is important that I address the procedure under which the SI has been made. This SI, along with three other financial services exit SIs, was made and laid before Parliament on 5 September under the made affirmative procedure provided for in the EU withdrawal Act. That is an urgent procedure that brings an instrument into law immediately, before Parliament has considered the legislation. However, the procedure also requires Parliament to consider and approve a made affirmative SI if it is to remain in law.
The Government have not used that procedure lightly. It must be remembered that, across Departments, we have already laid before Parliament more than 600 exit SIs under the usual secondary legislation procedures. However, as we draw near to exit day, it is vital that we have all critical exit legislation in place, including legislation necessary to ensure that our financial services regulatory regime continues to function effectively from exit. It would have been reckless to leave that until the last minute. Industry and our financial regulators need legal certainty about the regime that will apply from exit. If we did not address the deficiencies covered by the SI—particularly the deficiencies in new Solvency 2 rules recently introduced by the EU—there would be significant legal uncertainty for firms and for our regulators, with the risk of serious disruption to the insurance sector.
The SI makes relatively minor fixes to new Solvency 2 legislation and to the UK’s legislation for insurance risk transfer to ensure that the legislation continues to operate as intended after exit. It does not alter the substance of requirements in either case, and the same Solvency 2 and risk transfer rules will continue to apply to firms. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wilson, and, as always, to sit across from the Minister in yet another Delegated Legislation Committee relating to financial services. I am grateful to him for that explanation of the statutory instrument, but it leaves a number of questions unanswered.
First, there seems to be a lack of clarity about the locus for application of the measures. The Minister referred at various points to the fact that the Government have laid before Parliament many such instruments in relation to no deal, but as the made affirmative procedure was used, the measures are already in place, regardless of the manner in which the UK will exit the EU. That is not very clear in the explanatory memorandum, which flits between no deal and circumstances where a deal has been reached.
I wonder whether that is an implicit acknowledgement that whatever deal the Government conclude, it will not explicitly cover some of the issues surrounding the co-ordination of financial services regulation. I have been looking closely at what the Prime Minister said last week and what has been released by the Government. There does not appear to be a clear indication of the regulatory regime for financial services. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether that reflects a situation where all the previous SIs that we have looked at, including today’s, will be the legislative context even if there is a deal. Currently, it does not seem that a deal will cover financial services, at least from what I can see.
The most significant element of the Solvency 2 directive is the removal of the distinction between European economic area and non-EEA insurers and reinsurers. That is done through regulation 4, which amends the Solvency 2 exit SI, which we have talked about, through, as the Minister mentioned, the insertion of a new definition of “special purpose vehicle” in the Solvency 2 and Insurance (Amendment, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and regulation 5, which amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 so that the relevant Solvency 2 requirements in retained EU law apply to all UK special purpose vehicles, regardless of whether the insurer or reinsurer transferring the risk is regulated in the UK or elsewhere.
I would be curious to know whether the Treasury has conducted any risk analysis of the measure, and what it might regard as potential difficulties in removing that distinction and creating a single regime. Was any consideration given to retaining two separate regimes—one for UK insurers and reinsurers and those with equivalent regulations, and another for third-party countries without equivalent regulations? It would be interesting to hear about that. Also, what support is being offered to those in the financial services industry affected by the changes and the adoption of a single regime?
Returning to the fact that the SI amends FSMA, I asked the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport when FSMA will be updated on legislation.gov.uk to ensure that the version available there accurately represents the legislation in its current form. I was told that it has been updated until the end of 2016. Since then, 951 amendments have been made to the Act; indeed, the Minister has discussed many of them with me in Committees similar to today’s.
I was informed that a fully revised version would be available only at the end of the year—clearly beyond when the Government say that they want to leave the EU. I am very concerned about this. It is now difficult for those who wish to comply with legislation to understand what is in that crucial Act, FSMA. It seems to be symptomatic of a piecemeal approach. In this SI, we have again had post-hoc amendments to legislation that has already been passed. Can the Minister make a commitment to the Committee that he will work with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that this process can be sped up? I am very concerned about the impact on compliance if we do not even have an up-to-date version of that fundamental Act.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I will be very brief; most of what I was going to say has been said already. The SI appears to be simply an attempt to patch up the damage to our financial services industry caused by a Brexit that my country did not vote for, and I am very disappointed with it. We already know that financial firms are voting with their wallets and have moved assets worth over $1 trillion from the UK to the rest of Europe since the 2016 EU referendum, according to figures that Ernst & Young produced. I do not believe that the SI will stop the tide of financial services, jobs and assets leaving the country.
John Glen
I am happy to address the points raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East, and the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk. The SI follows the same process as all SIs. With respect to Solvency 2, the simple reality is that the legislation was amended between the previous presumed exit date and this one. We have simply brought that up to date, and the ILS-related mechanism derived from, and made reference to, the Solvency 2 provision. As a consequence of that relationship, which was something that we authored in the UK, it made sense to update both at this time, given that they are within the same category.
The hon. Member for Oxford East asked what would happen to this SIs if we got a deal. If a deal is secured, any withdrawal agreement Bill will make provision to defer any Brexit SIs that are not needed in a deal scenario until the end of the implementation period. We expect that the Bill will achieve this through a blanket deferral of Brexit SIs that come into force on exit day until the end of the implementation period. We expect that the Bill will also ensure that Ministers can revoke or amend any EU exit SIs as appropriate, so that they deal effectively with any deficiencies arising from the end of the implementation period. In the circumstances that we are talking about, following a hopefully successful conclusion of the deal-making process, we would have a 14-month implementation period, as per the plans at the moment, in which to make provision for the enduring solution. We will ensure that onshoring regulation is not commenced if there is a deal and a transitional period is agreed with the EU.
The hon. Lady asked about the difference between EEA and non-EEA firms. The UK special purpose vehicles are already subject to the same Solvency 2-derived requirements, regardless of whether they are accepting risks from EEA or non-EEA firms. The distinction in the Risk Transformation Regulations 2017 simply reflects the fact that EU law applies only to deals that involve EEA firms. This notional distinction will no longer make sense after exit, so it is being removed, but it will not affect any deals already in place. There is no distinction for these regimes in practice—all deals must comply with UK standards, so equivalence is not necessary.
The hon. Lady referred to her question to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and to the update of FSMA on the gov.uk website. The National Archives is working to have FSMA updated in time for exit day, and the Treasury is helping with this work. I am not more familiar with the situation than that; obviously my officials helped me answer that question, but I would be happy to examine the matter closely and come back to her on that.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for making that commitment, because his answer contradicts what his Secretary of State said in an answer to me: that the updates would be ready only at the end of this year. I welcome that, and hope the Minister can try to reach towards the date he gave, because otherwise I really worry about people trying to comply with the legislation without having it in front of them.
John Glen
I do not try to contradict my colleagues in Government, but that is the information I have received. I will provide clarification as soon as I can.
Turning to the points made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, I recognise the distinction between the Government’s perspective on these matters and his party’s. All I can say is that the financial services industry, which is significant in Edinburgh and Glasgow, is made secure by this process. He may—and indeed does—disagree with the Government about what should happen, but I assure him that in a no-deal scenario, the interests of the financial services industry in Scotland will be looked after as best they possibly can.
I thank the Committee for its consideration of this SI, and the points made by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. In conclusion, the deficiency fixes in this SI will ensure that the UK’s prudential regime for insurance and insurance risk transfer remains prepared for withdrawal from the EU in any scenario. I hope the Committee has found this evening’s sitting informative, and will now be able to join me in supporting these regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Legislative Functions) and Veterinary Surgeons (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Legislative Functions) and Veterinary Surgeons (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1225).
This statutory instrument serves three purposes. First, it makes a number of technical changes to existing statutory instruments, to ensure that retained EU law continues to operate effectively after the UK leaves the EU. Secondly, it ensures that our statute book is closely aligned with the EU initially, to support our application for third-country listing for live animals and products of animal origin. Thirdly, it makes a minor correction to an earlier EU exit SI.
The SI was made under the urgency procedure, as it will be required to support the UK’s application to the European Commission for third-country listed status for animal health purposes, which is currently being considered by the EU’s Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed—SCoPAFF. As the Government have made clear, we seek a negotiated withdrawal from the EU, but we are also taking all responsible steps to prepare for all scenarios, including a no-deal exit.
The European Commission considered the UK’s request for third-country listing at the SCoPAFF meeting on 9 April, and based on guarantees and the relevant animal health and hygiene legislation being in place on that date, it agreed to expedite that third-country listing so that it was available from day one. However, another vote is now required, on 11 October, and this SI must be ready and on the statute book to provide the EU with the necessary assurances to be able to expedite that third-country listing. We are making an offer to the European Union, which it has agreed to previously and, we hope, will again, to align certain sanitary and phytosanitary regulations for a period of nine months, in return for its expediting that third-country listing so that it will be available from day one.
This statutory instrument, as with all such instruments, has a rather long title. I will refer to it simply as the animal imports SI, which I think will be easier for everyone. The animal imports SI transfers legislative powers that give the Secretary of State, with the consent of Ministers from the devolved Administrations, the power to amend, vary or add to the list of third countries that can export animals and animal products into the United Kingdom—a function previously carried out by the European Commission.
The SI also gives the UK the power to align with the EU by being able to add new countries to the list for commodities permitted to be imported once the relevant veterinary and scientific risk assessments have been made. Previously, this power was not considered urgent, since we have many alternative powers in other legislation to prevent trade from countries where there is deemed to be either an animal health or a food safety risk. However, this additional power makes it easier to align directly with the EU during that nine-month transition period, in accordance with the undertaking that we have given in order to expedite that third-country listing.
The SI also amends previously made EU exit SIs regarding animal and animal product imports. This is linked to that first power and will simply allow the Secretary of State, again with the consent of the devolved Administrations where appropriate, to publish lists of animals and products that require or are exempted from border veterinary checks outside of the legislation. This will mean that we can vary both the countries on that register and the products that each of those countries are able to export to the UK.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Can the Minister explain why he is amending regulations that had already been made under the EU exit procedures in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 before we had even got to exiting? Was a mistake made the first time round or has there been a development? Why does he have to amend statutory instruments that were supposed to prepare us for a no-deal exit?
George Eustice
There are two reasons: first, as I said, the EU SCoPAFF’s April agreement has expired and it is considering the matter again on 11 October. Although the ability to amend and update the list in a quick and expeditious way was not considered essential the first time round, given more time we believed it would be helpful to put it in there to place beyond any doubt the fact that the EU would have all the assurances it needed to expedite third country status.
There was also an error, which I was coming on to. The statutory instrument amends the Veterinary Surgeons and Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 by correcting a reference to the Recognition of Professional Qualifications (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to enable certain EU, EEA and Swiss veterinary surgeons to register with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The error was simply that the previous SI referred to paragraph 43 of a regulation regarding professional qualifications that had been laid before the House by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The relevant paragraph in its final iteration became paragraph 44, so there was an error in cross-referencing to the wrong paragraph, and this SI simply corrects it.
Part 1 of this statutory instrument contains relevant definitions used in the instrument. The legislative powers to amend the list are transferred from the Commission in parts 2 and 3 of this instrument. In parts 4 and 5, amendments are made to a previously made EU exit statutory instrument, and to domestic regulations in England and Northern Ireland relating to the trade in animals and animal products. No policy changes were made by those amendments; they are simply technical.
The final purpose of this SI is to correct a genuine but minor error in referencing a paragraph that turned out to be wrong in the final iteration of the regulations that I have mentioned. The devolved Administrations were fully engaged in the development of this statutory instrument, and it applies to the whole of the UK. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
I will not take issue with the wording or the provisions in the statutory instrument, but I will take issue with a lot of the implications and the way in which it has been brought forward. When we considered a whole raft of these statutory instruments back in April, we warned that the greatest danger to animal and plant health might come from imports from third countries that came through other European Union countries on their way to the United Kingdom, but that were no longer being checked by the European Union on the grounds that we were no longer a member. That still very much remains the case.
From reading this statutory instrument, it is clear that it is an attempt to shore up our defences against that danger, but I am not at all clear how that will happen. How will we have enough qualified staff to make all the inspections necessary when we have relied on the European Union to make checks and to set the criteria for those checks, and even relied on EU nationals being most of our veterinary surgeons and carrying out much of our other agriculture and animal-related work? Have the Government set aside any funding to increase the recruitment and training of scientists and inspectors for doing this work? On what basis can the United Kingdom assess the safety of third countries, when most of the labs, assessment procedures and criteria have until now been located, set or carried out in the European Union, with its far greater resources for so doing?
What assurance can the Minister give that the United Kingdom will not be bludgeoned into accepting dangerous imports as part of an unbalanced trade deal with the United States, China or any other large power? What would be the implications of losing recognised third-party status with the EU, which is a real possibility if we do end up having a trade deal with a third party that involves our importing things that the EU would not consider safe? Is there any intention of adding to our list importing countries that are not yet recognised by the EU as third-party countries? If so, why would we be more likely than the EU to recognise that they were a valuable and safe importer, given that the EU has far greater facilities and capacity for assessing whether a third party would be safe to import from? All those questions show the difficulty of this country suddenly starting to do for itself something that we have done co-operatively with the rest of the European Union for many years until now.
There is a real issue about the use of the made affirmative process, especially in this case. The Minister says that it is an urgent case, but the process does not allow for careful reflection. Over and over again with such SIs, we have seen small errors that could, and in some cases probably would, result in serious holes in our legislation that would allow serious breaches of this country’s plant and animal safety. Doing it this urgently does not allow for the sort of careful reflection that we need to get these statutory instruments right. It is not necessary to do this using the made affirmative process in any case, because we are meeting here today on 7 October, according to my watch, which comes before 11 October. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why it is necessary to do this using the made affirmative process.
In any case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood pointed out, if the Government were serious about doing a deal, and having a deal for us to leave the European Union, it would not be necessary to cover these statutory instruments today. If the Government are not serious about doing a deal, surely they are still serious about abiding by the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, which would rule out a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The former Prime Minister had a deal that dealt with the money, citizens’ rights and the transition period. If the hon. Gentleman was so keen on a deal, which part of that package did he, in truth, disagree with?
Sandy Martin
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the same question that members of his party have raised over and over again. There are lots of things that I disagreed with in the former Prime Minister’s deal, but this is not the time or place to go into them. That is not within the scope of the regulations; what is within scope is the real danger we are putting this country in on animal health and the possibility of the spread of disease as a result of the determination to go for a no-deal Brexit.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Ryan.
The Scottish National party is committed to the welfare of all animals during transport, whether within the United Kingdom or for export purposes. Live animal transportation remains important for Scottish agriculture, especially for our island communities. The Scottish Government work to ensure that that is done as humanely as possible, and that the highest possible animal welfare standards are upheld. Animals should be exported only in line with strict welfare standards that ensure freedom from harm and sufficient rest and nourishment. The current EU legislation contains many measures that provide such protection. The Scottish National party remains committed to ensuring that livestock in Scotland are reared, transported and treated throughout their lives humanely, with respect and to the highest possible welfare standards. With that in mind, may I bring the Minister’s attention to a point that needs total clarification?
In the Operation Yellowhammer statement, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stated:
“Hundreds of vets have...been trained to issue those certificates and additional personnel certified to support them.”
For me that figure is far too vague. Is it 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600? How many additional personnel have been certified to support the vets? It is very unclear and is exactly the opposite of what it should be. It should be reassuring to producers and to members alike that everything is in place. That does not seem to be the case, and I want an answer about the figures today.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I welcome this statutory instrument. Two things occur to me. It seems that fears are being raised about the effect on standards overall. Perhaps the Minister will confirm this in his closing remarks, but this is not just an opportunity to ensure that we have control of the third countries from which we import and of the standards of the products that they provide to us. We may also have control over improving those standards in future. Will the Minister confirm that this statutory instrument gives the UK Government the ability to improve standards, or to perhaps remove countries from the approved list, which the EU may otherwise not have done?
George Eustice
I shall try to deal with as many of the points that have been raised as possible. Starting in reverse order with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, it is indeed the case that these powers, having been brought across, give the UK Government the power and the ability to change the list should, for instance, the European Union have a more lax state of affairs than us. Should it take unnecessary risks with food safety or public health, we would have the option to change the list to have a more stringent approach should it be necessary.
The purpose of amending the regulations now is, in the initial instance, to give the European Union the reassurance that we have all of the powers that we need dynamically to align our regulations on some of these SPS issues with the EU so that it can be reassured that we are not going to depart during that transitional period from the inspection regime that it currently has.
The hon. Member for Ipswich, the shadow Minister, raised the issue of goods from third countries. He is concerned that they may not be checked or inspected at all, but that is not the case. Currently, goods that come into the European Union will be checked in accordance with European standards. Goods that come into the UK on the day after we leave the European Union will also be checked, as they are now, on behalf of the European Union, in exactly the same way that they are now. Where we have transit goods—goods that are landed in another EU country but are destined for the UK market—they will be checked in exactly the same way as they are now when they come into the UK.
So it is already the case that goods in transit are inspected in the UK when they arrive, not at the port of entry. In so far as they are not coming through as goods in transit, but are simply landed in another EU port and then re-exported to the UK, they would undergo the same checks as they do today through the EU’s own system.
The other point I want to make is about rapid alert systems. The EU system is called RASFF: ports in member states can alert one another to problems that they have encountered at the border. The UK contributes the vast majority of the data to that, far more than any of the other countries. I think that for some items, as much as 75% of the intelligence on the system comes from the UK. We have to understand that the EU does not have its own inspection taskforce; it relies on member states. Currently, this task is performed at border inspection posts by the Animal and Plant Health Agency on our behalf, which does a very thorough job. That is where the expertise comes from; it does not come specifically from the European Union.
It may be the case that more goods have to go through the transit route to get to the UK. We anticipate an increase in the number of transit goods, which could mean up to around 8,000 extra checks at UK border inspection posts compared with now. However, we believe that we already have the resources to manage what is a small increase, based on the number of checks that we already do.
The hon. Member for Ipswich asked why we need to use the urgent procedure for this regulation. A European Union SCoPAFF meeting is taking place on 11 October, a few days away; that is not long. It has been a rather moving date: at one point it was going to be earlier in October, then at another point it was going to be 18 October, and it now seems to be moving again to 11 October. Given the importance of getting that third-country listing, we believed it was important to ensure we had done everything possible to provide the EU with the reassurance it wanted to be able to expedite that listing. That is why we made this regulation under the urgent procedure.
The hon. Gentleman ventured into a number of other areas, including the so-called Benn Act—the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. However, when challenged on some of those points, he also pointed out that they were outside the scope of what we are discussing today, so I will not be drawn into those issues save to say that this Government are working very hard and energetically to get an agreement, and have come forward with a sensible proposal to replace the so-called Irish backstop.
Sandy Martin
Why is it necessary to bring this SI forward now if there is no chance of our leaving without a deal on 31 October, and if there is a chance of our leaving without a deal on 31 October, how does that square with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act? That was the point I was making about that Act.
George Eustice
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act does not say there cannot be a no-deal Brexit. It requires the Prime Minister to send a certain letter on a certain date. We do not yet know whether the European Union would agree to extend; we do not know what terms it would demand or extract; and we do not know whether those terms, and any counter-offer it made, would be acceptable to the Government, Parliament or anybody else. There are still many uncertainties here, and we are clear that we will leave, with or without a deal, at the end of October. That remains the Government’s position, and it is therefore prudent to prepare for all eventualities, which is why this SI is necessary.
Finally, I will deal with a point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk about vets and veterinary capacity. This particular regulation is more about the inspections that APHA would conduct on behalf of the Government on imports from third countries, and less about the export health certificate. No veterinary capacity is really relevant to those inspections, other than the APHA port inspections that we already carry out. As I said, I believe we have sufficient capacity to manage that small increase in load.
However, the hon. Gentleman has raised a point about export health certificates, where goods going the other way would need some veterinary attestation to say that the goods are what they said they were. We have been offering free training for official vets to sign EHCs. Some 736 have registered with APHA, and 564 are already enrolled on that course. I am told that 152 have qualified, and the number of official veterinarians who can sign EHCs for food products has increased by 200 since 8 February, to 835. We are also looking at additional approaches, such as having certification support officers so that this work can be done by people other than fully qualified vets. We are conscious that there will be an increase in burden when it comes to export health certificates, and we have been working to build capacity in that area.
I hope that I have managed to address most of the issues that have been raised, and therefore commend the regulation to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Air Services (Competition) (Amendment and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Air Services (Competition) (Amendment and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1224).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. Obviously, the Government are working with energy and determination to secure a new deal with the European Union. However, if we have to leave without a deal, the Government are committed to preparing for that outcome. As the Department responsible for civil aviation, the Department for Transport has already conducted intensive work to ensure that there continues to be a functioning legislative framework and an effective regulatory regime for that critical part of the UK economy. In fact, as we leave the European Union, a successful UK aviation sector will be an essential part of a successful global Britain. This new instrument will ensure that the legislative framework and regulatory regime for the sector remains on a well-functioning basis.
The Government have given careful consideration to the appropriate procedure for progressing this instrument. For reasons that I will briefly outline, it is important to have the instrument in place by exit day. That is why we have gone for the “made affirmative” procedure, which will ensure that outcome while allowing for parliamentary scrutiny.
The regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2019/712, which sets out an approach to safeguarding competition in air transport. Fundamentally, this instrument ensures that, when responding to anti-competitive practices, the UK will have the same powers to protect UK airlines as will be available to the EU to protect EU airlines. Previously, Regulation (EC) No. 868/2004 provided for redressive measures to be imposed when subsidisation and unfair pricing practices by third-country airlines cause injury to EU airlines. The previous statutory instrument on this subject introduced corrections to that regulation to ensure that it would apply when the UK left the EU.
However, since the extension to the UK’s departure from the European Union, Regulation (EC) No. 868/2004 was repealed and replaced with Regulation (EU) 2019/712. The reason given was that the previous regulation was judged to be ineffective in respect of its underlying general aim of fair competition. For instance, there was a lack of definition of the initiation and conduct of investigations, or the criteria for doing so.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
That all makes incredible sense to me, but what discussions has my hon. Friend had with British Airways, easyJet and other major UK carriers regarding this measure, and are they in full support?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I have had conversations with the sector, but not with some of the individual airlines that my hon. Friend mentions. In general, the sector is very supportive of the measure coming into UK law.
The new EU regulation provides the European Commission with the power to conduct an investigation when there is prima facie evidence of anti-competitive practices causing, or threatening to cause, injury to European Union air carriers. Areas where discrimination could occur include the allocation of slots, administrative procedures, and the arrangement for the selling and distribution of air services. If such evidence is found, redressive measures can be taken in order to offset any injury. Such measures could include financial duties.
The policy content of the retained regulation will remain substantially unchanged. The changes that are being made are primarily technical and necessary to ensure the correct application of these measures after the UK leaves the EU. As part of those changes, the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority will assume some of the responsibilities previously placed on the European Commission. For instance, it will examine and investigate any complaint of that nature. The Civil Aviation Authority will report its findings to the Department for Transport, where the Secretary of State will take a decision on whether to adopt any redressive measures. Such measures will be adopted by statutory instrument, using the affirmative procedure.
In the event of leaving without a deal, the EU could apply its regulation to the UK or its airlines if they are engaged in practices described in the regulation. The changes made by this SI therefore ensure that, in addition to other countries, EU member states and their airlines will be within the scope of the UK’s investigatory and redressive measures. That will preserve the level playing field from exit day. That is why we have selected the “made affirmative” procedure, which ensures that this important measure can, if required, be in place on 1 November.
Therefore, although obviously we would all like to leave with a deal, this SI will ensure that, in any scenario, the UK and UK airlines will have equivalent access to the types of measures that EU member states and EU airlines can take against anti-competitive actions. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is always an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. These changes are mainly technical—they change the word “Union” to “United Kingdom”, and the Civil Aviation Authority is also mentioned as a technical change to the relevant authority. The Opposition have no objection to those changes, which we support.
At the outset of his remarks, the Minister said that the Government are working with “energy and determination” to achieve a deal. I suspect that neither of those things are correct and that the Prime Minister is not very determined. He is certainly not being very energetic about achieving a deal—I wish he was.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. Like the shadow Minister, the SNP does not oppose these technical regulations since they make sense no matter what our views are on Brexit. If it is so important to have these regulations in place by Brexit day, it seems surprising that the SI was tabled during a period when Parliament was originally meant to be prorogued. If this is what we are dealing with, it makes me think that wider no-deal Brexit preparations are in chaos and not that advanced.
The Minister mentioned looking at how slots are handled at airports, and possible measures for investigation at the European Commission. Will he confirm that public service obligation arrangements will still be able to function as they do? For example, will the new Heathrow runway PSOs be in place to protect flights to Scottish airports? Will that still comply with the new regulations?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The regulations will have absolutely no impact on PSOs, and the SI has been tabled now because this is the first opportunity to do so—we would have been first up had we prorogued for the expected period, and the Committee would have sat just a tiny bit later. I assure my friend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East that, as the Prime Minister would say, he is going “like gangbusters” and with energy and determination for a deal, but that is a political point on which we can politely choose to differ. The Committee agrees that the SI is an important, if technical, measure, and that it addresses a number of matters on which we can all concur. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Specific Food Hygiene (Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Specific Food Hygiene (Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1247).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I am confident that we all share the intention to ensure that the high standards of food and feed safety and consumer protection that we enjoy in this country are maintained when the UK leaves the European Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) stated previously, this instrument and the original instrument, which it amends, seek only to protect and maintain those high public health and food safety standards. Changes are limited to the necessary technical amendments to ensure that the legislation is operable on exit day. I stress that no policy changes are made through these instruments and we do not have any intention of making any at this point.
This instrument amends a previous EU exit SI: the Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Further clarity was required in setting out the authorisation process for approving products that can be used to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin. The clarification will ensure that the process is robust and can be applied clearly in assessing the risk in respect of new products.
This instrument needed to be in place to support the UK’s application for third-country listed status with the EU, so that the UK can continue to export animals and animal products to the EU. We anticipate that that is due to be voted on by the European Commission on 11 October.
This instrument has been made using the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to make necessary amendments to UK regulations to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in retained EU law that arise as a consequence of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The instrument was made on 9 September under the urgent “made affirmative” procedure, which was considered appropriate to meet the deadline for the European Commission’s third-country listing vote on 11 October.
As hon. Members know, the Government have made it clear that our priority is to seek a negotiated deal with the EU, but we are taking sensible action to ensure that we prepare for every eventuality. The UK’s third-country listing application was a particularly important part of our no-deal preparations. Third-country listed status guaranteed that the export of animal products and most live animals from the UK to the EU could continue. That market is worth approximately £5 billion to the UK annually.
I shall expand on the specific detail of the minor and technical changes made by the instrument. The primary purpose of this legislation is to refine an amendment to retained EU law made by the Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. We considered that the regulation would benefit from further clarity in describing the authorisation process and the appropriate authority responsible for the process to approve substances that may be used to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin. Lack of clarity might affect implementation and has the potential to undermine the responsibilities for authorisation; this instrument rectifies that.
The new instrument makes it clear that the responsibility for approval of substances that may be used to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin rests with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the appropriate Minister in each of the devolved Administrations. This measure introduces no substantive policy changes to what has already been successfully made and passed in Parliament in March 2019.
Food business operators are not permitted to use any substance other than potable water—or, where permitted, clean water—to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin unless that has been approved. This relates to business establishments that handle products such as meat, eggs, fish, cheese and milk and that do not supply to final consumers.
Currently, approval for such substances is given by the European Commission, but after EU exit this responsibility will be carried out by Ministers. The amendment to Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 made by the Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 is being further amended to make it absolutely clear that Ministers will be responsible for prescribing the use of any other substances and that the process of consulting the food safety authority is retained. That decision will be based on independent food safety advice from the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland.
If after EU exit any additional substances are proposed to be approved for this purpose, they will be subject to risk analysis by the FSA, which has established a rigorous and transparent risk analysis process for assessment and approval of any such new substances. Any request for substance approval would be subject to thorough scientific risk assessment and risk management, before being put to Ministers for a final decision.
Let me be clear that neither this instrument nor the instrument it amends introduces any changes for food businesses in how they are regulated and how they run, nor does it introduce extra burden. The overall changes to the food hygiene regulations will ensure a robust set of controls, which will underpin UK businesses’ ability to trade domestically and internationally.
It is also important to note that we have engaged positively with the devolved Administrations throughout the development of this instrument. Further, this ongoing engagement has been warmly welcomed. The devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland have provided their consent for this instrument; the Scottish Government have been made aware of these regulations, but have not yet had the opportunity to scrutinise them.
I would like to stress that we would not normally make EU exit regulations under this Act, where the policy area is devolved in competence, without the agreement of all of the devolved Administrations. However, as I have explained, this is a very minor drafting change to the regulation, which the Scottish Parliament has previously agreed. Regrettably, the potential impact should the instrument not be in place before 11 October on the third-country listing vote does not constitute a normal situation and could affect the farming industry across the whole of the UK, including Scotland.
Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that, in line with informal communications, which the Food Standards Agency has had with the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the FSA will, in accordance with the terms of the free issue procedure, be making this instrument available free of charge to those who purchased the earlier exit SI, namely the Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Government accept that this instrument should have been made available under the free issue procedure at the time it was first made, but that did not happen. That situation will now be remedied. I apologise for that oversight and confirm to the Committee that this will be corrected and the Food Standards Agency will, together with colleagues in the national archives, be taking action to ensure that anyone entitled to a free copy of the instrument under that procedure will, where appropriate, be able to apply for a refund or otherwise obtain a copy.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend confirm that by laying this instrument the Government are demonstrating, beyond peradventure, that they will not tolerate any reduction in food safety standards as a result of the UK leaving the EU, contrary to what was asserted by some on television yesterday?
Jo Churchill
Indeed, that is so.
The action taken will allow one to obtain a copy of this instrument for free on request, in accordance with the usual terms of that procedure.
In conclusion, this instrument constitutes a minor—technical, but necessary—measure, to ensure that our legislation relating to food safety continues to work effectively after exit day. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment proposed, to ensure the continuation of effective food safety and public health controls. I commend the regulation to the Committee.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Order. I call the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West to speak for the Opposition, but I note other Members standing.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I am grateful, Dame Cheryl; I was not sure what order we would speak in. It has been a while since I have done one of these Delegated Legislation Committees; it was probably before the summer recess, when we did quite a few. I am very pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl, and I thank the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument and providing a summary of it.
As the Minister said, the SI was discussed earlier this year by the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), and a lot has changed. We have had not just our summer holidays, but a full remake of the Government—we have a totally new Government. Nevertheless, we still have uncertainty about whether the UK will leave the EU in 24 days, with or without a deal, and about the impact that could have. As legislators, we have to get this right, and I deeply regret that once again we find ourselves back in this room debating necessary SIs and having to rush this legislation through in case of a no-deal Brexit, which none of us in the Opposition wants. I know some Members on the Government side do not want it either.
I move on to the legislation before us. As we all agree, the safety of our food is of the utmost importance to our health and wellbeing, and we cannot get it wrong. Food safety must be protected at all costs. I share the Government’s commitment to ensuring that there is no change in the high-level principles underpinning the day-to-day functioning of the food safety legal framework. Ensuring continuity for business and public health bodies is of the utmost importance and in the interest of the public.
The Minister will not be surprised that I have a few questions about the SI. First, why was this missed from the SI in March? She might have touched on that. Has any assessment been made of what would have happened had the UK left the EU in March without a deal and without the SI in place? What exactly will the Minister’s responsibilities be under the SI? Finally, what additional substances can be approved by Ministers if needed, and how will that impact food safety? I see that the SI gives some leeway for Ministers to approve substances that can be added to our food. I would be interested to hear how confident the Minister is that a high standard for food safety will be maintained from day one of Britain’s exit from the EU.
The safety of our food is hugely important, and we cannot get this wrong. With those few brief comments, and not wanting to delay the Committee, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Chair
We do have one and a half hours for this debate, if people wish to take it. I call the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, who speaks for the Scottish National party.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dame Cheryl. I, too, will be very brief—not least because the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West has asked the two questions that I was going to ask the Minister. I eagerly await the answers.
It is regrettable, to say the least, that we are discussing this SI—notwithstanding the apology that the Minister has given—before the Scottish Parliament has been able to approve it. However, I readily accept that there are no substantive policy changes in the SI before us. I have to reiterate that the instrument is necessary to enact a decision that Scotland did not vote for. It is our view, and that of the industry, that the UK should remain aligned with EU standards in this area, as any future dual regulation system will impact on imports and exports, and on agriculture more widely. Reports of the Department for International Trade pressuring the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to lower standards are deeply concerning to everyone. It should concern all hon. Members if those reports are true.
In conclusion—I did say I would be brief—the best solution for us and for Scotland would be to remain in the single market and the customs union, as suggested by the SNP Scottish Government as far back as December 2016 in the compromise document “Scotland’s Place in Europe”. Given the Government’s predicament, I urge them to look at that again.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. We came into the House at the same time and we were the first two female members of the House of Commons cricket team to play. We have a lot in common from that time.
Will the Minister reassure me about a couple of things? First, she seemed to say that, because there is £5 billion of trade in agriculture and food between us and the European Union, it is obviously in our interest to maintain aligned standards, notwithstanding the technical changes. I presume—I hope she will confirm it in her response—that they were put in place to reassure the European Union, ahead of the third-country listings vote on 11 October, that we are not going to try to somehow undercut standards, which might cause our export trade some difficulty. We have seen what that is worth.
Perhaps the Minister could confirm that that is why we are rushed in a way that has meant that none of the devolved Administrations has had time to look at the instrument in the way that would be expected. She graciously apologised to the Committee for that. I am interested to check that my suspicion about what she said is the reality.
Secondly, could the Minister say a few words about whether the view that we should maintain the same standards to protect our export trade in those areas is helped or hindered by No. 10’s weekend briefing? It said that if this country did not get what it wanted in the EU discussions, it would disrupt EU business, and that if there was a delay it would clog up the EU’s workings and generally make a huge nuisance of itself, up to and including suggestions in the papers that Nigel Farage would be appointed as a Commissioner. How does she think that kind of destructive briefing from senior sources in Downing Street, which appeared in all the weekend papers, builds confidence so that we can maintain reasonable trade connections and reassure our EU partners that, even if we become a third country, we will not seek to undermine or undercut regulations and standards to gain some kind of advantage?
Thirdly and finally, it is explicit in the new Government’s general approach, and in some of the published documentation on the Prime Minister’s proposals, that there is the view that, in future, we should disengage and disalign with EU standards and protections to have what I view as a race to the bottom, and that, in trade talks with the US, we may have to accept even chlorinated chicken and a range of other things that, until now, have been banned by the EU standards that we align with.
The public and those who have come to rely on our standards, which have been underpinned by EU regulations to date, would be horrified if they thought that that was the Government’s view, so it is good that the Minister said on the record that that is not what the Government intend, at least in this sector. Perhaps she can say it more strongly, because there are great suspicions that the opposite is the case.
The Chair
Unless anybody else is seeking to catch my eye, I will call the Minister, but I hope that she will refrain from commenting on the joint sporting prowess of me and the hon. Member for Wallasey, which I had not expected to be raised under food hygiene regulations.
Jo Churchill
Thank you, Dame Cheryl. I will resist the temptation to say “Howzat!”
I will first go over some general points that address several of the questions, and then I will address a couple of the specifics. The importance of food safety is paramount, and leaving the EU does not change that. Food safety in all cases remains our key priority; that means that business will carry on as normal. It is important that we acknowledge that, in many areas, food standards in this country are above those of other member states. Hon. Members commented that there will potentially be a race to the bottom, but actually we are trying to spread some of the good practice that goes on in all four parts of the UK in order to get others to raise their standards.
Sir George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
The hon. Member for Wallasey implied that there is some sort of mercantilist imperative for us to drop standards so that we can sell our goods around the world, but does the Minister agree that to do so would be to shoot ourselves in the foot? It is quite clear that our food standards are what sell our goods overseas. The quality of British produce means that, for example, 35% of Chinese consumers surveyed said that they would particularly buy British products because they are of a higher standard.
Jo Churchill
I could not agree more. It is a great tribute not only to producers in this country but to the Food Standards Agency that people feel that our food and brands are to be trusted. I hope that will continue.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, this was not missed. This instrument is purely to give clarification—hopefully that is what it does—to make doubly sure that everybody is clear. The devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland have said that they are fine; it is only Scotland that has not. Once again, I apologise for that. Scotland produces some of the finest quality products that go out of this country, so making sure we have done this properly is important to all the devolved nations.
Ensuring continuity of trade is important, and ensuring food safety here is hugely important. Mostly, we must ensure that we are open and transparent. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West wanted clarification about the system. If there were to be any other form—the hon. Member for Wallasey alluded to chlorinated chicken, but it might be something else that is brought forward—it would first be risk-assessed by the FSA and would go through its very rigorous programme. It would then come to the Minister, and would come before the House by way of an SI. If there are any issues, that process must be walked through to ensure a degree of safety.
Specifically on chlorinated chicken, any substance used to remove surface contamination from chicken carcases must be specifically approved. Chorine has not been approved, and so cannot be used and could not be approved until it had walked through those processes. Each devolved Administration would then have individual responsibility for it. I feel that the concerns expressed in the media have perhaps over-egged the situation—we are all used to that—because those safety nets are in place. This SI simply helps to ensure that we are ready for Brexit on 31 October, whatever the circumstances, and that we are ready for all eventualities. Making sure we are prepared is the key job.
In closing, I hope I have answered hon. Members’ questions. As I said, the Government are working to agree a deal with the EU, but while we do that and until we have a finalised agreement, it is important that we prepare for the possibility that we will leave without a deal.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Minister for her responses, but could she address my question about the speed with which this instrument has had to be dealt with? She mentioned the meeting on the 11th. Is there scepticism about the state of our current law, and does that mean that this statutory instrument had to be dealt with quickly to help us with that meeting? Could she explain whom she is trying to reassure and why?
Jo Churchill
I suppose it was belt and braces. We felt that clarification was sensible to make it clear to all audiences that we are maintaining the highest standards. That is why we have done it. Given that we trade £5.4 billion of food and feed with the EU, ensuring that we have clarification before 11 October for third party status is paramount.
To reiterate, this instrument makes no changes to policy or to how food businesses are regulated and run. It is limited to drafting refinements and will ensure that the regulatory controls for food continue to function effectively after exit day if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
Question put and agreed to.
Product Safety, Metrology and Mutual Recognition Agreement (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Product Safety, Metrology and Mutual Recognition Agreement (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1246).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. Since the referendum decision to leave the EU, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has undertaken significant work on withdrawal arrangements, preparing for a range of potential outcomes, including no deal. The regulations amend no-deal legislation made earlier this year, predominantly as a result of the article 50 extension. We need to make changes to have an effective and up-to-date system for product safety and legal metrology on exit. The safety of consumers is a key priority for the Government, and I know that priority is shared by Members of all parties.
The instrument will ensure that the drafting in previous regulations will function as intended, and so help to maintain the continuity of product safety protections if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. Primarily, we are making the changes needed to reflect the change from a March to an October exit, but we are taking this opportunity to extend certain transitional arrangements, already agreed by Parliament in respect of products from the European economic area, to certain imports from Switzerland in the event of the UK leaving without a deal.
On the back of our ongoing engagement with stakeholders, the regulations include some minor fixes that they identified and brought to our attention since the previous no-deal product safety regulations were made. The focus of the instrument is not to introduce significant policy changes, but to clarify and simplify the current position. It will not change the system or the approach we take in the UK’s rigorous and robust product safety regime. Instead, the changes the instrument makes will ensure that the UK’s product safety and legal metrology framework continues to deliver the protections we want.
I turn now to the detail of some of the amendments that the regulations will introduce, starting with the updates to the no-deal product safety legislation already agreed by Parliament. The regulations will amend three previous regulations. First, they will amend a number of product schedules in the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid in March 2019. Secondly, they will amend the Pressure Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016. Thirdly, they will amend the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) Regulations 2019.
A change in exit day created confusion for the personal protective equipment sector about which regulations to follow. As originally drafted, there was provision for a period between exit day and 21 April 2019 during which particular provisions applied. The new SI will make changes that provide legal clarity for the industry, now that the date has passed. For cosmetics, the regulations will clarify the drafting in relation to the use of data from animal testing that was carried out before such testing was banned. That historical data can be used now, and these regulations retain that position. Let me be clear: there is no intention to change our position on new animal testing, which is rightly banned and will remain so. A further provision ensures that the UK will be able to update the list of prohibited and restricted substances to show what can or cannot be included in cosmetic products, and subject to what conditions. The power to update the list has been transferred to the Secretary of State and would be used only following scientific evidence. This change will ensure ongoing protection for consumers.
The SI restores the position before the unintentional removal of the option for pressure equipment materials to have their manufacturing processes of base materials certified by a competent body. This reinstatement will ensure continuity and certainty for business. The instrument also makes minor amendments to clarify certain provisions to ensure that no-deal legislation works as intended if the UK exits the EU without a deal. Those changes occur in relation to outdoor noise, recreational craft, toys, electromagnetic compatibility measuring instruments and accreditation. An example is an amendment to the electrical equipment provision to change a reference to “safety component” to a reference to “electrical equipment”.
A further important provision in the instrument expressly implements the UK’s obligations as an EU member state with regard to certain goods being imported from Switzerland. That builds on the main Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the subsequent Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) Regulations 2019. The end result is that, if we leave without a deal, the transitional provisions for goods entering the UK from the EU and the EEA will be extended to certain goods from Switzerland. That will provide further clarity and continuity for business by making it easier to import certain products from Switzerland by allowing UK importers to put their details on accompanying documentation, rather than the product itself, for 18 months after exit, and by extending the recognition of authorised representatives established in Switzerland to those appointed in relation to noise emissions from equipment used outdoors, in line with the existing EU-Swiss mutual recognition agreement.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for the instrument, because the impact for business is expected to be low. It is limited to familiarisation costs to understand the operability fixes and drafting improvements made to the legislation. It has been confirmed that those costs fall below the £5 million de minimis threshold.
The Department did not undertake a public consultation, given that the provisions relating to EU exit are limited to making changes to no-deal legislation to ensure that it operates effectively on exit. However, our ongoing engagement with stakeholders has proved useful in highlighting some inconsistencies in the previous drafting. We recognise that wider consultation would have been helpful, but the objective of the instrument is to ensure that there is no reduction in consumer protections in respect of product safety after EU exit. Some of the minor changes improve clarity for business, and we welcome and are encouraged by its engagement with the development of the legislation.
I recognise that our product safety exit SIs are unique, particularly in their size and breadth, which has presented challenges to Parliament’s scrutiny of them. We have learned lessons and are grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its comments and input throughout the scrutiny process, including comments highlighted in its report on the drafting inconsistencies in the SI that related to the coming-into-force date. The report draws special attention to defective drafting in the instrument, which is “acknowledged by the Department” and which was flagged up in our voluntary memorandum to the JCSI. It accepted our argument that the commencement provision should still work and that the mistake is unlikely to have had substantive consequences.
The amendments made by the instrument ensure that the drafting of previous regulations functions as intended, which will help to maintain the continuity of product safety protections if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. As I am sure hon. Members recognise, it is essential that the UK has a functioning product safety framework in the event of no deal. Approving the instrument will also contribute to maintaining a positive trading relationship between Switzerland and the UK.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir Gary. As per the explanatory memorandum, the instrument amends some provisions of an earlier no-deal instrument that was brought to the House in March ahead of the no-deal scenario that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), threatened us with—leaving the EU on 29 March, deal or no deal. Thankfully, we averted that crisis.
Called a “beast of an SI” by The Times on 12 February, that instrument was 636 pages long, weighed 2.5 kg and put together 11 issues that would usually be in separate documents to be sifted through. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was damning of the length and scope of that instrument and the Government’s approach to bringing it to Parliament. This instrument amends that legislation. In particular, it
“makes amendments to previous no deal legislation in light of the extension to exit day agreed under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union”
and
“seeks to extend transitional provisions for imports from the EEA to imports from Switzerland and to ensure other provisions operate effectively and as intended. The instrument also amends certain EU-derived legislation, to expressly implement certain provisions of the mutual recognition agreement between the EU and Switzerland, related to importers and authorised representatives, and to make a small correction to legislation implementing the EU safety regime for pressure equipment.”
It also includes the amendments and the inconsistency that the Minister kindly referred to.
The instrument has been introduced through the made affirmative procedure under paragraph 5 of schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which means that when matters are deemed urgent, an instrument can be made before it is laid for the House to approve or scrutinise. Why has the Minister introduced the instrument using that procedure?
In passing the Benn Act, the House of Commons has been explicitly against a no deal, which has in fact been legislated against. Why is the Minister proposing the new exit date when that has been explicitly rejected and legislated against by the House?
The product safety regulations made provision for the creation of an independent UK system for checking that products meet the requirements and of a framework for UK marking, so that a manufacturer can indicate if a product conforms with those requirements. Can the Minister enlighten us about the system’s progress and when it will come into place?
Consumer bodies such as Which? have been clear that a no-deal Brexit would be a catastrophe for consumer protections and would water down 40-plus years of progress in that respect. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I do not wish to say much. Regardless of my opposition in principle and in its entirety to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, I understand that continuity is important and that instruments need to be in place to preserve the framework around the status quo. I make the point, however, which I have made before in several such Committees, that the Government should have done the sensible thing from day one and ruled out no deal, so we did not have to go through all this nonsense and this process. They continue to refuse to do that, despite a majority in the Commons having instructed them to do it.
Kelly Tolhurst
It is nice to be back in Committee opposite the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough debating statutory instruments, as we have many times. I thank her for her constructive questions, as always. I confess that I missed her second one, so I am happy for her to repeat it, but I will answer the others.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we debated the big 600-page product safety statutory instrument, but I must highlight that a third of that—200 pages—was made up of long annexes that were transferred. There was synergy in the subjects that were brought together in one instrument because of cross-cutting issues.
The hon. Lady asked why the urgency, given the existence of the Benn Act. As we have made clear—as the Prime Minister has made clear—we intend to leave the European Union on 31 October. We have used these powers less than 35 times in a legislative programme of more than 600 instruments, which is not very much.
If this legislation were not in place, the UK’s product safety regime would simply not work as effectively if the UK left without a deal agreed by both sides. The cosmetics changes in the instrument enable us to implement changes in UK law regarding chemicals in cosmetics that have been banned or restricted. If we were to leave the EU without that ability, the UK could be at risk of the dumping of products that would not be satisfactory in the EU and that we would need to restrict over here.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I hope the Minister will forgive me for seeking some clarification on the scope of the SI. I listened intently to her comments on chemicals and cosmetics and on the issues to do with Switzerland. On product safety, does the statutory instrument cover the safety of imported domestic electrical appliances? Is that within its scope? Specifically, there have been issues with tumble dryers being responsible for many domestic fires, and a major product recall of imported dryers has been widely publicised. Does that come within the scope and purview of the SI?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The SI that we are debating relates to amendments to the bigger SI, which covered some of the areas to which he referred. These are amendments to the current regulations, so yes, his comments are relevant in the broader scope of things. He will hopefully be aware that, as the Minister with responsibility in this area over recent months, the issues with tumble dryers, fridge freezers and so forth have been at the forefront of my mind, particularly as we have been scrutinising the legislation coming forward and these amendments. The hon. Gentleman is right to address that.
It is crucial that we have functional legislation if we leave the EU without a deal. The SI ensures that previously laid instruments can serve their intended function. It is vital that we protect consumers by making these changes. We can better ensure that we continue to be in step with the latest scientific advice, thus reducing the risk of cosmetic products with chemicals that are banned at EU level being dumped on the UK market. Without this legislation, there could be additional burdens on business, as some of the provisions address burdens or barriers to trade that could be problematic if not amended.
Additionally, the instrument explicitly implements provision in the existing EU-Swiss mutual recognition agreement and allows importers of certain goods from Switzerland to place their contract details on a document accompanying the product, rather than on the product itself, for a period of 18 months if we leave the EU without a deal. The SI will provide continuity and certainty for business, and maintain consumer confidence in the safety and accuracy of products as the UK exits the EU. I urge the Committee to approve the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Animal Health and Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Animal Health and Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1229).
This statutory instrument was made under the urgent made affirmative procedure. That is because it supports the UK’s application to the European Commission for third-country listed status for animal health purposes. That application will be considered at a meeting of the EU’s Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, or SCoPAFF, due to take place on 11 October.
While we are working hard to secure a deal with the EU, we should prepare for all scenarios, including that the EU would not accept any request for an extension or that the terms of any extension would be unacceptable to the UK. The European Commission considered the UK’s third-country listing application at a meeting of the relevant SCoPAFF committee on 9 April, based on the relevant animal health legislation in place on that date. The UK was able to assure the Commission that all relevant legislation had been made, and member states voted unanimously to list the UK as a third country.
Following the article 50 extension, another vote must now be held; as I said, that will be this Friday, 11 October. To ensure that we are fully prepared for that listing, this SI should be on the statute book to provide the EU with the necessary reassurances that they have said they want in order to expedite the process of listing the UK as a third country. The Government have taken care to rely on the urgency procedure contained in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in as few situations as possible, but we considered use of that procedure to be appropriate in this instance, for the reasons I have described.
The instrument makes a number of technical operability changes to existing instruments on animal by-products, or ABPs; transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, or TSEs; and genetically modified organisms, or GMOs—I hope members of the Committee will forgive me for relying on the abbreviations of all those terms. Those changes ensure that the laws in these policy areas will operate correctly after the UK has left the European Union. The instrument takes into account three recent, highly technical changes to the EU’s ABP and TSE legislation that were published in the EU’s official journal too late to be included in earlier EU exit SIs.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does this instrument have any bearing on the issue of carcass splitting and the specified risk material, namely spinal cord, that needs to be removed from certain lambs? I think both the Government and many sheep farmers wish to move from a system of aging the sheep through their dentition to one of using a date in the calendar.
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend mentions a request that, as a former incumbent of my post, he will know the industry has been making for some time. It is under consideration, and is something that we progressed with the European Union during my previous time as Minister. I do not think that this particular change addresses that topic; it is much more about the use of certain animal by-products, which are not category 1, in fertilisers or soil improvers. This amendment covers a much narrower issue.
The instrument amends the provisions regarding harmonisation of the lists of approved or registered establishments, plants and operators and the traceability of certain animal by-products and derived products. The Commission introduced new legislation to create a transition period for those to come into force, and those lists were due to be altered by the Trade Control and Expert System—TRACES—an IT system run by the EU. This instrument simply changes those provisions to give us the flexibility to use either TRACES or our own, new import system, depending on the scenario we end up in.
The second change amends provisions to permit the export of products containing processed animal protein derived from ruminants and non-ruminants. In June 2018, the European Food Safety Authority updated the quantitative assessment of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy risk posed by processed animal proteins, and concluded that the total BSE infectivity posed by processed animal protein was a quarter of that estimated in 2011. Following the opinion delivered by EFSA related to processed animal protein, it was felt appropriate to include organic fertilisers or soil improvers containing processed animal proteins derived from ruminants in the derogation laid down to permit export, and the EU regulation on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies was amended accordingly.
The third change makes technical changes to the provisions as regards the imports of gelatine, flavouring innards and rendered fats. The amendment adds Egypt to the list of third countries from which gelatine may be imported into the European Union; aligns the list of third countries eligible for the import of flavouring innards with a reference to the list of third countries authorised for the import of wild game meat for human consumption; and allows imports of rendered fats to be used for the production of renewable fuels using a method that has been assessed by EFSA.
In addition, regulation 5 of the instrument corrects minor inconsistencies in the language used in an earlier EU exit instrument, the Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, as identified in 50th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. To exemplify the change in language recommended by that Committee, where the word “countries” was used in some references, it has been amended to “constituent nations”, and where the word “notification” was used, it has been amended to “consent”.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I am glad to see the Minister back in his place. With regard to the minor errors contained in those earlier regulations, is he assured that there are no minor errors in these regulations?
George Eustice
As I have made clear many times, this is a complex set of regulations. Some 80% of all the Department’s legislation comes from the European Union, so it has been a huge task for officials to bring it all across into retained EU law. I pay tribute to them for the huge amount of work that has gone into that. It is inevitable that, in such a complex operation, there will be occasional errors, oversights or changes. That is why the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provided for the ability, in the event of drafting errors being made, for them to be corrected for a period of time after we leave the European Union.
I have answered that as honestly as I can; I hope this is the final word. I did many of these statutory instruments the first time round and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby did many more after I left the post, so we are returning to familiar issues to update the legislation.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
With regard to GMOs, may I confirm that the regulations as amended will make sure that only truly safe GMOs are released and that the UK will still have the right to stop them being used in this country if we, this Parliament and the British Government, will that to be the case?
George Eustice
Yes, the changes in relation to GMOs are a few minor changes in language, following the recommendation of the Joint Committee.
The regulations mean that we are bringing across the EU regulatory system exactly as it is; the processes will be exactly the same. The EU system is sometimes criticised, not necessarily because of the thoroughness of the process that people go through, but because politics often gets in the way, so some applications have been left in limbo for up to 20 years. That has been criticised, but the procedures, the methodology, the thresholds and the evidence required will be exactly the same as before, after we leave the European Union.
This instrument applies to the whole UK, and the devolved Administrations were closely engaged in its development and have given their consent for it to be laid. I therefore commend this regulation to the House.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Nobody who was aware of events in this country in the late ’80s is relaxed about the danger of allowing the reappearance of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in this country, so I am sure that the Minister would want to do everything necessary to ensure that it is not introduced from outside. European Council Regulations No. 999/2001 and 1069/2009 and the associated Commission decisions have been vital in dealing not only with BSE but with scrapie in sheep and other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. By strictly regulating the import and export of all sorts of animal by-products, the EU has managed to control these diseases. I wonder how we would have fared if the EU had not existed at the time, or if there had been the same attitude to regulations that we see in some quarters now.
We are very worried that any deviation from EU regulations in this area, or reduction in the level of compliance, might lead to increased risk of importing or incubating BSE and other TSEs. Clearly, this SI is an attempt to ensure full alignment with EU regulations, and we are not going to argue with that, but we believe, as I mentioned with the previous SI, that driving this forward under the made affirmative process runs the very real risk that there might be mistakes, or gaps.
Mr Goodwill
Is it not the case that the mistakes that were made and the changes in the process that allowed BSE to develop happened while we were members of the European Union and under EU regulations? The idea that leaving the European Union will make that sort of thing more likely seems a rather spurious argument.
Sandy Martin
That is one for the historians, but the right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the European Union managed to contain what was a very nasty and difficult outbreak, and to reverse a situation that might well have been extremely difficult to reverse in the context of international trade in animal products at the time. We have seen other animal diseases that were far more difficult to stamp out, over a much longer period of time, in the past. Clearly, no organisation will be an absolute guarantee against something new occurring, but learning from the problems that occur and ensuring that they do not reoccur must surely be one of the main objects of any organisation, whether a trade organisation or any other co-operative organisation.
As I said, the made affirmative process removes much of the depth of scrutiny that these instruments ought to have before they are made, and that risk is exacerbated by the speed at which some of these regulations are having to be driven through. I would like the Minister to reassure us that there are no plans to move away from adherence to these regulations once we have left the EU.
Will we be able to use the European trade control and expert system to ensure that the regulations are being complied with, if we leave the EU without a deal? Are there genuine plans to replace the TRACES system with a home-grown one for use in this country, and if so, why? It seems to me that a system that is used by every country in Europe is far more likely to be effective than one cobbled together in a single country, which then may or may not fit with what its trade partners are doing.
As for the amendments in regulation 5, dealing with genetically modified organisms, it may be the case that this SI does not make any changes in policy, but how likely is it that, once we are no longer members of the EU, this Government will maintain the same stance towards GMOs that the EU currently does? Will the Government maintain equivalent regulations to the EU on GMOs? If not, how will that affect our ability to export agricultural products to the EU, not to mention the possible effects on the environment? Whatever the limited scope of these SIs may be, the very fact that we are having to introduce them demonstrates the extent and complexity of the protections for our health and the health of our agriculture, which are being put at risk by the threat of a no-deal Brexit.
George Eustice
I will try to address some of those points as best I can. I completely share the view of the shadow Minister that we must never again take the sorts of risks in livestock husbandry that led to the BSE crisis. That crisis cast a long shadow over our beef industry. Indeed, even today, after all these years, when we are trying to open and negotiate access to markets such as the United States, China or Japan, the issue of BSE is still key and we have to give assurances.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no prospect of this Government weakening our regulations in this area. Even when, in some instances, the science suggests that an approach in certain areas might be more precautionary than is necessary, there is an issue of confidence in international markets. That is why in my time in this post I have always been cautious about departures from the flagship TSE regulations. I am sure that any future incumbents would take the same approach.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby pointed out, the area of EU law relating to animal health and feed restrictions has been under the EU’s remit for some time, including during the BSE crisis. As the hon. Member for Ipswich says, it is a matter for historians, but when the Government of the day were confronted with that terrible crisis, they moved quickly to impose necessary restrictions.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this change has been recommended by the European Food Safety Authority; I hope that reassures him. In previous debates he has had a tendency to trust things that the European Union has said and to be sceptical of things that our own technical advisers say. Others, like me, value our own technical advisers as well. Our TSE experts—the group of technical experts we have in the Animal and Plant Health Agency—have peer-reviewed and assessed the work that EFSA did. They are content with the assessment and that it has reached the right conclusion.
The hon. Gentleman asked about TRACES. If we become a third country, the European Union’s approach is that we would not have access to TRACES. Over the last 18 months we have been developing our own import system. We have designed it so that it looks like TRACES and feels familiar to the relatively small number of importers who have to use it. The system has been running in a beta format for some time and a number of key importers who will need to use it have been familiarising themselves with it. We will have our own replacement system, but it is not impossible that in a negotiated settlement, with a withdrawal agreement, there will be information sharing provisions between our system and the EU’s, or some kind of ongoing access to TRACES, in order to ensure that all of us are doing everything we can to protect the food system.
Finally, on GMOs, the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of exports to the EU and asks if we would still be able to export to the EU were there to be a change. These regulations envisage no change at all. The EU regulatory requirement, as it stands, would come across. A small number of GM crops are authorised for cultivation in the European Union, including a variety of maize cultivated in Spain already.
More to the point, there are many crops that are not authorised for cultivation in the EU but that the EU is happy to import from other countries. The majority of animal feeds that are imported to the European Union from third countries are GM feeds already. The European Union allows those feeds to come in because to ban them would put a huge cost on livestock producers in the EU. That being the case, the decision that we might take as a country—or as a constituent part of the UK in England, for example—to grant an authorisation for a particular crop, given that it would have been done in the same way as the EU authorisation process sets out, is highly unlikely to have any impact on trade, when put in the context of other imports that the European Union makes.
I hope I have managed to cover many or all of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
FINANCIAL SERVICES (ELECTRONIC MONEY, PAYMENT SERVICES AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Financial Services (Electronic Money, Payment Services and Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1212).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. As the Committee will be aware, Parliament has now approved well over 50 exit statutory instruments for financial services. They have included three on miscellaneous provisions, which are sometimes necessary to make isolated deficiency fixes, which do not fit easily into more thematic instruments. Those miscellaneous SIs have sometimes been used to correct minor errors or omissions made in earlier exit legislation. The one before the Committee also makes some minor corrections, as well as updating some earlier exit provisions to account for the article 50 extension.
Some hon. Members have been critical of the SIs, arguing that the correction of errors shows that we are putting rushed, poorly drafted legislation before Parliament. I want to make it clear that that is not the case. Errors have been few and minor and I applaud and thank my colleagues in the Treasury—particularly Lee O’Rourke and his team—for the work that they have undertaken in difficult circumstances over many months.
Financial services onshoring has been an unprecedented legislative challenge and I think we should acknowledge the constructive and effective collaboration that has taken place between the Treasury, our regulators and our industry stakeholders. I can tell the Committee that the regulators and the industry do not think our legislation has been poorly thought through—quite the opposite. In my time as Minister responsible for financial services exit legislation, the message from our regulators and from the industry has been clear: the legislation is essential to ensure that our regime is prepared for exit in any scenario and it is vital to underpin confidence in our regulatory regime.
In contrast to the previous miscellaneous provisions instruments, the SI makes substantive changes to earlier exit legislation in two key areas: the contractual continuity and temporary permissions regimes for payment services; and transitional arrangements for financial benchmarks. Those changes are not to correct errors but to strengthen our readiness for exit, and I make no apology for that. We are continually reviewing our exit arrangements to ensure that they are as robust as they can be. In those two areas, we decided that it is right to do more to protect UK consumers of payment services and to prevent disruption to firms and markets that rely on financial benchmarks.
First, an important part of our onshoring programme is to provide a range of temporary permissions and contractual continuity schemes to minimise disruption to UK consumers and businesses currently serviced by European economic area firms. Part 3 of the instrument supplements provisions for the temporary permissions and contractual continuity regimes for EEA payments and e-money firms. A review of that legislation has identified a limited number of provisions that should be amended to ensure that the temporary regimes are as robust as possible.
The amendments fall into two categories. The first category is to ensure that EEA firms in contractual run-off can continue to carry out various payment-related activities, as intended. That will include provision of payment and e-money services by EEA credit institutions such as banks. The second category of amendments applies to the temporary regimes for EEA payments and e-money firms. Those amendments clarify and make more explicit the full range of permissions and obligations of firms that enter those regimes. For example, the amendments make it explicit that an EEA firm in a run-off regime can legally redeem outstanding electronic money. That clarifies the fact that they can return any balance on an account to UK e-money holders.
Also, in a limited number of areas, the instrument makes Financial Conduct Authority powers more consistent with the powers it has with respect to credit institutions in the run-off regimes, such as by making it explicit that the FCA may publish a register of firms in contractual run-off. Those changes ensure that the FCA has proportionate powers to take action to protect UK consumers.
The second substantive set of provisions in this SI covers changes being made to the onshored benchmarks regulations. As they currently stand, those regulations contain a transitional regime for third-country benchmarks, allowing UK entities to use non- registered third-country benchmarks up until 31 December 2019. However, since the regulations were made it has become clear that there will be a damaging cliff-edge when the transitional regime expires at the end of 2019—a point highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its report published on 3 October. Very few third-country benchmark administrators have made applications to be registered, and only two equivalence determinations have been made by the European Commission, covering only seven third-country benchmarks.
If we leave the EU without a deal on 31 October, benchmark administrators outside the UK will have insufficient time to make an application under the UK regime by 31 December 2019. That would mean that UK firms would no longer be able to use those benchmarks for new contracts and products, causing considerable market disruption. For example, loss of access to third-country foreign exchange rate benchmarks could prevent firms from carrying out important risk management functions, such as hedging their currency risk. This SI extends the period in which the transitional regime applies by three years, from the end of 2019 to the end of 2022, ensuring that benchmark administrators outside the UK have an appropriate period of time to make an application under the UK’s onshored third-country regime.
I also want to explain the amendments that the SI makes to our onshored equivalence framework. Those amendments are purely for legal clarity and do not change the policy approach to equivalence that Parliament has already approved. When making an equivalence determination after exit, the law needs to be clear on the aspects of the UK regime for which a third country has equivalent provisions. If Parliament approves a decision on a third country having equivalent insurance regulation to the Solvency II directive, UK law will be clear that that refers to the UK’s implementation of Solvency II as it stands when the equivalence decision is made.
Before I conclude, it is important that I address the procedure under which this statutory instrument has been made. This, along with three other financial services exit SIs, were laid before Parliament on 5 September, under the “made affirmative” procedure provided for in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This is an urgent procedure that brings an affirmative instrument into law immediately, before Parliament has considered the legislation. The procedure also requires that Parliament must consider and approve a “made affirmative” SI if it is to remain in law.
The Government have not used that procedure lightly. It must be remembered that, across Departments, we have already laid over 600 exit SIs under the usual secondary legislation procedures. But as we draw near to exit day, it is vital that we have all critical exit legislation in place, including legislation necessary to ensure that our financial services regulatory regime continues to function effectively from exit. It would have been reckless to leave that until the last minute: industry and our financial regulators need legal certainty on the regime that will apply from exit. Without addressing the deficiencies covered by this SI, there would be significant legal uncertainty for firms and our regulators.
To conclude, this statutory instrument makes important additional deficiency fixes that will improve our state of readiness for exit. Regulators and the industry support our approach. This SI will help reinforce the message that Government and Parliament will not take any chances with the safe and effective operation of the UK’s regulatory regime. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting these regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a genuine pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Buck. It is good to be with the Minister for the second time today to discuss our contingency plans in the event of a no-deal Brexit. While this statutory instrument appears to address payments primarily, as the Minister said, actually it covers a wide range of financial regulation, including statutory instruments from previous months in which there have been omissions and where there have been subsequent changes to EU law since the exit date was postponed.
I know, and I hope all my colleagues acknowledge, that Treasury civil servants have worked exceptionally hard on the hugely difficult task of drafting the sheer volume of secondary legislation that has been required—often at short notice—by the Government. Given the scale of that task, it is understandable that some degree of corrections has been needed to address previous omissions. Our criticisms relate to the political decisions not taken that have required that process to come about—there were different ways this could have been done. I think it is fair to say that a lot of Government Ministers, although not this Minister, frankly under- estimated Brexit as a process. That has led, at times, to very difficult decisions, including on some of the processes that we have had to do together as statutory instruments, so I think it is reasonable to ask the Minister whether he is now confident that all drafting errors and omissions have been identified and addressed.
To give one example, in one instrument, references to the European market infrastructure regulation and the markets in financial instruments directive were mixed up. That may seem like minor semantics—fair play—and most people do not really appreciate what those regulations do, but they are huge and entirely separate pieces of legislation. We are discussing critical financial regulations, so there is no room for error. This is not legislation that can be rushed through or made without due care. Everybody was aware what using the secondary legislation process would mean if it was to be the mechanism to do this. I reiterate that this is not a criticism at all of the civil service, but rather a reflection of the gargantuan task expected of it, which was bound to bring about errors.
One principal attraction of the UK, particularly in financial services, has been its relatively stable legal and regulatory framework. The fact is that Brexit has cost us some of that reputation, which is one of the most regrettable things of all. During another recent statutory instrument Committee, a gap I identified and highlighted with the Minister was the apparent lack of permission for EEA institutions to make payments in the UK after exit. I am pleased to see that that has been clarified in this statutory instrument, and that such payments will be covered under the temporary permissions regime, given that they will be exempt from the specific Payment Systems Regulator authorisation. That will provide much-needed assurance to EEA institutions seeking to continue to operate in the UK should we crash out with a no-deal Brexit. I always say that the Opposition are always here to help.
I will ask some specific questions about some remaining items in the statutory instrument. I am curious to know why a further stipulation on the capital requirements regulation has been added to this instrument, when we addressed that regulation an hour ago in a separate piece of secondary legislation. I know it is a reference to cross-referencing, but it might have been reasonable to expect that all such references would have been included in that other piece of secondary legislation.
On the issues that the Minister raised relating to the benchmarks regulation, what exactly is causing the delay for third-country benchmark inclusion on the FCA register? Does further work need to be carried out to promote awareness and understanding of the existence of the register in third countries, or is there a resource issue on the UK side that needs addressing?
On a broader, final point, I do not believe that it is conducive to good legislative scrutiny to bundle together such different items of legislation under one SI. I appreciate the time constraints, but each of these items needs separate and thorough consideration. Equally, although some of these items pertain to changing references, due to the altered deadline, some simply relate to errors and omissions. Are we to anticipate another raft of changes in six months’ time, after these statutory instruments were all rushed through today? Given where we are with the timescale, what assurances can the Minister give us on the viability of the regulatory regime as it stands today, should a no-deal Brexit occur?
John Glen
I would like to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, and I thank him for the typical courtesy and care in his remarks with respect to this process. He made a number of points around the challenges of this approach, and I think we could both agree that this has not been an ideal process. We have worked through it, as a Committee, on probably nearly 40 occasions over the last 12 months.
The hon. Gentleman raised concerns around, in essence, the mistakes. I reassure him that there is no casualness to our approach. All SIs pass through quality control procedures, and we have engaged extensively with regulators and industry, where appropriate, in drafting them. We publish them in advance of laying them, in order that a degree of familiarity can be gained. However, as with all legislation, drafting errors occur from time to time, and we put them right as soon as they are discovered. When considering the volume and complexity of the financial services legislation made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, drafting errors have been minor and small in number. We have grouped them under the miscellaneous provisions and have worked closely with regulators to get them right.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to speculate on the nature of future amendments, should any be needed. Obviously, I cannot give an absolute assurance. He asked about the inclusion of the capital requirements regulation in this particular instrument. That is so because this is a collective, miscellaneous capturing of small and essentially legally significant but inconsequential changes.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the benchmarking issue. Not many firms have gone through the process of applying, which is why so few have gained permission. We have aligned the instrument with what we have done with many of the transitional regimes by making a three-year provision. That will allow greater certainty in the marketplace. I acknowledge his broader concerns about the process, but we have done all that we can to ensure that we are in the best possible position in the undesirable outcome of no deal at the end of October. I think that I have dealt substantively with the hon. Gentleman’s points.
I accept that the supplementary measures and provisions included in the instrument will help to ensure that the UK’s financial services regulatory regime remains prepared for withdrawal from the EU in any scenario. I recognise that considerable work will need to be done if we leave with no deal, and that we would have to bring that before the House. I hope that the Committee has found the sitting informative and will join me in supporting the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Human Medicines and Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Human Medicines and Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. Hon. Members will be aware that in March this year the House considered and approved the statutory instruments that aim to ensure that our national regulatory system for medicines and medical devices continues to function appropriately in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. Before us today is a draft statutory instrument that makes additional changes to that legislation in areas that my Department has identified would benefit from further clarification. This is being done in response to comments from stakeholders, including the industry and the life sciences sector, and from internal review.
I reiterate that the Government’s position remains that the UK would prefer to leave with a deal, and we continue to work towards that. However, the Government are also committed to preparing for an outcome in which a deal is not reached and we have to leave the EU without a deal.
I reassure all hon. Members that, as the former Minister said in March, the Government are fully committed to a system of medicines and medical devices regulation that intelligently balances patient access to new, innovative and world-leading products with protecting UK patients from harm. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, as part of these measures, will have in place a suite of licensing routes for medicines and vigilance systems for medicines and devices. The UK Government also place enormous value on the contribution to public health of research charities, the industry and the life sciences sector as a whole. The MHRA will therefore continue to support innovation in the life sciences through its innovation office and scientific advice. We are committed to offering a competitive regulatory environment to ensure that the UK has access to the safest and most effective medicines and medical devices.
The fundamentals of how medicines and devices are regulated will remain the same, in terms of the UK’s regulatory system. Where possible, we have sought to maintain existing arrangements rather than to create any new ones. However, there are a few areas where it has been necessary to add a new requirement, and we have consulted the industry and other stakeholders on our proposals in those areas. These regulations will ensure continuity in the area of medicines and medical devices in a no-deal EU exit. This legislation does not prevent future changes that we may wish to make to ensure that the UK maintains an appropriate regulatory environment and remains one of the best places in the world for science and innovation.
The Department’s priorities have been to ensure that timely availability of safe and effective medicines and medical devices continues, while minimising disruption to patients and businesses, and ensuring that the UK regulator is able to continue to protect public health. That continues to be the case with this SI.
I will now give hon. Members some more detail about the arrangements set out in these regulations. I must emphasise that the proposed changes are technical in nature and do not represent any change to underlying policy. The instrument corrects minor drafting errors and seeks only to ensure that the original policy intention is delivered. Specifically, for medicines it includes the following. First, it clarifies that the requirements for a responsible person for import and wholesaler’s licences apply to hospitals importing human medicines for their own use directly from a country on an approved list.
Secondly, it clarifies that UK generic applications can rely on data supplied in relation to medicinal products whose EU marketing authorisations were cancelled pre-exit on grounds other than safety, quality and efficacy.
Thirdly, it introduces additional detail in relation to the process by which companies may make representations to the Commission on Human Medicines about decisions on rare disease medicines and paediatric matters.
Fourthly, it includes the provision of a temporary exemption, subject to specific conditions, from the obligation to maintain a UK pharmacovigilance system master file for companies whose UK authorisations are included in an EU file. That also includes the condition that information required by the licensing authority is provided by the marketing authorisation holders on request.
Fifthly, it includes the clarification that the temporary exemption as to the geographical location of an appropriately qualified person for pharmacovigilance applies to all the marketing authorisations and herbal registrations a company holds, whether granted before, on or after exit day. That is provided that they are covered by a single pharmacovigilance system in respect of which there is the same qualified person.
Finally, it includes the addition of the Republic of Korea to the approved list of countries with equivalent regulatory standards for the manufacturing of active substances on exit day, which reflects updates to the EU list since the no-deal SI was made.
For medical devices, some changes result from the amendments made by the EU to the underlying EU medical devices regulations via the recently published corrigendum since the no-deal SI was made. The changes are minor or technical corrections. Two further changes are inserted to ensure that products used mainly for cosmetic purposes are required to comply with common specifications and to require the information registered with the MHRA about medical devices to be updated by the manufacturer.
In conclusion, in the event of a no-deal exit, the regulations will minimise any impact on patients and business to ensure the timely availability of safe and effective medicines in the UK market by putting in place changes that will ensure that the UK’s legislation in these areas continues to function effectively from day one.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the Minister for outlining the detailed changes in the new regulations and for underlining their importance.
The regulations certainly are important, given that we are only 24 days away from a potential no-deal Brexit. A parliamentary majority has three times voted to oppose the UK crashing out of the EU with no deal. Hon. Members, including me and others on the Opposition side of the House, did not do so on a whim or as part of some political game, but because all the evidence, including the Government’s impact assessment, makes it clear that leaving the European Union without a deal would be catastrophic for the UK in general.
Indeed, no area gives greater concern than the provision of medicines and medical devices. There can surely be no issue more important than ensuring that patients have timely access to the safest and most effective medicines and medical devices. Some 60% of prescription and over-the-counter medicines supplied in the UK come from or via the EU. It is vital for patients that that access is uninterrupted, so it is exceptionally worrying that the Government’s Yellowhammer papers warn that medical supplies could be delayed for up to six months.
The British Medical Association is worried about the provision of medicines and medical devices in the event of a no-deal Brexit. It has urged the Government to consider that:
“Many medicines, including life-saving agents for cancer diagnosis and therapy, cannot be stockpiled and for those that can, stockpiles could run out”;
that such delays can lead to fatalities; and that
“No responsible government should take that risk.”
Can the Minister respond to that point and outline some of the specific contingency plans that the Government have put in place for medical supplies that cannot be stockpiled, such as radioisotopes used in the treatment of cancer patients? What guarantees can she give that radioisotopes will continue to be imported into the UK without delay in the event of no deal? What further contingency steps has the NHS taken to ensure that radioisotopes will be supplied uninterrupted to hospitals across the UK?
Given the importance of the legislation, one has to wonder why it is not in place at this late hour. I have a sense of déjà vu because, as the Minister said, it was only in March that the Human Medicines (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were debated. At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) put on the record our grave concerns about the widespread and totally inappropriate use of secondary legislation for such important and potentially controversial matters. Secondary legislation is not fit for this purpose, not least because it does not provide the opportunity for detailed scrutiny.
Back in March, my hon. Friend the former shadow Minister warned that the process was not robust and that rushing through the legislation with inadequate scrutiny would lead to mistakes and omissions. Here we are today, required, according to the Government’s accompanying explanatory notes,
“to correct drafting defects and omissions in the Human Medicines (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/775) and the Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/791).”
My hon. Friend was absolutely right. The situation is extremely worrying. It begs the question of how many more omissions and defects in this regulation are yet to be revealed.
I know everyone on both sides of the House is keen to ensure that all aspects of retained EU law in relation to human medicines and medical devices operate effectively and are not deficient after exit day as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The stakes are high, and this legislation will have far-reaching effects on the multi-billion-pound pharmaceutical industry, medical device companies, wholesalers and all those in the supply chain. If we do not retain a close working relationship with the countries of the EU that closely emulates the one that we have enjoyed for many years through the European Medicines Agency, opportunities for research, innovation and access will be restricted. Most importantly, this could have a devastating effect on our NHS, potentially affecting the lives of millions of patients.
We support the Government’s desire to give the UK protection in all these areas, so we will not oppose this SI, but we want to put on the record our grave concerns about the way they have gone about this. We are appalled by the Government’s late attention to this most serious of matters. The Government have known since 2016 that there were risks, and for much of the past three years they have taken no action. We are horrified by the shambolic process that has led us at this late stage to be addressing omissions.
These regulations go beyond technical corrections and the correction of key acronyms; they clearly make substantive amendments and raise more questions than they answer. Let us look at some of the specific corrections. I hope that the Minister can clarify some important points.
There is provision here for a mechanism for companies affected by proposed decisions of the licensing authority in relation to orphan medicines to have those decisions reviewed by the Commission on Human Medicines. The question is how long that process will take. Where the criteria are satisfied, how long will it take for supplies to be sanctioned? How will timely supplies be guaranteed? What protections will be in place to protect patients in the UK from fake medicines?
In relation to the treatment of rare diseases, can the Minister clarify what provision she has made to support UK patients who rely on the European Research Network for the diagnosis and treatment of their rare diseases, if a no-deal Brexit leads to our expulsion from the network? What will the Government do to ensure that the UK can continue to participate in EU-wide clinical trials in the event of a no-deal Brexit?
The changes to the regulations allow for the introduction of a transitional period relating to the system for pharmacovigilance. Effective pharmacovigilance must be at the heart of the new arrangements, ensuring the health and safety of patients and, crucially, increasing the benefits of medicines. I understand that businesses will need time to comply with the new regulations, but what protections will be in place for patient safety during this interim period?
What estimate has the Minister made of the cost to the industry of establishing the presence of a qualified person responsible for pharmacovigilance for those companies that do not already have a UK presence? That will inevitably involve costs for establishing premises, familiarisation and administration to ensure compliance with the new legal requirements. Does she intend to ensure that the Government meet those costs? While answering that point, perhaps she could also take this opportunity to advise on the planned provision for extra resources that will be needed by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to enable it to carry out its extensive new responsibilities.
The new regulations deal with the very important matter of medicines for children. These are not mere technical changes. The regulations introduce paediatric investigation plans. Can the Minister explain exactly what these will entail and how long the process will take? Will it lead to delays in supplying medicines and medical devices? Will additional training for staff be required? What extra resources will the process require and where are those resources coming from? Will it mean any delay in the development or availability of medicines?
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. I know that this room is not ideal for a Committee, but officials are not supposed to pass notes directly to a Minister.
Julie Cooper
These points all prompt a question: why are these changes not accompanied by a new impact assessment? Our constituents will be listening to this debate and fearing that these changes will lead to poor or delayed supplies. They will be worried, and they are right to be. For some people this will be a matter of life or death. This is not “Project Fear”; this is a genuine fear that patients will be put at risk. The BMA has said:
“Disruption resulting from the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal on 1 November will cause ‘irreparable harm’ to the NHS and catastrophically exacerbate the challenges posed by a winter pressures crisis.”
It went on to say:
“We are not ‘the doubters, the doomsters or the gloomsters’ the Prime Minister described on the steps of Downing Street. Nor is this ‘Project Fear’. We are doctors who day in and day out provide care for patients in the face of challenges that will only be made worse by a ‘no deal’ Brexit in the critical winter months following 31st October. We have a duty to speak out about matters that can harm patient care and we will continue to highlight the dangers Brexit presents in the weeks and months ahead.”
We will not oppose these regulations today, but we will record our grave concerns and seek answers to the specific questions that have been put. I agree with the medical professionals, and for the sake of the health and wellbeing of the citizens of the UK I urge the Minister to join me in heeding their warning, and I urge the Prime Minister to avoid a no-deal Brexit and instead work on constructive transitional arrangements in the context of an organised exit.
Ms Dorries
I will not comment on the hon. Lady’s opening comments about a no-deal exit, because obviously we are where we are, we all stood on a manifesto to honour the result of the referendum, and it is not my position to comment on a no-deal exit.
I will answer the hon. Lady’s more specific points. It is important to make the point that at any one time in the UK there is a shortage of over a hundred medicines, and that has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, as I am sure she knows. It can be to do with fires in factories, or a downturn in supply from abroad. At any one time there are shortages, and any shortages today have nothing to do with Brexit.
Julie Cooper
I absolutely agree with what the Minister has just said. I have personal experience of pharmaceutical provision in the UK and I know that what she has just said is true. However, does she not agree that exiting the EU with no deal will exacerbate existing problems?
Ms Dorries
The hon. Lady will not be surprised to know that I do not agree, because I believe—I cannot guarantee, but I believe—that all efforts are being made and all arrangements are in place to ensure a supply of drugs into the UK. Under just-in-time arrangements, drug companies would have a stockpile of a week’s supply, but now all drug companies have stockpiled six weeks’ worth of medications to be used in the UK, and I do not envisage a shortage of any drug that is required.[Official Report, 14 October 2019, Vol. 666, c. 1MC.] Obviously, I cannot guarantee that—that cannot be done—but every effort has been made by every Department and every official and in every negotiation with drug suppliers and pharmaceutical companies to ensure that they have a six-week supply ready for a no-deal Brexit. We do not see any problem with that.
The hon. Lady referred to drugs with short shelf lives, which cannot be stockpiled. In that instance, arrangements have been made for those drugs to be air freighted into the UK. She mentioned isotopes in particular. They cannot be stockpiled, but they will be airlifted into the UK, so we will see absolutely no shortage of isotopes either. I am sure that we can provide further information on that, but I hope that, now that hon. Members are aware that drugs that have no shelf life will be airlifted, we will not hear those stories. What worries me, and what worries many people, is the public perception when they hear stories that there will be no isotopes because they cannot be stockpiled. We must take our responsibilities very seriously here.
Julie Cooper
I can assure the Minister that I take my responsibilities in this very seriously. I know that many hon. Members here do too—including her, I am sure. But this is not just a case of political to-ing and fro-ing, trying to create a sense of panic in the community about this. When the medical professions are leading the voices of concern, surely the Government should be listening to their worries.
Ms Dorries
I assure the hon. Lady that we do, and I hope that they will see today’s debate and be reassured that there will be no shortage of drugs with short shelf lives, because they can be airlifted in.
The hon. Lady also asked how we can be confident that there are no more mistakes. I think she is referring to the grammatical errors and various technical errors that occurred in the previous SI, which was 700 pages long and very technical in its content. Those issues were not identified at the time by any party or any individual, but they have now been identified. The amendments that this new SI makes to the previous SI are minimal and include updates to the underlying EU regulations that have been brought forward since the original SI was finalised.
This particular SI has also undergone legal checking and been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and we are confident that it will ensure that these regulations operate effectively after exit day. If the hon. Lady does not feel that she has had enough detail, we will provide anything in writing as a back-up.
The hon. Lady asked what paediatric investigation plans mean. This SI does not introduce paediatric investigation plans; they are already required by EU legislation. The previous no-deal SI simply transferred functions relating to those plans from the EU to the MHRA. She also asked why there was no impact assessment. There are no new policies in this SI, so there is no need for a further impact assessment. The MHRA ran a four-week public consultation and published an impact assessment on the previous SI. This SI ensures that the policies implemented are in line with the consultation and the responses to it.
On the protection of patients, the hon. Lady asked about an interim period relating to a transitional period for a pharmacovigilance system. The new proposed transitional period is for the pharmacovigilance system master file, which will be held in the UK. Companies will be required to operate a pharmacovigilance system from exit day. The master file is in the description of the pharmacovigilance system and the amending SI, which includes statutory contributions associated with a temporary exemption, to ensure supervisory capability of the companies, the QPPV and the MHRA.[Official Report, 14 October 2019, Vol. 666, c. 1MC.] I think that she also mentioned the safety aspects. Each pharmaceutical company will be required to have safety staff in the UK in line with this.
The hon. Lady asked whether new and innovative medicines would be delayed in the UK under a no-deal scenario. The MHRA intends to provide free scientific advice for UK-based small and medium-sized enterprises and has introduced a new targeted assessment procedure to authorise medicines as soon as possible following an EMA-positive opinion. In addition, it will often accelerate an assessment route to enable licensing more quickly than in the EU. The MHRA would monitor application volumes in a no-deal scenario.
I thank the hon. Lady for her valuable contribution to the debate. As promised, we will get back to her with further information in writing if she requires it. I am confident, as was the case in March, that we have a shared intention to protect and improve the safety of patients using medicines and medical devices, while enabling their access to the most innovative treatments.
Our regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, has more than 30 years’ experience as a leading regulator in the EU. That expertise and experience is globally recognised and respected, and we want to ensure that continues, to the benefit of all UK patients. It is with that at the forefront of our minds that the UK’s plans for the regulation of medicines and medical devices in a no-deal scenario have been developed.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health and Social Care
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Dorries
On the maternal six-week check, we hope to ensure that that happens in all our GP contracts going forward.
[Official Report, 3 October 2019, Vol. 664, c. 1441.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries):
An error have been identified in my winding-up speech during the debate on Women’s Mental Health.
The correct information should have been:
Ms Dorries
On the maternal six-week check, we will look at that happening in all our GP contracts going forward.
Ms Dorries
The Government fully supported the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill—a private Member’s Bill that became an Act of Parliament on 1 November 2018. The Act imposes requirements regarding the use of force, the publication of data, and how and when physical, mechanical and chemical force is used, as well as requirements for improved staff training. We want to end restraint. We know that it continues to be a routine occurrence on many wards, affecting women and girls disproportionately. That has to end.
[Official Report, 3 October 2019, Vol. 664, c. 1443.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries):
An error has been identified in my winding-up speech during the debate on Women’s Mental Health.
The correct information should have been:
Ms Dorries
The Government fully supported the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill—a private Member’s Bill that became an Act of Parliament on 1 November 2018. The Act imposes requirements regarding the use of force, the publication of data, and how and when physical, mechanical and chemical force is used, as well as requirements for improved staff training. We want to minimise the use of restraint. We know that it continues to be a routine occurrence on many wards, with prone restraint affecting women and girls disproportionately. That has to end.
Petition
The Exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union
Westminster Hall
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
Amazon Deforestation
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 266638 relating to deforestation in the Amazon.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I declare at the outset that I have been a member of Greenpeace for many years.
This timely debate focuses on a real and urgent concern for the environment, on a day when so many are standing vigil outside Parliament and across the capital, making their strength of feeling on this critical issue heard peacefully, calmly and, as I can hear from my office, often with gentle, soothing music—although interspersed occasionally by energetic drumming. However, that commendable gentleness should not be misunderstood. Urgent action is needed, as demanded by the many people who signed the petition.
The petition, which currently stands at more than 122,500 signatures, including more than 500 from my Cambridge constituency, reads as follows:
“Demand the EU & UN sanction Brazil to halt increased deforestation of the Amazon. The government of Brazil led by Bolsonaro favour the development of the Amazon rainforest over conservation, escalating deforestation. Deforestation threatens indigenous populations who live in the forest, loss of a precious and complex ecosystem and a vital carbon store that slows global warming. Indigenous people have called for the EU to impose trade sanctions on Brazil to halt the deforestation because they fear genocide. Also, the UK parliament has recognised a climate emergency. Since the Amazon rainforest is an important carbon store, absorbing huge volumes of CO2 each year, its deforestation is of global significance. The intrinsic value of the rainforest should also be recognised. Trade sanctions are used elsewhere for important issues as an effective means to force action.”
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to mention Brazil, but I understand that it is responsible for about half the deforestation of the Amazon, and that countries such as Bolivia and Peru are also significantly involved. For accuracy, could he include those countries and all others that are involved in this important issue in his remarks?
Daniel Zeichner
I will come to the definitions in a little while; the hon. Gentleman has pre-empted me.
Climate change and environmental issues have shot up the political and public agenda this year—we should all be thankful for that—due in no small part to young people, the school climate strikes and Greta Thunberg, and to various campaigns that have led to long-overdue media attention. In my city of Cambridge, some 3,000 people took to the streets a few weeks ago to support the school children, and today thousands are taking part in the Extinction Rebellion protests. Protecting our natural environment has captured the public consciousness and cannot—indeed, must not—be ignored by politicians.
What a natural environment this petition refers to. The Amazon rainforest is 5.5 million sq km of rainforest surrounding the Amazon river. Some 60% of it is contained in Brazil, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) indicated. It is home to about one quarter of the world’s species, it accounts for about 15% of terrestrial photosynthesis and it is a major carbon sink. The World Wildlife Fund reports that it is home to perhaps 34 million people, including 385 indigenous groups. It is integral not just to the habitats of the people, plants and animals to which it provides a home, but to the global ecosystem, so it is very precious.
The Amazon rainforest has been under threat from deforestation for some years. Between 2001 and 2018, Brazil lost almost 55 million hectares of tree cover—a staggering amount.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the word “lost” makes it sound like an accident, like someone losing their specs down the back of the sofa, whereas in actual fact—particularly recently—it is due to the deliberate actions of President Bolsonaro, who wants to open up more of the Amazon rainforest? Does he agree that we should not enter trade talks with Bolsonaro unless and until he upholds strong environmental standards and stops that action in the Amazon?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Lady has provided a short and precise synopsis of my entire speech. I am afraid I will continue with it anyway. She makes an important point: “lost” is perhaps not the right way to put it.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Did my hon. Friend listen to the Environment Minister from Brazil on the World Service this morning, and did his heart sink, as mine did, at his failure to answer any of the questions that my hon. Friend is addressing to the Bolsonaro regime?
Daniel Zeichner
I did not hear that exchange, but of course it is not uncommon in the political arena for questions not to be directly answered. The point I will develop in my speech is that the failure to act is devastating and dangerous.
Let me return to the 55 million hectares of tree cover, because not everyone knows what that looks like. I am reliably informed that it translates to a loss of 5.7 football pitches per minute. That is something that I can envisage. It is staggering that so many football pitches have been lost in the time that we have been speaking in this debate.
This is not a new problem. We have known about it for some time. Previous Brazilian Governments have tried to reduce deforestation through a number of measures, which have indeed slowed the rate. In 2012 Brazil recorded its lowest deforestation rate of the past 20 years. However, that has been reversed this year. The New Scientist reported in July that more than 3,700 sq km of forest has been deforested this year alone. According to preliminary satellite data, the losses for the first seven months of 2019 are 16% higher than the high of 3,183 sq km in 2016. There was an 88% increase in deforestation in June 2019, compared with June 2018. Those startling and worrying numbers understandably provoke strong and passionate responses from people across the world.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this extremely important debate, and I apologise for missing the first few moments of his speech. He is of course right to call attention to the vast increase in deforestation that has occurred this year, but it is also right to put that in the context—he mentioned this in passing—of the very significant reduction in deforestation. As recently as 2004, it was 10,500 square miles a year. Last year, it was 4,000 square miles. This year, as he correctly mentioned, it has gone back up again. It is right to say that the Brazilian Government have been doing their best, albeit this year there seems to have been an extremely worrying reversal.
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: there has been progress. The problem is that something has happened. That is what I will come on to.
The threat of natural loss as a consequence of these changes is very real and is under way, but the political situation that underpins this issue deserves careful and considered attention because, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) pointed out, something has changed. It is hard not to conclude that the environmental damage is a direct consequence of a change in policy direction and political attitudes.
That brings me to President Bolsonaro—clearly a controversial figure, although by no means the only controversial figure on the world stage at the moment—whose attitude to climate change is worth highlighting. Back in December 2018, at the 24th conference of the parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change, the Brazilian Government promised that their carbon emissions would decrease by 37% by 2025, and by 43% by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. However, since President Bolsonaro took office in January there has been a clear change. He is widely considered to be sceptical of actions to curb climate change, and in his election campaign he said he would take Brazil out of the Paris climate change accord—a note, I fear, from the Trump playbook. He has back-peddled a little and has argued that he may not do that so long as Brazil’s control over the Amazon remains intact. I have to say that I do not think these are issues to be negotiated. We should all be working to preserve such an important part of our environment.
This summer the world watched on with huge anxiety as forest fires burned in the Amazon, with many attributing blame to forest clearance policies. The Rainforest Alliance says that satellite data show an 84% increase in fires compared with the same period in 2018. The Brazilian Government deny a causal link, but the disagreement has led to fierce international controversy. It was recently reported that at the UN
“Bolsonaro…launched a cantankerous and conspiratorial defence of his environmental record, blaming Emmanuel Macron and the ‘deceitful’ media for hyping this year’s fires in the Amazon. In a combative 30-minute address to the UN general assembly, Bolsonaro denied—contrary to the evidence—that the world’s largest rainforest was ‘being devastated or consumed by fire, as the media deceitfully says’.”
Similarly, The Guardian has reported that
“Bolsonaro is set to unveil draft legislation that would allow commercial mining in indigenous territories, something currently outlawed, despite overwhelming opposition from voters.”
Clearly there are differences of view, but I find it hard not to conclude that the Brazilian President’s pro-development agenda is having a clear and dangerous impact, and that the clearing of the rainforest will be used to allow further development of mining and agriculture.
If we conclude that we all have an interest in this issue because of the impact on the global climate, the question becomes, “What do we do?” The petition calls for trade sanctions, a measure that the Government have not adopted or advocated so far. The Government state in their response to the petition:
“The United Kingdom shares concerns about deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, and the severe impact on the climate, biodiversity and livelihoods. However, key to tackling these issues is to work with Brazil to find solutions rather than imposing sanctions.”
I am afraid that I must characterise that as a “do nothing” response, or rather a “do a tiny little bit to maybe give us some cover” response, because the Government also stated:
“In response to the recent forest fires, the Prime Minister pledged a further £10 million at the G7 summit on 25 August. This contribution is an expansion of an existing project: Partnerships for Forests.”
The rainforest is burning and the Prime Minister has offered a water pistol—maybe he could have sent an unused water cannon.
Remember the scale of the challenge that we face. The Government’s actions hardly equate to the “rapid”, “unprecedented” and “far-reaching” transitions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change called for in its report last year.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he think that the UK has a critical and special responsibility in this matter? Non-governmental organisations such as Global Witness have shown that much of the deforestation has been backed by companies that often have operations in the City of London, so we should really take more responsibility rather than pretending that it just affects a country many miles away.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend makes an important point on the wider context of Britain’s role on the global stage. I would argue that although we are shamefully withdrawing from our positions of influence on the global stage, we remain important through many of our major companies and should use that influence and position of authority.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we are approaching a very dangerous tipping point in the context of climate change and that the wider world faces catastrophic climate change if urgent action is not taken? That action must include an end to deforestation, radical action to reduce the consumption of meat in the western world, and Government intervention in markets.
Daniel Zeichner
That is the important point: the sense of urgency. Of course, this Parliament has declared a climate emergency, not that one would necessarily guess that from the Government’s actions, and actions are what count.
What a marked contrast there is between our Government’s feeble response and the responses of other Governments. Our European partners have called for trade sanctions, with Austrian MPs demanding that their Government veto the EU’s proposed trade deal with South America’s economic bloc, which is currently composed of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. That was due to concerns over workers’ rights, which is absolutely correct, but the environmental reasons are paramount. Similar concerns have been voiced by countries such as France, Ireland and Luxembourg.
Although I have been critical of the Government, I will add a rider, because as a country with an imperial and colonising past, criticism can always be levelled at the UK that, because we industrialised and polluted, it is hypocritical to blame others for doing the same. Brazil could argue that, as a post-colonial industrial country, it should have the chance to develop its economy, as the UK and other European countries did in the past, and it can point to our lack of environmental concerns during that industrialisation. Those sympathetic to Bolsonaro’s argument could point to data indicating that Brazil has historically contributed to around only 1% of global emissions since the start of the industrial age.
To criticise other countries for pursuing industrial development by saying, “We benefited from that kind of approach but now we know more so you should not put your economy first” is a poor argument. However, it is possible to develop the economy in a much more sustainable way if it is not driven just by short-term profit maximisation—that is the answer to the conundrum. The way forward is through international agreements, ratified by the countries involved, to secure a better future approach. Economic avenues could be pursued more sustainably to future-proof Brazil’s industry while maintaining environmental protections and regulations.
Many would argue that there is no need for self-inflicted harm. Greenpeace tells us that indigenous groups across Brazil are calling for global support to protect their rights in their struggle to safeguard the forests that they have inhabited for centuries. Greenpeace argues that environmental governance bodies in Brazil have been dismantled and weakened. For instance, the Climate Change and Forests Office and the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change have been closed, which has impacted policies and deforestation prevention, as well as resourcing. Minister Salles has slashed the budget and staffing of the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, or IBAMA. Highly trained units have reportedly been grounded, and the value of fines imposed for environmental offences has dropped by 43%. In August, the director of Brazil’s National Space Research Institute was forced out of office after the President refuted data on rising deforestation.
Of course, the Brazilian Government have a different account and reject the notion that
“Brazil does not take care of the Amazon, does not take care of the environment.”
People will make their own judgment, but at the centre of the issue is the fact that we are in a climate crisis. If Brazil rejects the chance to reform its practice, recommit to stopping the fires and return to anti-deforestation policies, and if the Brazilian President continues to take Brazil down such an environmentally damaging path, it is right that the international community thinks hard about how to proceed to best protect the environmental jewel that is the Amazon rainforest.
That is hard because it touches on the most basic issues of national sovereignty. Brazil has reaffirmed many times that this is indeed an issue of sovereignty, and it believes that its approach to the Amazon is one of domestic policy, but we cannot look at this issue in a vacuum. As was mentioned earlier, the Amazon spans not just Brazil, but Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela. It is an internationally revered natural treasure, and parts of it that are lost, including some species that are found nowhere else on earth, will not be recovered. That is a global loss.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman has touched on something so important in our current political debate: nationalism is completely the wrong answer to a global crisis. We can solve these things only if we think globally rather than just in our own national interest.
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Lady is right. If only we could find a way of achieving that consensual approach.
This is a global loss, and many would conclude that that risk creates a global responsibility to respond. How do we solve this dilemma? Greenpeace has asked that
“all trade talks with Brazil be suspended until the Bolsonaro government changes tack and guarantees the necessary protections”.
It says that should include effective support for urgent action by the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources and other agencies responsible for monitoring and enforcement, to tackle environmental crimes and implement forest protections, with guarantees of necessary funding as well as other measures to improve environmental protections. That is the tough approach.
Our Government seem to hope for the best outcome. The Minister of State has previously told Parliament:
“If we help to ensure that these sensible trade arrangements are made, those fires can be put out and they will stay out”.—[Official Report, 3 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 7.]
That seems to be over-optimistic at best and complacent at worst, but we will await the Minister’s response. If the situation remains as difficult as it currently appears to be, I have to say, I am with Greenpeace. The Amazon rainforest is sometimes said to provide 20% of our terrestrial oxygen, or one in five of each of our breaths. Most of us now recognise that we are in a climate crisis, and that it is time for action and urgency in our approach to both domestic and international policy.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reflect a hitherto undetected ambition and urgency to do what is needed. He could start today by supporting the petitioners in their ambition to secure global action to protect the precious rainforest.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)
Order. A total of 16 Members wish to speak. I will call first the nine Members who notified me in advance.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Thank you, Mrs Moon, for calling me so early. As always in debates, one hopes to have more time to perfect the speech that should have been written last week. With your generosity, Mrs Moon, hon. Members will have to listen to what I have in front of me.
I do not think there is any disagreement among us about the importance of the rainforest, be it for the physical entity that it is or for the animal and plant species that it hosts. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) highlighted that the Amazon spans much more than just Brazil. I will concentrate on not just Brazil but Colombia next door, and I will draw some comparisons.
I refer to Brazil following my visit there—I led the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation there two weeks ago. Unfortunately, we had to cut our visit short because Parliament was recalled. One of the key themes of our visit was to raise British views on the rainforest with the Brazilian Government, parliamentarians and non-governmental organisations. Particularly when we visited the Senate and Congress in Brasilia, it became clear how sensitive they feel to outside criticism. They certainly hear the voices across the world in response to the crisis in the rainforest. People should not think that is not the case.
I differ from the essence of the petition on the need for economic sanctions. I would like us to find solidarity and common cause with groups in Brazil who care passionately—arguably, even more so than we do, because it is their home—to find ways to collaborate to unleash the true value of the rainforest. The rainforest’s value should never be in cutting down trees—that is a blind, short-term gain. The true value of the rainforest can be seen next door in Columbia, where the United Kingdom works in collaboration with GROW Colombia, using science to unleash some truly phenomenal long-term possibilities.
GROW Colombia is a UK-funded four-year collaboration involving multiple partners, including the Earlham Institute, the University of East Anglia, the Natural History Museum, the Eden project, Colombia’s Humboldt Institute, the Universidad de los Andes and the University of Sydney. The project is designed to demonstrate that biodiversity conservation can drive sustainable economic growth and secure peace and prosperity—in this case in Colombia, but the same lessons can be drawn in many other areas of the Amazon.
Even though the project is in its early days, former guerrillas have been transformed into guardians of the rainforests; people with no scientific or natural background have been trained up to recognise unique species of plants and animals and what they are capable of. It has helped farmers to reform their agricultural practices and techniques to grow crops and forage varieties that can offer conservation gains. It has enabled producers to identify and cultivate wild relatives of commercially produced coca varieties to make production more profitable, eco-friendly and sustainable and less dependent on human intervention. It has taught rural communities taxonomic identification techniques, combining biotechnology resources with practical field work to catalogue species. It has assisted policymakers in analysing socio-economic models to support the ecological restoration of the rainforest. Above all, it has coached rural communities in business models for ecotourism initiatives that guarantee a genuine and lasting conservation benefit to the ecosystem. Some of those measures could be rolled out in Brazil, in collaboration with the regional Governments—an area such as Amazonia is every bit as important as the federal Government in Brasilia. Some of that collaboration with the United Kingdom is already beginning.
I urge the Government to continue to work on pointing out to Brazil not only that it is an economic powerhouse thanks to its variety of rare species but that, if harnessed properly, as is beginning to happen in Colombia, the potential for biotech and pharmaceutical applications of some of the very complex and rare plant species could generate billions of sustainable, clean revenue that would benefit the planet in the long term while generating revenue to benefit the science community in Brazil. That would flow through to communities, particularly the indigenous communities in those areas.
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend is making an extremely well-informed and powerful speech. Could he tell us a little more about what enthusiasm there is in the Brazilian Government for adopting a scheme similar to GROW Colombia in Brazil? Would that be part of the answer, to make Brazil see this issue as global as well as Brazilian?
Mark Menzies
Let me again point out the importance of the federal and state Governments and legislatures. There is huge sensitivity to the criticism directed at Brazil in recent months. There is a danger that that will shut off avenues of co-operation, dialogue and discussion, preventing some of the positive things that we all want to achieve. Particularly in rural areas, people want to be better off. They want better standards of education, better employment opportunities and better prospects for their children than they had. We must show them a way to achieve that without following a path of devastation and destruction. The trees can be cashed in once, but the other possibilities I mentioned can pay dividends in the longer term.
Another reason we should not go down the path of sanctions, or the threat of them, is that Brazil is a global superpower in its renewable energy potential, both solar and wind, thanks to its enormous coast and tremendous sunshine. UK companies are the biggest investors in solar generation in Brazil. The City of London, by providing access to green finance and green reinsurance markets, is fundamental to unlocking some of that sustainable, renewable power. Many of those schemes are micro schemes, which can unlock access to affordable, sustainable energy—a problem that has often plagued Brazil—for the very people we have talked about, who live away from the coast in isolated, poor communities.
However, those schemes can be unlocked only by global co-operation and the free flow of finance to ensure that there is somebody to help to finance them in the long term. Simply pulling up the drawbridge and saying, “No more co-operation; we’re withdrawing from trade agreements and trade discussions with you,” strengthens the hand of the people who want to build a wall around Brazil—those who say, “There they go again: the imperialists are threatening us. We shouldn’t listen to anything they’ve got to say. We do things our way”—and weakens the hand of those in Brazil who want co-operation and to follow a path of alternatives to deforestation.
As somebody who is passionate about Latin America—I have visited the Yungas in Bolivia, and I have visited Colombia five times in my trade envoy role—I know very well the economic power of these rainforests. This is not just about protecting rare species and defending an ecosystem; it is also about allowing people to earn a fantastic living while protecting precious and unique environments. If we get this right, we can do both.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Moon. I do not think it will surprise anyone that I am not going to adopt the same conciliatory tone as the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies). The situation we face is far too serious to adopt such an approach. As we heard, the Amazon is being wilfully destroyed. It remains the biggest rainforest in the world and a vital check on climate change. The seriousness of the situation cannot be overestimated and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said, there are people gathered outside this building who want us to take it seriously.
I make no apologies for referring to a debate I led in this Chamber in March 2009 about the impact of livestock on the environment. I read my speech back and I actually think it was rather good, but the Minister’s response was appalling; she went on at some length about how she really liked her mum’s shepherd’s pie. I would like to think we have made progress since then, but although we are talking about the issue more, we certainly have not made as much progress as I hoped we would back then.
Extensive cattle ranching is the primary culprit for deforestation in virtually every Amazon country. It accounts for 80% of current deforestation and is responsible for the release of 340 million tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere every year. That is equivalent to 3.4% of current global emissions. The Brazilian Amazon is home to approximately 200 million head of cattle and is the largest exporter in the world, supplying around a quarter of the global market.
The impact of cattle ranching and deforestation was first publicised by conservationists in the early 1980s—they coined the phrase “the hamburger connection”—but it was fairly small business back then. Government incentives, and improvements in the road and electricity networks and in meat processing facilities, spurred the industry on. Then, with the devaluation of the currency and much of Brazil’s herd being declared free of foot and mouth disease, exports exploded, which led to the current deforestation situation.
Typically, deforestation starts not with animal agriculture but when roads are cut through the forest to open it up for logging and mining. Once the forest along the road has been cleared, commercial or subsistence farmers move in and start growing crops. However, forest soils are too nutrient-poor and fragile to sustain crops for long, so after two or three years, when the soil is depleted, crop yields fall and farmers let the grass grow and move on. That is when the ranchers move in. Little investment is needed to start raising cattle on cheap or abandoned land where grass is already growing, and the returns can be high, at least for a while. However, after five to 10 years, over-grazing and nutrient loss turn rainforest land that was once filled with biodiversity into an eroded wasteland, so ranchers have to look for somewhere else to move on to.
As we heard, deforestation causes irreversible environmental damage if it is not checked in time. The clearing and burning of forests releases billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Scientists estimate that deforestation causes roughly a quarter of all human-induced carbon emissions, and then there is the loss of biodiversity. I have not been to Brazil, but I have been to countries such as Belize; the extent to which the rainforest remains undiscovered and unexplored is amazing. There is so much more to be discovered. Forests are home to more than 13 million distinct species, representing more than two thirds of the world’s plants and animals. Obviously, if their habitats are destroyed, many will be at risk of extinction. When the trees are gone, the soil becomes depleted, which often leads to water pollution as the soil gets washed away. That is something for which we in this country must accept responsibility.
James Gray
The hon. Lady is making an extremely powerful speech, with which I entirely agree. What she says about the catastrophe in the rainforest, which I have visited many times, is absolutely true. Surely, however, the point of the debate is not so much to say how awful it all is but to ask what we can do about it. The petitioners request trade sanctions against Brazil. The question is how efficacious that would be in persuading the current Government of Brazil to go back to what the Government there were doing only a year ago.
Kerry McCarthy
I will get to what I think needs to be done. Sanctions could play a part, but change in consumption habits could play a much bigger part, and that is something we each have some control over.
In their recent “Risky Business” report, WWF and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds estimate that more than 40% of the UK’s overseas land footprint—nearly 6 million hectares—is in countries that are at high or very high risk of deforestation and of having weak governance and poor labour standards. The more I read about it, the more I see the links between this trade and modern slavery and human rights abuses, with people being displaced from their land, and so on; they are all part and parcel of the same thing.
WWF and the RSPB looked at seven key agricultural commodities imported into the UK: beef and leather, cocoa, palm oil, pulp and paper, rubber, soy, and timber. Of those, beef and leather account for by far the largest proportion of our land footprint overseas, despite the fact that we produce almost 80% of our own beef in the UK and import a lot from Ireland. However, the actual picture is much worse, because we must look at animal feed, too. In the EU, around 90% of soy imports are for livestock feed, so it is not just a case of beef from Argentina or Brazil being bad and British beef being fine, as I often hear people try to argue. Yes, there is a case for pasture-fed livestock—I chair the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology for sustainable food and farming, of which the Pasture-Fed Livestock Association is an active member—but that is not what we are talking about.
Every year, the UK consumes around 3.3 million tonnes of soy, more than 75% of which is related to meat consumption, either as imported animal feed or as soy embedded in imported meat products. We must also consider the feed for chickens that lay eggs, and the feed for dairy herds, as well as soya bean oil, which is the second most widely used vegetable oil after palm oil. This has happened to me many times, but I remember the former farming Minister, Jim Paice, trying to tell me that that was all down to more people eating veggie burgers. I assure people that is not the case. That figure may have gone up in recent years, but I think it is still well below 5%—but yes, it is all the vegetarians’ and vegans’ fault, as usual.
It is interesting to compare what has happened with soy bean oil and palm oil. We import nearly three times as much soy bean oil as palm oil, yet it is palm oil that has tended to receive the attention of environmentalists, probably because of the orangutans. Some 21% of global palm oil production is now certified, whereas soy certified by the Round Table on Responsible Soy or ProTerra accounts for only about 2% of global production.
Wera Hobhouse
It is true that we cannot be sanctimonious or hypocritical and tell developing countries what to do, given that we deforested our country in the past, but we now know a lot more about the consequences. The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. Should not we all adopt a responsible, conscious approach to consumption, and promote that politically, rather than saying, “We don’t really need to do anything about it, and it’s not about sanctions”? We must all understand that we are responsible, too.
Kerry McCarthy
I think so. There have been some interesting global initiatives or attempts at global initiatives. When I was a shadow Minister in the foreign affairs team, I remember meeting representatives from Ecuador. Yasuni national park in Ecuador is almost as biologically diverse and as amazing as the Galapagos Islands, but oil has been discovered there. The representatives wanted to raise funds from across the world by saying to people, “We are a poor country. We need to exploit our natural resources. We need to get the finances in. If you don’t want us to do that and you think that is appalling, then give us some money not to do it.” I understand that was not a successful approach; they did not raise any money and they ended up having to exploit the natural resources.
The Seychelles issued an ocean bond, saying it would protect its marine areas and not overfish if people gave it money to do that. Although there are wealthy people in the Seychelles, there is a lot of poverty too. That blue bond was successful; we need to look at such initiatives, because it is not just about sanctions, but about working together. As the hon. Lady mentioned, I think it is the wrong approach for us to say, “You cannot exploit what you have got,” when we have exploited everything we have got, and we have been to many other countries and exploited what they have as well, over the centuries.”
Some 77% of UK soy imports come from the high-risk countries of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay. In its recent report “Money to Burn”, the NGO Global Witness identified the financial institutions behind six key agribusiness companies involved in deforesting climate-critical forests in Brazil, the Congo basin and New Guinea. It revealed that UK-based financial institutions were the second biggest source of financing, providing $6.5 billion, so the UK has a huge responsibility to take action to tackle the source of financing for deforestation. I urge Members to read the report, which is powerful. We must have due diligence regulation across sectors and throughout the supply chain, so people know what their money is being invested in. That would send an important message to businesses, and companies would change the way they operate.
In 2009 I held a debate in this Chamber that was prompted in part by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s report “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, which was released in 2006. It made a compelling case for action to tackle the consequences for the climate and for our natural environment of the ever more industrialised and intensive livestock industry. As I said in that debate, growing animal feed is a supremely inefficient use of land; it takes around 8 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef, and there is a huge water footprint, too. It takes almost 21 square metres of land to produce 1 kg of beef, compared with 0.3 square metres to produce 1 kg of vegetables.
Since then, numerous other highly authoritative reports have made the same arguments. They make the headlines and most people agree that something needs to be done, and yet we seem to be no closer to action, apart from people making their own decisions about what they consume.
I finish by expressing my disappointment at the recent report from the Committee on Climate Change on how we reach net zero; it was, frankly, pathetic. At the launch, the chair of the committee said in his opening speech that his least favourite environmentalists were those who expected people to be cold in their homes or to eat disgusting food. I wondered what he meant by disgusting food, but I can guess. This was from the man who fed his daughter, Cordelia, a hamburger at the height of the BSE crisis; I think we know where he is coming from. We were then told that because people could not be expected to eat disgusting food, the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change was for only a 20% reduction in red meat consumption, which was to be replaced primarily with pork, bacon and poultry rather than plant-based meals.
The Committee on Climate Change was meant to be looking at how deliverable net zero was, primarily from an economic point of view; for example, it was looking at whether we could afford to make the transition to electric vehicles. It also looked at behavioural change and how palatable that would be to the general public. I gather that the behavioural scientist on the committee specialises in shifts in transport, rather than diet, but it took his word on what people would tolerate.
I refer again to the people outside the building today, to people I know and to the people who have contacted me, particularly younger people. I think people are willing to play their part and want to know about the damage their consumption habits cause. It is not just a question of them being able to exercise a choice; the market needs to respond. We need more transparency, so people are educated to make choices, and we need the Government to step in to ensure people are in a position to make those choices.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Ind)
It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I hope it will not be another 10 years before she makes a speech on this subject. I enjoyed her contribution and found it educational, and I thank her for it. I thank the Petitions Committee for holding this debate—as a former Minister who responded to many Petitions Committee debates, it is nice to be on the other side—and the just over 300 of my constituents who signed the petition; I think I know them all. I thank the schoolchildren, from every school I visit and all those that visit me here, who raise this subject with me, and my own two children, who also raise it with me. I also thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for setting out the issue so clearly. I do not want to speak for long, and will make three brief points.
First, and personally, as I have droned on to anyone who will listen or who has asked me about environmental policy since I was elected, this is the issue that got me here and opened my eyes as a schoolboy, when I was no older than my eight-year-old son is now. I remember seeing it on television and protesting at the television about it, and my parents saying it was no good telling them—that I should tell someone else and do something about it. That opened my eyes to becoming an activist, and led me to a lifetime of activism. It got me to join Friends of the Earth when I was a young man and ultimately to pursue a career in politics.
Ever since I was adopted as the candidate for Winchester in 2007, I have campaigned relentlessly under the Green Winchester umbrella on many issues, but I have always returned to this subject. As a schoolboy, I wrote articles and held debates on it. I even wrote a poem on it for the school poetry competition, which the swine did not let me win. While the rates of deforestation in the ’80s, when I was at school, and continuing into the ’90s were deeply troubling and led to the television coverage that caught my attention and raised my ire, it seems that more recent years have given cause for hope in the Amazon.
Deforestation has been a concern in the region for some years, but I note in the excellent House of Commons Library briefing for the debate that the New York declaration on deforestation published this year said:
“Brazil lost almost 55 million hectares of tree cover at a rate of 5.7 soccer fields per minute. More than 84 percent of this loss occurred in the…Amazon…an area bigger than Norway.”
However, previous Brazilian Governments have adopted a series of legal and administrative approaches aimed at reducing deforestation, which led to a decline in loss rates. As the declaration reports, the
“Amazon has long been hailed as a success story in global forest conservation efforts. In 2012, Brazil recorded its lowest deforestation rate in the last 20 years.”
It is worth repeating that point, which was made in the opening speech.
Soy was mentioned in a previous contribution. The world’s first two large-scale voluntary commitments to reduce deforestation were based in the Amazon: the 2006 sector-wide soy moratorium and the 2009 company-specific Cattle Brazil: forging public-private co-operation agreements. Nearly 50 companies have endorsed the soy moratorium covering 90% of the soy trade in the Brazilian Amazon, while 18 of the country’s 22 largest meat processors have committed to at least one of the cattle agreements. These approaches were successful, yet trends in the slowing of forest loss have been reversed in recent years. In the period after 2012, deforestation has again increased, no doubt generating more young boys and girls shouting at the television or outside in Westminster today. The reversal of the trend for the slowing of forest loss has been particularly acute this year, and that is what worries us all so much. The progress report of the New York declaration on forests, published in September, states that
“tree cover loss in the Amazon began to rise again in 2016 when it reached 3.7 million hectares. While the rate of loss has fallen in the past two years, it is still higher than it had been since 2005. For the Amazon, deforestation rates continued to rise in the first part of 2019 with an alarming 88 percent increase in June compared to same month the previous year.”
It is worth repeating the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that deforestation is increasing in Bolivia and Peru, so it is not just a matter of Brazil—but of course it is mainly Brazil.
Secondly, lots of points have been made about indigenous peoples and ecosystems, and I am not going to repeat them. However, I am a former Health Minister and was the cancer care Minister, and it is often said that the Amazon is the world’s largest medicine cabinet. That is a good point. About 25% of all the drugs that are used today derive from rainforest plants. One point that caused one of my shouty TV moments was this: logically, on the balance of probability, if such a high percentage of the things we know about have come from the rainforest, what else is out there? For those who have been involved with fighting cancer, and the loss of the fight, as many times as I and many other people in the Chamber have, it would be wonderful if we could detect more cancers earlier, as is the Government’s ambition. However, as we will not do that for everyone, we will need medicines and drug treatments. For me, the great question is what else is out there.
My third point is about the response, which is obviously what the petitioners are interested in. I understand President Bolsonaro’s view about sovereignty. Of course, international law would be on his side with respect to the sovereignty of his land, but I argue that sovereignty of the planet belongs to us all. Some 40 years after I was raised into political activism of some sort we are still having the same conversation—and, what is worse, the situation is getting more acute and worrying, because deforestation rates seem to be going in the wrong direction again.
I understand the argument that we need to help Brazil to trade its way out of the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) made his point well, and I listened to him carefully. He has visited the area many times. It is often said that the Amazon basin has a population living in poverty, and that is undoubtedly true, but a lot of deforestation does not stem from poverty. According to the federal Government 32.5% of deforestation in 2016 happened on big farms, and 24.5% on invaded public land, while 30% happened on smallholder agricultural land possessions and 11% inside protected areas that allow for economic activities. So much deforestation, especially on squatted land, is commissioned by people who do not live in the Amazon, including gangs of land speculators and other forms of organised crime. Most of the big farmers and land-grabbers come from São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Paraná and other southern states, attracted by the cheap land and the low level of law enforcement in Brazil. I understand the argument, but it worries me.
As to the response to the petition, at the time of the G20 summit France and Ireland raised the prospect of not ratifying the huge trade deal with South American nations unless Brazil did more to fight fires in the Amazon. President Macron of France said that President Bolsonaro had lied to him about his stance on climate change. Our Prime Minister said:
“The fires ravaging the Amazon rainforest are not only heartbreaking, they are an international crisis. We stand ready to provide whatever help we can to bring them under control and help protect one of Earth’s greatest wonders.”
German Chancellor Merkel called the fire an “acute emergency” that was
“shocking and threatening not only for Brazil and the other affected countries, but also for the whole world”.
I agree with all those statements but, far from arguing that we should withdraw from trade negotiations, I suggest that the deal should explicitly say that countries must commit to tackling climate change. I suggest therefore that all we are asking is that the EU, of which we are still currently a member, should hold Brazil to the commitments in the emerging agreement. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Forty years on from the time I described earlier, we are still having the conversation. If we are still having it after another 40 years it will not be a problem but a bit of history—gone for ever. The medicines that we might have found, which might have produced cures for terrible diseases—the diseases that I have spent many hours answering debates on in Westminster Hall, and that affect our constituents—will not be found. If we were to let that happen it seems to me it would be a stain on humanity. The point about sovereignty needs to be balanced alongside that argument. I ask the Minister—he is an excellent Minister and a good friend—to set out the latest position of Her Majesty’s Government on the EU-Mercosur trade deal, from the point of view of a member state and, presumably, from 1 November, a former member state. Where do we stand? What leverage do the Government propose to put on to Brazil and the neighbouring countries that have been mentioned? I will not be here in 40 years but perhaps my son will. I do not want him to be having the same argument that we are.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sorry if I repeat anything that another Member has said. It has been a good debate, with excellent contributions, and I will not push too many statistics. I have always been involved in environmental issues. Early in my career, before I got into Parliament, I started the Socialist Environment and Resources Association, and the first branch of Friends of the Earth in England and Wales, in Swansea. I also started a number of organisation such as Urban Minds. So I “do” the environment, in a sense, but I have obviously not done it very effectively. I have been in this place for 40 years and we have not woken up to the fact that we are destroying our fragile planet. We seem to be hell bent on destroying it.
I support most of the petition, but I think that the question is multifaceted. I have worked with Brazilians and other South Americans. I used to co-chair the British-Brazilian all-party parliamentary group, and I started a charity in Peru working on rural and urban development, giving jobs to young people in Lima and the countryside. I know that those are not primitive, backward people. They are highly intelligent and clever. Often they are absolutely let down by bad governance, but they are talented. They have talented scientists. Some of the best technological and scientific innovation takes place in Brazil. It was one of the best competitors in the aircraft industry—a pretty sophisticated industry. Brazil has enormous talent and I sometimes wonder why we do not reach out to that talent more effectively.
I get fed up, and I think the time is coming when the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association must wake up to the fact that getting on planes and going to visit and talk to other parliamentarians is something of the past. Some colleagues will not like that, but we must develop new techniques for parliamentarians across the globe to work together. We can do it by clever video conferences and the social media potential is enormous. We should reflect on that as parliamentarians. We often say “It’s the Government.” In an intervention on the very good speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), I mentioned the appearance of the Brazilian Environment Minister on the BBC World Service this morning, which I thought was very poor. However, other major influences are also poor. I work with a number of Brazilian legislators on reducing road deaths in Brazil—a very big killer—so I know about international working.
Mark Menzies
What a great and powerful contribution from the hon. Gentleman. I encourage him to renew his interest in not only the IPU, but the all-party parliamentary group on Latin America, because we engage on many of the issues that he has talked about, and with that knowledge and expertise he would make a very valuable new member.
Mr Sheerman
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much; I will revisit my level of activity in the group.
When I speak to clever Brazilians, they say to me, “But look what you’ve done to the world. You’ve deforested Europe. At present you are probably despoiling the quality of soil right across Europe and in the UK. You are doing dreadful things that are awful for the environment as well.” When we look at the facts of the matter, we are exporting some of the worst chemicals for people all over the world to put on their land. Indeed, in my own constituency, Syngenta makes weed-killers that it cannot sell in Europe, but it exports them beyond Europe. We should have a conscience about what we are exporting, the soil degradation that we are causing and the fact that we must prove to the Brazilians that we are concerned about climate change worldwide.
I have been inspired by the young people. I have 12 grandchildren. Four of them live in Cambridge and a couple of them have been leaders in the climate change campaign. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge brought one of my granddaughters, Lola, up to meet the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). That shows how active we are on a cross-party basis.
I am inspired because young people have got it. Greta Thunberg, who we invited to this place, has galvanised the level of activity and interest. On the other side, I am inspired by the young people coming out. In Huddersfield the other day, we had a wonderful event in St George’s Square with great speakers. They were young people. It is young people who excite me, because they have got it, and things are changing.
Young people are changing what they eat, so there are more vegans. Two or three years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) got me to join the all-party parliamentary group on vegetarianism and veganism. I do not know that I am as good at pursuing that as she is, but I helped the group to be quorate on a particular day. The fact of the matter is that young people’s habits—what they eat, what they do, their impact on the environment—are changing fast.
My other inspiration is Professor Steve Jones of University College London, who has produced a book that I have just finished reviewing, “Here Comes the Sun”. If people want to know the real science, he is a Reith lecturer and one of the leading experts in the world. I say to hon. Members, “Read it. It is a hard read, but it tells the unvarnished truth about how we are destroying the climate.” This is not just about the species and the wonderful flora and fauna of the Amazon, but about the fact that the Amazon rainforest helps to regulate the weather globally. When are people going to wake up to the fact that these changes—these fires, these droughts, these floods—are related to climate change?
Of course, if we want to pick on anyone big and say, “It’s your fault, mate,” we should not pick just on the Brazilian leadership. We should look at north America and President Trump. If we want to know what has changed a lot of the attitudes in South America, it is the attitude of the President of the United States, which has changed dramatically from Obama to the present President.
Let us, first, recognise that our delicate, fragile planet is desperately in trouble, and that we will not hand on anything to our children and grandchildren if we do not act now, and act positively. That means sharing technology, science and innovation—including giving it to the Chinese. We do not do anything about the Chinese. The Chinese no longer have any bees. Their agriculture has been so intensive that they have to hand-pollinate, because they have killed all the bees in China. In north America they have killed most of the songbirds.
We must wake up to the urgency of what we face, but not then despair and say, “Oh, it’s all too difficult for us, we can’t tackle this.” We need good science, good technology, sharing of information, sharing of new methods of agriculture and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East said powerfully, new ways of consuming.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend makes a powerful speech. Had I appreciated that he was coming to the end of it, I would have backed off. He made the point about how informed young people are about consumption. He was talking about his grandchildren, and I am sure he is struck by how knowledgeable they are and how that knowledge and information is informing the decisions and choices that they make. That should be inspirational to all of us, as he suggests. Visiting various primary schools, I was amazed that so many children said, “We don’t eat those biscuits, because they have so much palm oil.” We are talking about Brazil and the impact on the rainforests there, but if we look at the rainforest fires in Indonesia, where there is widespread devastation and clearance for palm oil, which goes into so many of our foodstuffs, does he agree that this is a massive, global issue? Obviously we are talking about Brazil, but it is a wider thing across our globe.
Mr Sheerman
I am grateful for that helpful intervention. I will reiterate that my Bible has become Professor Steve Jones. Interestingly enough, he has been almost banned by the BBC. He told me that the trouble is that we cannot get a decent debate on climate change on radio or television, because the BBC has this daft idea of balance. Steve cannot get on, as a leading professor and scientist, because apparently they cannot find anyone better qualified than Nigel Lawson to provide balance. He is almost banned from the BBC because he knows too much. What a crazy world! The fact of the matter is that we know what is happening, we know about the science and we know that we have the keys if we share information.
We as parliamentarians are too often lazy. We should not be getting on planes. There is a group of us who are working together on how, deep into the 21st century, we can communicate with other legislators around the world in a positive and supportive way. If anyone would like to join that group with me, I will be holding a meeting this coming Wednesday.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Moon. I congratulate the more than 100,000 signatories to this petition, because it seems that more and more it is the people outside who bring the most pertinent discussions to this House.
We are having a good discussion. I am happy to acknowledge what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), and his enthusiasm, which I share, that if we put our mind to it, there are solutions to the climate crisis and we must not be gloomy. We hear increasingly about people who get really depressed about the future, especially young people. That, on top of the challenge that we have, will be devastating if we allow it to continue. The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) is leaving the Chamber, but it was a particular pleasure to listen to what he was saying.
One of my favourite films is “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”. Hon. Members may remember how, at the end of the film, the committee is still debating and Brian is already on the cross. That is what we often do: we debate and debate, and we do not acknowledge the emergency that is actually before us. I share the impatience of everybody who has been demonstrating today and who will continue to demonstrate outside with Extinction Rebellion.
Like the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), I became a member of Greenpeace—more than 30 years ago, in Germany. This is not a new thing. We knew about it, yet what have we done about it? If anything, we will have to justify to future generations the fact that we knew about this. The chair of the Committee on Climate Change said that we have a “moral duty”, because we know what to do about it, so let us do it.
That is the impetus, and that is the response that I would like to see from the Government. There is an emergency. We know what to do about it. Let us not just say, “Well, we have already done quite a lot.” We have definitely not done enough. That is what these debates are all about. I hope that we can find a cross-party consensus on the fact that it an emergency and that we need to do a lot more. It is a massive challenge; young people are reminding us how big the challenge is. We do not want to be depressed about it, but we need to do a lot more.
I must say that I take a slightly grim view of the Brazilian Government. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, deforestation actually slowed down between 2004 and 2014, or 2013—I cannot quite remember the figures—but it is increasing again, which is disappointing. If we could do that between 2004 and 2012, we need to look at why it has gone backwards. These are the questions that we have to ask ourselves.
Deforestation in the Amazon is a global crisis. The Amazon is the largest carbon dioxide sink in the world; it captures and stores a huge amount of CO2, doing the heavy lifting for all of us in the fight to stop the looming climate crisis. During the summer, reports emerged about the huge expansion of Amazon rainforest fires. Although wildfires are seasonal and play a role in regenerating wildlife, the fires raging in the Amazon rainforest were much larger than usual. If the Brazilian Government continue to ignore the extent of the damage, those fires will pose a serious threat to the Amazon biome.
I understand the argument that it is a bit rich for us to pontificate if we have, in the past, also deforested and if our economies ultimately profit from what is happening elsewhere in the world. However, responsible Governments see that there has to be something like a carrot and a stick, and I think we need to apply a bit of a stick, not just a carrot. We need global co-operation if we are to have any chance of keeping the rise in global temperatures below 1.5° C. If we continue on this trajectory, global temperatures are currently predicted to rise by about 3° C. That is just not acceptable, and we cannot be complacent. If we fail, we will face an irreversible climate crisis, which evidence suggests will destroy ecosystems, cause the extinction of thousands of species and displace much of the world’s population.
This is one of the wider political problems. The climate crisis and catastrophe will affect the world disproportionately. Some countries, particularly in the northern hemisphere, will be okay—Britain will probably be one of them—but what about Africa and the southern hemisphere? If we think globally, and if we believe that we cannot just let other countries sink into the ocean or have intolerable temperatures so that they cannot sustain human life, our response has to be urgent. It is our global moral responsibility to act, and so far I do not think that the Government have really woken up to this emergency.
The only way we can stop this is by everyone, on every level, doing their bit, from individuals to international bodies that represent groups of nations. Brazilian President Bolsonaro, it seems, has so far shown no interest in averting the climate catastrophe or in putting forward some climate action. I will be very political here: he is a populist leader who uses environmental chaos, social instability and economic disruption for his own political gain. He has no regard for the long-term implications of rainforest destruction. It would be naive to think that Bolsonaro turns a blind eye only for short-term financial success. Burning down the rainforests and literally fuelling the climate crisis is consistent with his disruptive political agenda. It matters that we stand up to these populist leaders who seek to divide people, not only for the people of this world but for the planet.
I fully agree with the petition, signed by 122,578 people across the UK. We cannot afford to sit on the fence and let other countries do the work. If the Government are serious about reaching net zero and about preserving our environment for future generations, we must do more now. Liberal Democrat MEPs have been playing a central role within the EU in challenging Mr Bolsonaro’s policy and in working with other EU partners to figure out how to challenge his destructive agenda. I take the point of the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) that it is no good only to impose sanctions. However, the European Union, which is usually very good on international co-operation, has proposed this path, and I believe that the British Government should fall in line and do the same and really put some stick into their actions towards the Brazilian Government.
International pressure is the way to build incentives for Brazil to protect its rainforest and step up in the fight against the climate crisis. This is where our membership of the EU is central, allowing us to lead the fight against populism and climate destruction. By promising to leave the EU on 31 October, the Government are recklessly putting the UK out into the cold, where our power and influence will be much diminished. The fight to reach net zero and save our planet for future generations will be the biggest challenge we have ever faced. We owe it to future generations to act and do something now.
Matt Western
The hon. Lady makes some powerful points. Does she agree—the point was made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)—that this is almost like a double whammy? It is not just the fact that we depend on these international organisations to oversee and to show responsibility for these challenges, which are multinational, not national, and that leaving the EU will make things so much tougher for us. To underline the point, as the hon. Member for Winchester was saying, it is also about where we see ourselves, and the opportunities and challenges, and perhaps the threats, of doing global trade deals and free trade agreements with countries such as Brazil when we are in a weaker position. There will be a hint of desperation about our trying to strike an early deal with them. We may seek to get exports to them, but are we prepared to take more beef from them, which of course comes at the expense of the rainforest? Does she agree that it is not simply about international organisations but also our future trade arrangements and the power we have or do not have in them?
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Again, who do we see ourselves to be in the world? Will we support nationalist Governments who, ultimately, when it really becomes difficult, will put up fences, pull up the drawbridge and not let people in anymore, saying, “Well, we are okay; sod everybody else”? Sorry, Mrs Moon.
International solidarity and our humanity demand of us to act globally and not just to do things in our national interest. I have always believed that being a member of the European Union is part of that attitude of being global and thinking co-operatively, not only in our own national interest. Of course, national interest matters, and everybody can discover their national interest at some point, but it is very dangerous to think in that way. We have to solve global challenges globally and be a good global player, and wow, hasn’t Britain been leading the way internationally for so many decades? I have become a proud British citizen because I believe in that sort of Britain, not in a small-minded, narrow Britain.
We cannot get there without global action, and we must respond with one voice when a leader like Bolsonaro fails to take the climate crisis seriously. I hope that the Minister will take on board what has been said so far this afternoon.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. As we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Winchester (Steve Brine), we have a real crisis on our hands.
Although Parliament did declare a climate emergency, “emergency” seems to have slipped from the lexicon, so it is really important that we in the debate ensure that the Government hear very clearly their responsibility not just for our generation but for future generations, and not just for our nation but as a global partner, to ensure that we get this right. After all, it is only a fleeting time that we are on this planet, and we therefore carry such a huge responsibility, not least in being elected to this place, to ensure that we do absolutely everything within our power to make sure that we address the climate injustice that we see at this time.
As has already been described, the Amazon basin sits there as home and habitat to unique biospheres, and the accelerating pace at which it is being degraded, under the leadership of Mr Bolsonaro, is of real concern. I therefore believe that we in Parliament have a responsibility to put pressure on leaderships where they fail. We speak so much about how we have such global influence—I have heard it in debate after debate since being in the House—but unless we use it, it is futile.
We recognise the progress that Brazil has made in setting stringent targets for itself and moving towards those. However, if it is now regressing, as seems to be the case, all of that is tokenistic and we therefore have a serious responsibility not only to get to grips with the issues before us, but to ensure that other countries do likewise, in solidarity with us, and to apply the appropriate pressure—leverage—and put our power in the right place to ensure that Brazil falls into line. The same applies to many other countries where we are also seeing deforestation.
We must remind ourselves that of the 7 million sq km of the Amazon basin, 5.5 million sq km are covered by rainforest, of which 60% is in Brazil, so Brazil is significant in this debate. One in 10 species lives in the Amazon, and a quarter of terrestrial species. It accounts for half the world’s tropical forest area. Thirty-four million people also live there, and 385 indigenous groups depend on its resources. We have not heard about the people in this debate, but it is vital that we protect their environment, the environment in which they live, as opposed to seeing them moved out of places where for generations they have respected and treated with such kindness and diligence their local environment.
Of course, South America is such an incredible carbon store but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, we are seeing the loss of the equivalent of 5.7 football pitches every minute. That must wake us up. It is worth repeating until they are etched on our minds the statistics for the scale of devastation that we are seeing.
That is why Brazil’s commitment at COP 24 was so significant. It stated that carbon emissions were to decrease by 37% by 2025 and 43% by 2030. It is extremely alarming that we have heard that President Bolsonaro wants to withdraw from the Paris agreement. At COP 24, it was stated that 94 million more hectares in the key biomes would be protected; that was on top of the 335 already protected areas.
We are seeing regression. We are seeing Bolsonaro looking the other way. The first part of 2019 has seen an 88% rise in the rate of deforestation. The New Scientist reported that in July alone—just one month; 31 days— 3,700 sq km were lost. And there has been an 84% increase in fires compared with the same period just one year previously—77,000 fires have been recorded in satellite data.
We have not taken our eye off the ball, but we cannot do nothing at this time and just comment, as we are doing today in this Chamber; we have to act. The facts can no longer be hidden. We see the propaganda machines come out to challenge the figures, but technology itself is telling the story for us.
We have seen the rise in agricultural activity, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East highlighted. I am referring to the beef industry, soy, logging, mining, land speculation—the buying up of this vital habitat—and urban development on core sites. Of course, this is driven not just by internal politics, but by international trade, financing and political determinations. And it is all happening at a time when enforcement agencies in Brazil are being stripped of their funding and their ability to act.
Matt Western
May I intervene on the point about international agencies and enforcement? My hon. Friend mentioned logging. Does she share my concern and my belief that at this time there is an opportunity through the United Nations and CITES—the convention on international trade in endangered species—to ensure that there are greater controls over not just the logging, but the markets and the opportunities to sell the timber products around the world? We are seeing rosewood, teak and so on being lost, for all sorts of things—garden furniture and other products—which is really unnecessary in this era. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and my belief that through the UN and CITES we should be putting an absolute stop to that, so that there is no market?
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the role of CITES and the UN. I shall highlight some other ways in which I believe we could bring pressure to bear in order to protect this habitat. The fact that goods can be traded, and across the agricultural sector as well, means that we have a serious problem. When we start seeing the label “Brazil”, we have to be able to make inquiries as to where things have been sourced. The same applies to places elsewhere in the world. When I was a shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, I was looking at the labelling that we have on all our products, because the right labelling is essential. Our inquiring minds should not have to go and research everything that we purchase; we should be able easily to access data to understand the source. We might make different consumption choices if that were the case.
This is not just another problem in another country on a far-off continent; this is where 15% of global terrestrial photosynthesis takes place. We think of the rainforest as the lungs of our planet, sequestering carbon and driving climate, precipitation and weather systems. Our battle with climate deterioration is caught up in the Amazon story. Events that happen in the UK are the result of what is happening across the Amazon, so our actions at this time really matter. Whether in the Amazon, Borneo and Indonesia, west Africa or the US, the pace of deforestation is alarming, and actions to respond to that will provide real resistance to climate degradation.
COP 24 was a hopeful moment. However, we are all realistic enough to know that unless we see global action taken, the Paris accord will be futile. I do not belittle the agreements, such as the tropical forest alliance, to which the UK is a signatory, and I urge the Government to use greater influence within these alliances for global action. Nor do I belittle the drops of money that we have placed in the ocean needed to tackle the global climate catastrophe. But it is clear that the political and financial relationships of the UK and global partners also have a significant role to play.
As the UK this summer launched a new trade facilitation programme with Brazil to support exports to the UK, I ask the Minister how that has specifically brought pressure to bear on Mr Bolsonaro to change his approach. What efforts are being made in the City and, no doubt, UK pension funds and investments to withdraw from companies exploiting the Amazon region? Where is the market transparency? Where are we seriously lessening the demand for products, ranging from minerals to meat, to take away the case for destroying our rainforests?
Mark Menzies
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is really important that we encourage the City of London, for example, to invest in ethical funds, particularly those seeking to unleash the huge potential that I alluded to in my speech with regard to renewable energy, particularly offshore wind, for which Brazil’s coastline is unmatched in terms of ability to produce?
Rachael Maskell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I listened carefully to his speech. Across the globe there is so much untapped resource with which we could transform our energy market. It is really important that we look at that seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield referred to the talent within Brazil to bring about such a transformation. It does not necessarily have to come from the UK; it could come from Brazil as well. It could bring transformation to the whole region. I agree that there are real opportunities. As we look to green new deals, we do not want to see them just in the UK; we want to see them spring up across the world.
However, we do have a role in applying leverage over the protection of natural resources; otherwise, our battle with the climate will be lost. Real climate justice must be rooted in making the connection between politics, finance and climate change. Where harm is occurring in one corner of the world, the consequences will be felt by us all, and of course the least resilient will feel them the most. Therefore, we cannot deal with this issue just as nation states, or see it as our responsibility just to have jurisdiction over our country. These are global issues, and as internationalists it is vital that we address them globally.
We cannot afford not to apply that leverage. The cost of climate degradation to the UK and to developing countries—through global inequality, population migration, flood and famine—is too great. The UK boasts of its place in the global economic market, but unless we use our power to force change, we will be complicit with the actions of Bolsonaro.
This petition, signed by 303 of my constituents, calls for trade sanctions, one measure among many to pressurise the Brazilian Government. The Government’s response to the petition was woeful. It stated:
“The United Kingdom will continue to monitor the situation in the Amazon closely”.
How will that help? They talk about “dialogue with Brazil”—really? We are currently part of the UN and the EU. How are we using our leverage to ensure that those responsible for not only Amazon deforestation but the wider global climate crisis are held to account?
[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]
Paris was a landmark agreement, but with Bolsonaro wanting to withdraw, and the UK Government well off target for meeting their fourth and fifth carbon budgets, it is clear that declarations are not enough; global leverage is now needed. When atrocities are committed, we have an international process of justice in The Hague to deal with those responsible through the International Court of Justice. However, the millions who are affected by climate degradation have no such seat of justice.
If we leave the EU, we will see the powers of the EU courts removed and, short of the environment Bill filling the deficit, accountability over pollution and environmental destruction will be severely weakened. The UN may pass resolutions, which are valued, but the leverage it applies is all too weak. The likes of Bolsonaro will be able to laugh at the UN, the EU and the UK, unless we first apply a comprehensive approach of political, trade and financial sanctions.
Further, in the light of the climate crisis, we must seriously explore the leverage we can apply through a system of global justice to those who breach global agreements, whether a signatory to them or not. The level of devastation to our climate is so significant that it demands an international judicial approach, with powers to strip assets from companies that breach international agreements and political Administrations that enable them to do so. We have a role in shaping the future and leading the world in these matters, and I want to hear what the Minister will do to that end. I know that we cannot sit back and wait. We need innovative and harsh solutions to tackle the crisis that we are facing.
I want to end by reflecting on the climate strikes, and the words of one boy who spoke in York. His speech was very short. As he got up and left his class to join the climate strikers, his teacher called out, “What difference are you going to make as one person?” He said, “Let’s see” and walked out of the room. He spoke at that climate strike and I spoke to him. I am now speaking to the Minister. Let’s see what difference that boy can make, as well as the thousands of young people who have come out on to the streets, the people protesting from Extinction Rebellion and the global movement that is building today. Let’s see how the Minister responds. Let us hope that we can really address this climate emergency and put real measures in place that will transform this very serious situation today.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Members who have spoken in favour of this motion. I was particularly taken by the speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), as well as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). They all spoke eloquently about the need for urgent action, and I agree wholeheartedly with their support for the petition.
I would like to address two key points, which have been mentioned but perhaps need some further emphasis: first, the scale of the challenge; and, secondly, the need for an urgent response. It is vital to consider where we are with climate change, to look at the term “climate emergency” and consider what it really means, and then to look at the range of potential responses available to Governments around the world.
Regarding the science of climate change, it is fair to say—without being an expert, but as a relatively well-informed observer—that we are approaching a serious tipping point. I do not say that lightly. It is really clear from the evidence from the UN reports, and other independent science from a range of universities and other scientific bodies around the world, that the climate faces a tipping point.
That is not a small tweak or a little change, but a fundamental change. It means that we are on a path to the destruction of humanity on this planet, because of the rising proportion of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere which cause or facilitate climate change. As humans, we are ultimately responsible for that process. The data is clear on the number of warm years recently, and the amount of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere, which has been measured since the 1950s. The link with climate change is clear.
We now sit on the edge of the abyss, and we have to do something about that. I think that it is perfectly reasonable and responsible to do so, given the situation that we now face, which is demonstrated by the melting and the threat of melting of great ice sheets—not just of relatively modest areas of ice, but of the West Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet—which would dramatically increase the sea level around the world, and which would lead to large parts of the planet being uninhabitable, including in parts of Great Britain. Many coastal cities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and towns next to rivers, such as Reading and Woodley in my constituency, could be very seriously affected by this level of change. Admittedly, that would be over many decades, but it would mean saying to our children in our old age, “We failed, and we failed very seriously.”
In that context, I think it is perfectly reasonable for protestors outside, and for us in this House, to use the term “climate emergency”. We should not shy away from it. I am sure the Minister will address that with the level of gravity that this serious situation demands. That is my first point. I am grateful to colleagues who made points clearly in support of that and highlighted the particular issues in Brazil, where the Amazon is greatly important. It is a huge carbon sink, but it is under threat from the dreadfully irresponsible fires, which the Government of Brazil have so wrongly allowed to take place.
My second point is on a different note, but it addresses the first one. There is a need for urgent and sustained action. It is the duty of all Governments around the world, of whatever political colour, to join together and take that action now. The same goes for private individuals, companies, charities and schools. In whatever human organisation, we need to change our behaviour, whether that is by eating less meat, driving less or cycling rather than driving. There is a series of measures that we can all take in our daily lives.
As people in the developed world, we should not shy away from taking a clear stance with people in the developing world, however awkward that might seem. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) about the need to engage with civil society in Brazil, but we can do that by reinforcing the voices of those in Brazil who are calling for change and addressing the deep mistakes of that Government. In that context, this petition is absolutely right and we should take it seriously. I hope the Minister will address it and take it on. I urge him to take the matter very seriously, to leave no stone unturned and to consider this form of action. We should not take this potential policy lightly; it is necessary, given the situation, and I urge him to address the matter clearly.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank all who have spoken. Everyone pointed in the same direction: urgent action is needed now. I thank those who initiated and added their signature to this petition. I believe there are more than 122,000 signatories, many hundreds of whom are from my city of Dundee. They have enabled us to have this important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for his insightful and informative speech, which opened the good debate we have had so far.
As many other hon. Members have noticed, it is particularly fitting that we are having this debate as Extinction Rebellion begins its two-week protest in and around Westminster. Last Friday, a couple of its members came to see me to discuss what they should do while they are outside this week. I said, “The most important thing is to pressurise each and every one of your MPs to speak,” but I am afraid to say that although there are great speakers here, this Chamber is frankly not as ram-packed as it should be.
Extinction Rebellion has been clear that human activity is causing irreparable harm to life on this planet, and that we face a global climate emergency and mass extinction as a result. That is happening both here in the UK and across the planet, and the current situation in the Amazon is a sad illustration. The continued deforestation of the Amazon rainforest will only exacerbate the climate emergency that we face and accelerate the loss of species that we should be protecting.
The protection of the Amazon rainforest is of global importance. In simple terms, the Amazon rainforest serves as the lungs of our planet. It accounts for 15% of global terrestrial photosynthesis, absorbing huge amounts of carbon dioxide every year. At a time when we are acutely aware of the need to remove CO2 from our atmosphere, it is dangerously counterproductive to risk the future of our planet by recklessly damaging a vital global resource.
More than 30 million people live in the Amazon, including between 300 and 400 indigenous groups. After my university studies in social anthropology, I had the opportunity to spend some time in the Amazon and listen to some of the many secrets and lessons that people have learned from living there. For many of them, the rainforest is not just their home; it is the home of their ancestors, it defines their daily lives and it is integral to their culture. Those people, who have lived and breathed the Amazon for generations, are the most likely to suffer as their needs are overlooked and their environment is destroyed in favour of the interests of those pursuing profit and economic growth regardless of the consequences.
Furthermore, the Amazon has an incredibly rich ecosystem, which we have a duty to protect. The rainforest contains one in 10 known species on Earth, including 40,000 plant species, 3,000 varieties of fish, and 1,300 types of bird. As the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) mentioned, there are medicines there waiting to be discovered, many of which may be life-saving. All of that is under threat from deforestation. The simple but sad fact is that once we destroy these species, we will never get them back. We must not let that happen. It should be unthinkable that future generations will grow up without such biodiversity in one of the world’s natural wonders, but without serious action we risk losing this vital asset, with devastating consequences.
We will have all seen the shocking images of fires in the Amazon rainforest over the summer; more than 30,000 were recorded in August alone. That has prompted much of the recent discussion on deforestation—a huge problem in the Amazon over the past 50 years, during which 17% of the forest cover has been devastated. We are all familiar with the reasons for deforestation: the expansion of extensive cattle farming and timber plantations, the increase of oil, gas and mining operations, and the construction of large-scale infrastructure projects such as big dams and roads.
Between 2004 and 2012, large-scale voluntary commitments, regulatory reforms and the creation of protected areas helped to result in a dramatic drop in deforestation in the Amazon; in 2012 Brazil recorded its lowest deforestation rate in the past 20 years. That would have been something to be proud of if the trend had not reversed since then, troublingly: deforestation began to rise again in 2016, and the rate of damage and loss over the past two years is higher than it was 20 years ago.
It is clear that we have not been vigilant enough in protecting our rainforests, and it appears that 2019 has been a particularly bad year. Deforestation rates in June were 88% higher than in June 2018, and according to preliminary satellite data, the losses in the first seven months of 2019 were 16% above the recent high of 3,183 sq km lost in 2016. We are witnessing disaster unfold before our eyes.
What is most troubling is the attitude of the Brazilian President, Jair Bolsonaro. We know that he is sceptical about actions to curb climate change and that he wanted to pull Brazil out of the Paris climate change accord. He has spoken of the Amazon as a “virgin” that should be “exploited” for agriculture, mining and infrastructure projects. When Brazil’s institute for space research revealed the extent of deforestation this summer, he said that the numbers were fake, dismissed international concerns as sensationalist and sacked the head of the institute.
Bolsonaro’s stripping back of protections and anti-environmental rhetoric have clearly encouraged those who wish the deforestation of the Amazon for their own gain. Worryingly, they appear to be becoming something of a global pattern, with Bolsonaro following in the climate change-denying, anti-environmental footsteps of President Trump. Each President scorns the need to protect the environment, undermines the Paris agreement and is willing to sacrifice precious resources, which will only embolden the next populist leader elsewhere intent on dismissing the scientific evidence in front of us, turning their back on collective responsibility and refusing to take on the environmental challenge that we all face in favour of furthering their own short-term, narrow interests regardless of the consequences.
We must have a means to fight back against those attitudes and actions. Trade wars are in no-one’s best interest, but we must keep every option open to combat deforestation and the climate emergency. My SNP colleague in the European Parliament, Alyn Smith, has joined other MEPs across the member states in writing to the European Commission to urge it to make implementation of the Paris agreement on climate change a precondition for any country that wants to conclude a trade agreement with the European Union. Additionally, Ireland’s Taoiseach and France’s President have said that they will attempt to block the Mercosur trade agreement if Brazil continues to ignore its environmental commitments.
The UK Government should listen seriously to those words. They cannot continue with business as usual while Bolsonaro presides over the destruction of the Amazon. The deforestation of the Amazon is a global issue that requires a global response. It is evident that economic development will always trump environmental protection in the eyes of Brazil’s current President, and the UK cannot indulge and seek to benefit from Bolsonaro’s desire for growth and trade while the Amazon rainforest is sacrificed. In any future trade talks with Brazil, what provisions will be made to disincentivise deforestation and ensure that goods that originate from illegally cleared land in the Amazon do not form part of any trade deal or find a way into the UK? We need a crystal-clear answer from the Minister today about the UK Government’s plans.
Furthermore, it is imperative that we act not only as defenders of the environment, but as defenders of human rights. Bolsonaro has stated that “not a centimetre” more of land will be demarcated for indigenous reserves, and has transferred responsibility for delineating indigenous territories from the Justice Ministry to the Agriculture Ministry, which means putting people among cattle as if they were one and the same. That was seen by many people as a concession to the agriculture industry and an expression of his desire to pursue the expansion of agriculture at the expense of the rights of indigenous people—one lawmaker described it as
“letting the fox take over the chicken coop.”
Ensuring the territorial rights of indigenous peoples is an urgent imperative. What efforts are the UK Government making to ensure that those rights are protected? The protection of the Amazon cuts across foreign policy, trade policy and international development policy, so there must be coherence among the relevant Departments in how the UK tackles the ongoing problem of Amazon deforestation and of global climate change and environmental degradation more generally. As we know, policy coherence across the UK Government has been left wanting, so what steps are being taken to ensure policy coherence to tackle this hugely important problem in the short and medium term?
Throughout this debate, I have been reminded of the passionate words of Greta Thunberg at the UN last month:
“People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.”
Nothing exemplifies that more than the deforestation of the Amazon. It is one of the great tragedies of our time, and we must do everything we possibly can to stop it spiralling out of control.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is very nice to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on his excellent and comprehensive introduction to the debate.
I am grateful to everyone who initiated and signed the petition, because it relates to a crucial problem for us all. As colleagues have said, it is appropriate that we are debating it while Extinction Rebellion is demonstrating outside. I find it incredible that some people seem to think that the big problem is that Westminster bridge is blocked. The big problem is that the Amazon has been on fire! We need to get these things in proportion.
The Amazon fires over the summer were not accidental or natural. They were lit deliberately, and they destroyed 7,000 square miles of forest. The situation is particularly worrying because once a large amount of forest is destroyed, we will get feedback mechanisms and we will not be able to control what goes on. Avoiding such a feedback mechanism here is one of the most important things that we must do, because every year the Amazon rainforest absorbs a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted across the whole world. That tells us that fires in the Amazon are not a Brazilian problem or a Latin American problem; they are our problem and everybody’s problem, and we need to own the problem and tackle it in that spirit.
I am disappointed with the Government’s tip-toeing approach, which suggests to me that they do not really understand the seriousness of the problem. I do not know why Government Ministers do not understand it; my constituents do. Di Murphy, who has set up Bishop Auckland Climate Action, understands it. Even 10-year-old Meredith Lambert Sams, who invited me to her primary school last week, understands it.
I went to Cotherstone Primary School on Friday and I was asked a lot of questions by the extremely well-informed children. The most worrying question came from a boy who said to me, “What I don’t understand is why proper action hasn’t been taken already.” I have to say that I was quite stumped by that, because it is not as if we have not known about this situation for 10 years, 20 years or 50 years. How bad does it have to get before we take proper action? There is absolutely no longer any room for complacency whatsoever. We only have 12 years now, and we have to sort this out.
We are really concerned about the Amazon because of the impact it has on the climate, and that is the priority. However, I will just remind people of the Amazon’s biodiversity, because we do not inhabit this globe alone; we do so alongside other species. The Amazon is one of the Earth’s last refuges for jaguars, harpy eagles, pink dolphins, two-toed sloths, pygmy marmosets, saddleback and emperor tamarins, and Goeldi’s monkeys. There are also thousands of birds, butterflies and other insects there. When we think about looking after the planet, we have to do so not only for ourselves, but for all the marvellous range of biodiversity that currently exists.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) has left the Chamber. He said that he was very concerned and that we should not implement trade sanctions, because we should have a more collaborative approach with the indigenous people. I think he has not read the petition, which says:
“Indigenous people have called for the EU to impose trade sanctions on Brazil to halt the deforestation because they fear genocide.”
The indigenous people of the Amazon have been living there in a sustainable way for generations. the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) is right that with modern science we can use the resources of the Amazon in new and creative ways, particularly in medicine. However, we need to be very careful about behaving as if we are the experts and the indigenous people do not know what they are doing, because it is clear that their way of life does not destroy the Amazon in the way that ours does.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made an excellent speech about the exploitation of forests and the urgent need for us to cut our meat consumption. When she and I first discussed the issue three years ago, I thought she was being a bit zany, but I have been totally persuaded that she has a strong case and that we need to think about this issue and act on it, both as individuals and as a nation. We need to move from talking about the situation to taking action, and some actions are particularly pertinent in this context.
The petition calls for trade sanctions, and we have had quite a lot of debate about whether we need to collaborate or have trade sanctions. I am not sure that that is necessarily a choice. Let us look at a connected area of public policy. Of course we put money into universities to finance research and development, but we also have laws to protect people’s intellectual property. We can have a “both/and” approach. We can collaborate, but we need to have sanctions for when things go wrong.
As my hon. Friend did, I will refer to a debate that I initiated a few years ago and a speech that I made at that time. We had a debate before the Paris summit; it was a Backbench Business Committee debate in the main Chamber. Everybody was saying, “Oh, it’s all going to be absolutely marvellous, because everybody’s going to turn up and they will volunteer their contributions, and that’s the way to get everybody on board, and it will all be absolutely marvellous.” I stood up and said—I am afraid that people thought I was zany then—“This is no good, because these commitments are not legally binding, and if they’re not legally binding how can we be confident that we are going to meet the targets that we have to meet? The science is not going to change, and we know how much carbon we must not burn. Therefore, we need to make commitments that will achieve the scientific objective, and they need to be legally binding.” Legally binding commitments mean that there is a penalty for countries that do not abide by them.
We should think about other areas of international law where there are penalties for countries that do not fulfil their obligations, and we should borrow our experience from other areas of international law and—“adapt” is not the right word—use them in the area of the environment. I will give an example. When Russia invaded Ukraine, we imposed sanctions. We were appalled by that invasion, and we thought it was absolutely dreadful. However, when Canada left Kyoto, we took no action whatsoever. Now Bolsonaro is behaving in an utterly irresponsible way, as hon. Members have set out, but we are proposing to take no action. That is not serious, and we need to get serious about this issue. We need to have legally binding international agreements.
One of my asks of the Minister today is this: before Ministers go to Chile for the next round of international negotiations, and while they are considering what the format and structure should be, we need to have a proper and clear legal base. We need to move away from voluntaryism and towards legally binding treaties.
As colleagues have already said, the danger in the Mercosur deal is that if we cut tariffs on beef, we incentivise the destruction of the rainforest by Brazil and the other Latin American countries, so that we become complicit in that destruction. I raised this issue with the Minister in the main Chamber at Foreign Office questions. He said that he did not think I was right about this issue, because he thought that cutting tariffs was good for the poorest people, including farmers on the lowest incomes, in Brazil. I am afraid I do not believe that argument, because we see in this petition that the indigenous people—they are the poorest people in Brazil—want tougher action. We have also seen that with large-scale ranching, large agribusinesses and multinational companies make the profits. The Minister really needs to rethink that argument. We need to line up with France, Ireland and other countries, and say no. A trade deal must be done on the basis that it is consistent with Brazil’s—
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend is making a great and passionate speech. According to figures I have seen from the International Labour Organisation, some 62% of slave labour in Brazil is employed in livestock farming-related businesses. As she says, it is not the indigenous people who are benefiting from the trade, and people are being grossly exploited at its heart.
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and she brings me on to my next action. The fact of the matter is—we see this all over the world—that environmental destruction and human rights abuses are often going on in the same places at the same time, all jumbled up. We are seeing that here, too. That is one reason why I hope the Government will take a more sympathetic view than they do currently to the ongoing negotiations in Geneva on the UN binding treaty on transnational corporations and human rights. That treaty would put obligations on transnational corporations to respect human rights, and we could extend that to respecting environmental rights, too.
The No. 1 priority is not to sign a trade deal that will incentivise further destruction of the rainforest, but there are a range of things that the Minister could do. We are discussing the issue here, and the Pope is holding an Amazon synod in Rome. I was struck by what he said in opening the meeting on Saturday; it was appropriate and it set the problem in its context. In Rome, he has groups representing 400 indigenous communities alongside him. He said that we have to stop
“the greed of new forms of colonialism.”
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to attend this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on introducing it, and I congratulate all Members who have contributed on what they have said. It may be that we disagree on some of the solutions, but I do not think anyone will disagree with the passion and expertise that has been brought to the Chamber today. I will try to address as many as I can of the points that Members have raised, but to begin I will draw out two points.
The first relates to something that the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said. She mentioned some interesting diversification initiatives, and I am happy to talk to her about some of those. I was on the Energy and Climate Change Committee between 2010 and 2015, and I remember looking at the question of how best to increase awareness and change the choices that drive carbon emissions. We looked at whether it was possible to measure carbon emissions by production or whether it was better to do it by consumption, which Members have mentioned today.
The Committee’s finding was that to go down the route of measuring carbon emissions by consumption and imposing penalties or sanctions or modelling policy around that approach might risk trade conflict, which would hurt not only those who are consuming the goods, possibly in the west, but those who are producing them in low-wage developing economies. That was the view at the time.
I was also struck by the speech of my hon. Friend—I call him a friend—the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who gave a sad story of his poetic limitations. In fact, I thought he had gone away a moment ago to write yet another poem. He made reference to what our policy will be in the future, and he made a veiled reference to Mercosur and our attitude to it, which the hon. Members for Dundee West (Chris Law) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) also referenced. Mercosur will not be signed any time soon, and by the time it is, we will be out of the European Union and it will not be a trade agreement for us to sign. We will be free to develop and model our own trading agreements and arrangements, and how they look, what they feel like and what they smell like will be a matter for the British Government.
Whether there are environmental elements in those trade deals is still to be determined, but I believe—here, again, I take issue with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland—that when tariffs are imposed or are not removed, we hurt poor people. Tariffs on food tend to hurt the poorest, so I would support a wide-ranging free trading policy. I discourage her from channelling her inner protectionist and pursuing a policy that would hurt everybody, including her constituents and indigenous communities in the rainforest.
Christopher Pincher
Yes. I have only just begun; I have not even got on to my speech proper, rather like the hon. Member for Cambridge.
Steve Brine
I thank the Minister for addressing my point. I will not say this in prose, but obviously we will be outside of being a member state and that trade deal will be signed by the remaining members of the European Union. Were the Government to consider a trade deal with Brazil in the future, does the Minister agree that Brazil’s approach to tackling climate change should be a consideration that would be discussed by his colleagues in the Department for International Trade?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He said he will not speak in prose, but I will speak in plain verse: it is for Britain to decide what its trade policy and the models it applies in free trade agreements will be. That is a future decision for the Government to take. I am sure there will be debate on the matter across the House and through Government.
Christopher Pincher
I will give way on that point, and then I really have to get into my speech, otherwise we will be here until 7.30 pm.
Matt Western
I thank the Minister for giving way specifically on that point. He will know, as will others in the Chamber, that a Trade Bill has been sat on the shelf waiting for more than a year. I sat on the Trade Bill Committee. That Bill included certain protections, certain measures and certain bodies that would have had some say in how we should be constructing our trade deals, whether that was on an ethical basis or through such bodies as the trade remedies authority. Those sorts of things would have come into play. The concern that most people in this Chamber, in Parliament and across the country will have is that those sorts of protections will not be available because the Trade Bill will no longer exist.
Christopher Pincher
Assuming that Prorogation takes place tomorrow, the hon. Gentleman is right, but there will be a trade Bill or trade Bills in the future, where I am sure those issues can be re-addressed.
The fires that ravaged the Amazon rainforest over the summer were not only heartbreaking for the people of the region—we have heard some of the stories this afternoon—but were and are a concern for all of us who care about biodiversity and climate. In some places, the devastating surge in fires has followed a sharp rise in deforestation rates this year. As has been pointed out already, deforestation has been on the increase not since 2015, which is what I said in the Chamber—I must correct the record—but since 2012, which of course predates the Bolsonaro Government. It is clear that although the recent fires may have been exacerbated by low rainfall and in some cases by strong winds, a key cause remains the use of fire to clear the rainforest for agriculture.
In Brazil, as we have heard, record numbers of fires have occurred during this year’s dry season, prompting international concern and prompting President Bolsonaro to send more than 40,000 military personnel to the Amazon to bring the fires under control, but the effect remains unclear. It is worth pointing out something that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) alluded to: Bolivia has suffered a similar fate this summer.
Fires since August have destroyed nearly two million hectares of Bolivian forest, including in the Chiquitania, the largest dry forest on Earth. In response, President Morales and opposition parties suspended campaigning activities for their October presidential elections and the Government set up an emergency environmental cabinet in the affected area. Europe, the United States, Russia and Bolivia’s neighbours have provided the most help to bring the fires under control. British experts were among the first to offer assistance and to be deployed. Rains in the past week have begun to extinguish the fires. I mention Bolivia simply to remind all hon. Members that the problem is not simply a Brazilian one, so we cannot lay the blame at the door of the Brazilian Government and President. There are other reasons for the problems that the rainforest faces.
We respect absolutely the sovereignty of the countries of the region over the rainforest, but that sovereignty comes with a responsibility to protect and preserve that precious resource. Although it is regrettable that some Governments initially sought to play down the extent of the problem, we welcome the current and historic leadership shown by the region to address the fires: for example, the creation of the forest codes in Brazil, which legally require landowners in the Brazilian Amazon to maintain 80% of the land as forest. It is also worth pointing out that on 27 August, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Brazilian Foreign Minister, who made it clear that anyone setting fires in the rainforest will be prosecuted. In fact, prosecutions are under way and the penalties for such fires include imprisonment.
Last month at the regional summit hosted by President Duque of Colombia, seven regional leaders signed the Leticia pact for the Amazon. Leaders pledged to improve co-ordination to prevent and manage forest fires, share best practice, and develop initiatives to accelerate reforestation and build sustainable forest economies. We fully support that regionally-led initiative and stand ready to help. The United Kingdom Government are committed to working with Amazon countries to support efforts to protect and restore the Amazon rainforest. Over many years we have partnered with communities, businesses and state and national Governments in Brazil and the wider Amazon region to preserve and restore rainforests for the benefit of people and nature, and for our collective effort to tackle the threat of climate change. Since 2012—this is another point I made in the Chamber during Foreign Office questions—the United Kingdom Government have committed £120 million in international climate finance programmes operating to reduce deforestation in Brazil and a further £70 million in Colombia. That suggests we are doing a lot more than nothing. That investment generates benefits for the local environment, for local communities and for the global climate.
At the G7, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—helpfully trailed by the hon. Member for Cambridge —pledged a further £10 million for our international climate finance work to support the longer-term efforts to tackle deforestation in Brazil. That will expand an existing programme that supports the protection and restoration of Brazil’s rainforests, including areas affected by the recent fires.
Matt Rodda
I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. It is interesting to hear him tiptoe around some of the issues in this important debate. Given the scale of the challenge that we face across the world, does he feel that £10 million is enough money to deploy on this important issue?
Christopher Pincher
We are spending £120 million, not £10 million. The hon. Gentleman is a little ahead of me, but I will mention some rather larger figures as my speech develops.
It is important to build an international coalition around our ambition, so we have worked with Germany and Norway to mobilise $5 billion—there is the big number—between 2015 and 2020 to help reduce tropical deforestation in developing countries. Our support helps to improve the capacity of national and regional Governments to reduce deforestation. It incentivises the protection of forests, conserves a way of life for many unique indigenous groups, and enables businesses and communities to build sustainable economies without destroying tropical rainforests, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) eloquently described. He has now gone off to a Delegated Legislation Committee, which is why he is not here for the wind-ups.
One of our programmes supports indigenous Brazil nut collectors to cut out the middleman and sell directly to mainstream buyers. Perhaps that is not such a difficult nut to crack. Furthermore, as a result of our Cerrado programme in Brazil, 38,017 farmers were enrolled onto the rural land registry, representing some 861,000 hectares of land where sustainable practices have now been adopted.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the Minister really believe that the young impatient people out there, and the older impatient people, will find what he has said to be a satisfactory answer to all that we have just heard about this year being the most devastating for deforestation in the Amazon? The Government really need to do better. Does the Minister really think that the people out there who have been campaigning, and who will campaign for the next two weeks, will be satisfied with what he has just said?
Christopher Pincher
I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the people out on the streets of London campaigning about the impact of climate change, but it is better for us to work with economies such as Brazil’s, the ninth largest economy in the world, than to work against them in order to achieve the objectives that we all want, which is to see carbon emissions reduced, the rainforest restored and the poorest people get richer.
The United Kingdom is leading the world in the fight against rising temperatures, reducing our emissions by over 40% since 1990 and legislating for net zero emissions by 2050. We were one of the first major economies to do so. Since 1990, our economy has grown by 66%, so I disagree with those who suggest that there is a conflict between better trade, growth in economies and environmental concerns and calls for action.
Kerry McCarthy
Can I ask the Minister how this works in terms of co-operation between Government Departments? The other day in the Chamber, I asked the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about the things I highlighted in my speech today and she basically said it was an issue for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and not anything to do with her. I said, “It is because it is about climate change and that is your brief.” We also hear reports of Ministers in the Department for International Trade lobbying on behalf of BP at meetings in Brazil. On the other hand, we talk about reducing our fossil fuel use in this country, so there does not seem to be much joined-up working.
Christopher Pincher
That charge can be levelled at Governments of all stripes down the ages. Government Departments work together to try to achieve the right result in this arena. For example, BEIS officials are embedded in the COP 25 plan, and in that meeting, to ensure that it is handed over to us smoothly at COP 26, with objectives that can be taken up in the Italian-British conference of the parties.
As we have all alluded to, we cannot tackle this threat to our very existence on our own. Only through international co-operation can we protect our precious planet, and protecting forests is essential if we are to meet our global climate change goals. The Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change special report on global warming makes it clear that the preservation, restoration and sustainable management of forests is critical for limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.
Our global leadership on climate change helped us to win our bid to host COP 26 next year. We will make telling progress towards carbon-neutral global growth only if we act together as a global community. That means that we need to have all the countries in the Amazon onside. Brazil is particularly important on climate change and deforestation, and has a critical role to play as a partner. We must work together to find solutions, which is why we have an ongoing dialogue with Brazil on these issues at ministerial and official level.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs met last week with Brazil’s Environment Minister, Ricardo Salles, and she stressed the importance of efforts to halt deforestation. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to the Brazilian Foreign Minister, and I have met the Brazilian ambassador, Mr Arruda. We are committed to working with Brazil and other Amazon countries to tackle climate change and deforestation.
Rachael Maskell
I am listening carefully to the Minister’s speech, and to the diplomatic channels that the Government want to pursue to influence Brazil’s response to deforestation. However, could the Minister set out exactly what sanction or leverage they will apply? If talk is not enough and Brazil is determined to do something different, it seems that the exercise is quite futile.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I do not think that talk of sanctions will help the cause. Threatening Brazil will not encourage President Bolsonaro or his Government to talk with us about how we can collaboratively tackle the problem. It is better that we engage sensitively and sensibly than engage in megaphone diplomacy from afar.
We all care deeply about the future of our planet, and we are determined that COP 26 will deliver a greater ambition. It will promote tangible action to deliver the transformational change required by the Paris agreement. We are working closely with Chile to ensure a smooth handover from COP 25, as I described, and we firmly support Chile’s desire for an ambitious, blue COP 25 with a strong focus on oceans.
We remain committed to supporting the countries of the Amazon to tackle deforestation. Those countries will be vital allies in the fight against climate change. Brazil particularly, as home to 60% of the Amazon and 12% of the world’s forests, has a crucial role to play if we are to achieve our climate ambitions at COP 26 and beyond. If future climate negotiations are to succeed, we need to engage with Brazil and her neighbours positively and maintain a constructive dialogue, not shout at them from afar.
At the same time, the United Kingdom Government will continue to raise our concerns about deforestation and to support initiatives that protect the Amazon rainforest. Only through partnership and dialogue will we be able to preserve those precious tropical forests and avert the gravest forecasts of climate change. That is the responsible approach, the approach that will address the passions of the people outside the Chamber as well as within it, and the approach that the Government are determined to take.
Daniel Zeichner
Thank you, Sir Roger, for chairing the debate. We have had a full debate, during the course of which we have heard from, I think, five political parties. For much of the debate, I was greatly enthused and encouraged, because there was seemingly a lot of common ground. Some thorny issues, such as sovereignty, were raised by a number of people, including the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Winchester (Steve Brine). I think the emerging conclusion was that this is a global crisis and a global responsibility, in which we all have a role to play. Both Front-Bench spokespeople made powerful speeches with which I strongly agreed.
I was hoping that I would hear a positive, civilised and courteous response from the Minister, but I have to say that in policy terms, for me and I suspect for others, it was profoundly disappointing, not least because when invited to suggest that in future trade deals environmental considerations would be a key part, there was a stunning silence. The Minister said only that there would be trade deals. Well, they will not be very quick—we know that for sure—and we also know that there is an urgency about everything.
I did not hear even a suggestion of criticism of the Brazilian Government, which would not be very hard to do given their record. Of course, they will watch the debate and hear what we say, so it is important that our contributions are measured and constructive. However, we must also say very clearly to people on the global stage who are damaging our climate and planet that that will not go unchallenged. Frankly, I am deeply disappointed, as the petitioners and the people outside surely are, to hear that our Government are so weak in their response. The conclusion I have come to is that the Government are not part of the solution; frankly, they are part of the problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 266638 relating to deforestation in the Amazon.
House of Lords
Asylum Seekers: Employment
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the length of time asylum seekers have to wait before being permitted to undertake paid employment.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this is an important and complex issue, which we need to consider in detail. As the Prime Minister has said, the Home Office is currently reviewing the matter, and we are continuing productive discussions with partners, listening carefully to the arguments and considering the evidence put forward on the issue.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
Can I ask the Minister why, when other countries manage to hold their asylum seekers only for three months or perhaps for six months without being able to work, we keep them for 12 months before we allow them to work? What is the reason? These are people of great skills, and I meet many of them in different ways; some are ministers, there are teachers and there are engineers. They have many skills that we could use to our advantage here in the UK.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I do not doubt that asylum seekers have a range of skills; just because they are asylum seekers, it does not mean they do not possess skills. But it is important to distinguish those who need protection from those who want to work and not to blur the two.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, surely it is in the interests of the economy, as well as those seeking asylum, to enable them to work. All the evidence, from other countries and here, suggests that is important to their mental health and future integration. It is supported by the general public and a majority of the senior managers who were recently surveyed on this.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with what most of what the noble Baroness says. Asylum seekers can do voluntary work, which would certainly improve their mental well-being, but I disagree about the benefit to the economy.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, can I ask the Minister how many of those waiting in the system are healthcare professionals at any level? While they are waiting, are they being provided with English language skills and tuition to enable them to take the examinations they need in order to work subsequently in their own profession?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not have disaggregated figures on what types of skills people claiming asylum possess, but I agree with the noble Baroness that anyone settling in this country should have English language proficiency. It is the best route to economic empowerment.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, is it not important for us to differentiate between the sanctuary that we have been proud to offer over a long time—we are one of the leading countries in that sense—for those who are in terrible danger and comply with the 1951 United Nations convention criteria for granting asylum, from those who come to this country under ordinary Immigration Rules and meet those rules to benefit economically? Surely the two things should not be mixed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I could not agree more with my noble friend, and that is what I tried to say to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. These are two different things and should not be conflated.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I do not for one moment underestimate the difficult complexities here, particularly in distinguishing, as has been said, between genuine asylum seekers and those who come for other reasons, but can the Minister tell us whether the extended and elongated period of requirement prior to being allowed to work, as compared with other nations, is a matter of process? In other words, to what extent is the elongation the result of a lack of personnel, resources or procedures for these processes?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
By the elongated period, I assume that the noble Lord means 12 months. Actually, the best system of all would be for people’s asylum claims to be determined quickly and work towards our new service standard of four months. It is not a good thing if someone waits for 12 months for their asylum claim to be heard, so I agree with the noble Lord in that sense.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that the current position whereby the children of asylum seekers do not receive free school meals is going to be reconsidered? This seems to be extremely unfair, especially when parents are unable to work.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will have to get back to the noble Baroness on that point, because off the top of my head I am not certain whether the children of asylum seekers can receive school meals. Local authorities have a duty of care and a safeguarding duty for children, and therefore I think that there will be certain circumstances where they can have free school meals.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the then Home Secretary said last December that he was reviewing the right for asylum seekers to work, and in June of this year he confirmed that that was the case and that he would update Parliament in due course. I know that the Minister has said on behalf of the Government that this is a complex issue, but it is now quite a long time since the then Home Secretary said that he was looking at the matter. Does that mean that, with a change of Home Secretary, there is now less enthusiasm for doing anything? If that is not the case—let us assume that there is no imminent general election—when do the Government expect to complete this review?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It was the Prime Minister who said that the Home Office was reviewing the matter, and therefore I do not assume that there is a change in the position. I hesitate to say this to the noble Lord, but I am sure that it will be done in due course.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, while the application is being processed, the Government give some seekers of sanctuary no support at all—they can stay but with no recourse to public funds—or they provide them with such low subsistence that it is impossible for them to buy essentials such as clothes or shoes. Either they have a legitimate claim to be here or they should be deported, but why should they be made destitute while their application is being considered?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right that either their claims should be considered or not, and that should be done swiftly, which is what I was saying to the noble Lord, Lord Reid. The sooner that people’s applications are considered, the sooner these things can be determined.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister update us on the serious situation of the Syrian refugees whom we agreed to accept?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not know the exact figure, but at the last count we had brought something like 26,000 children over here. Of course, the situation in Syria is dire, the caliphate is collapsing, and therefore those children might be even more in need now than ever before.
Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of London
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to facilitate the enactment of the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill within the next 12 months.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have given serious consideration to the issues raised in the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and to how to ensure that victims have the support they need to begin rebuilding their lives. However, the Government do not believe victims should be given an automatic grant of leave. Consideration of whether an individual is a victim of modern slavery and any decisions regarding their immigration status are, and must remain, separate.
The Lord Bishop of London
I thank the Minister for her reply. Churches across the UK are providing some exceptional support to victims of modern-day slavery, such as Tamar at All Souls Church here in Westminster. On a recent visit to Tamar I was struck by how essential it was that victims were provided with assistance, healthcare, housing and mental health support. Can the Minister comment on what progress is being made to cost and evaluate provision so that victims can not only receive adequate care but recover in the best way possible?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I pay tribute to the ministry the right reverend Prelate describes, because I know that both the Church and the voluntary sector do a fantastic job in this area. Children can receive support through the independent child trafficking guardians that have now been rolled out in a third of local authorities in England and Wales—they are very welcome—and follow-on support, through the victim care contract, that victims can expect to receive after the trauma of their experience.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
I am sure the Minister will agree that modern slavery cannot be confined to these shores; it is a global horror story. I welcome her statement, but did she by chance catch sight of the particularly painful programme that BBC Arabic put forward on modern slavery of children under nine under sharia law in Iraq? Is she aware that there have been cases of this kind—I know of them myself—here in the United Kingdom? May we spread our work and share it with other nations in the same way that the right reverend Prelate has offered?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I did see that programme, and it was very disturbing: children as young as eight and nine being married for an hour, effectively so that they could be abused. In this country we would call it child abuse, and of course those girls suffer even worse because it damages the rest of their lives.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, how do the Government respond to the claim that there is a loophole in current modern slavery legislation that is being exploited by county lines networks and that allows young people to pose as victims when in fact they are not?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord raises an interesting point, because quite often in county lines those children are both victims and perpetrators of some of the offences. Interestingly, the majority of referrals into the NRM are from the UK and are suspected to be from county lines gangs.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the University of Nottingham conducted a cost-benefit analysis of my Bill and showed that it would have saved £25 million in the past two years had it been implemented? A 12-month period of support would allow victims to get into work, supporting themselves and contributing to the economy.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for that question. He refers to a period of 12 months, but the two initial phases—when someone has received positive reasonable grounds, and conclusive grounds—each give a minimum of 45 days’ support. Together, that is a minimum of 90 days. Someone may well receive a longer period of support.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the recent independent review of the Modern Slavery Act discussed the need to develop our domestic infrastructure to protect victims. The Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner has said that we should,
“ensure that all child victims of slavery are fully supported towards safety”.
The Minister mentioned independent child trafficking guardians. Is the piloting and evaluation of the scheme going so slowly as to jeopardise the full rollout recommended by the independent review?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Not that I know of, but we should note that when something is rolled out, it is important that it be done properly, in the sense that it is ultimately effective. To me, piloting and rolling out further seems to be the best way of doing this. I do not think it is too slow, but I do think we need to get it right.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as a Labour and Co-op peer and a member of the Co-op, I am delighted to support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, which will bring the law in England and Wales up to the same standards that we enjoy in Northern Ireland and Scotland, giving victims 12 months’ support and assistance. The Co-operative Group has worked closely with the noble Lord on his Bill. However, it is certain to be lost in the Commons due to the usual suspects on the government Benches, who take great pleasure in wrecking Private Members’ Bills. Why will the Government not help to get this much-needed reform through to help victims of modern slavery, following the example of the Church, the Co-operative Group and others?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, in response to the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act, which was of course cross-party, the Home Office launched a public consultation. The proposals under consideration would require changes to primary legislation, and we at the Home Office intend subsequently to make any necessary legislative changes as soon as we can, with parliamentary time.
Railways: Trans-Pennine Freight
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have for TransPennine freight in the next 10 years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the provision of capacity and capability for cross-Pennine freight is a key priority for the Department for Transport. We are considering how best to enhance the current capability and capacity for cross-Pennine bulk and intermodal rail freight between a range of origins and destinations. This includes consideration of the potential freight demand via a reinstated Skipton-Colne route. This piece of work is due to report soon and will include a wider assessment of cross-Pennine rail freight.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I refer to the Colne-Skipton gap in the network. The then Secretary of State, Chris Grayling, came to Colne at the beginning of last year and again at the beginning of this year to announce two studies. On 19 September, the Department for Transport said:
“An initial study, which was completed in December 2018, found that it is technically feasible to re-open the line. We are now working to assess the freight demand and the commercial viability of the scheme”,
as the Minister said. The new team of consultants attended a routine meeting of the high-level project development team at Peel Ports in Liverpool on 26 September this year. According to people present, the new contractors said that the route was entirely unsuitable for freight of any kind. Can she investigate what is going on? Will she arrange for the publication of the original Steer group report, so that we all know what is in it?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I can indeed update the noble Lord about what is going on: work is continuing apace to understand the amount of freight demand that is not currently being and may be met in future by reopening this line, as well as to look at the commercial viability of the scheme. I undertake to him that we will publish all the reports when these important issues have been fully explored and we understand the full picture.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm or deny the story on the front page of the Financial Times that the HS2 review is considering axing its eastern leg? Is she aware that this report is being treated with great alarm in Edinburgh, Newcastle, Durham, York, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby and Birmingham?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am sure that the noble Lord knows better than me that one should not believe everything one reads in the newspapers. However, as he will also know, the Oakervee review is taking a detailed look at all elements of HS2 and its phasing and will report soon.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister take this opportunity to comment on HS3 and its implications? I am sure that she and I are both subscribed to the northern powerhouse and its rail element: that we need to increase capacity on rail for both passengers and freight. As the noble Lord pointed out, the spur to Leeds and Sheffield is crucial in this regard. Will she confirm that both HS2 and HS3 will proceed as planned?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend for raising further questions around HS2. She referred to HS3, which is known to most noble Lords as Northern Powerhouse Rail. It is an incredibly important, complicated and extensive project. It works closely with the trans-Pennine route upgrade, and indeed with HS2. The Government have already committed £60 million of funding to Transport for the North to develop the proposals and a further £300 million to ensure that HS2 can accommodate Northern Powerhouse Rail. As she made clear, Northern Powerhouse Rail could bring huge benefits.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, some weeks ago, I asked someone from Transport for the North where they could find extra freight rail capacity between Liverpool and Hull. The answer was that they had identified that, if you took container traffic through Daventry, you could take it from Liverpool to Hull; that is an interesting diversion. Meanwhile, freight container traffic goes along the M62, which becomes even more crowded. Can we therefore raise the awareness and importance of increasing freight paths on rail through the north of England without having to go via either Scotland or the southern Midlands?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
We are deeply aware that there are a number of freight routes for rail and are doing what we can to improve their usage. For example, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is aware of the W7A gauge clearance project, which is going on at the moment. We are building a business case with industry to develop a W7A gauge clearance which would run along the trans-Pennine rail route via Huddersfield and Stalybridge. I hope that meets with his approval. If there is a positive business case, we will proceed with it forthwith; it could be in place by late 2020.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, capacity for rail freight is a key priority. Will the Government show that through an undertaking that that they will give the same priority, with the same timescales, to increasing capacity for rail freight across the Pennines as they say that they intend to do for rail passenger traffic across the Pennines?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for his question but, of course, it is not either/or; the two must be developed together. We often end up looking at a single mode for freight; what we must do is look at all the options, which will include road and, obviously, rail. But he brings up an important point. We will look very closely at cross-modal freight across the country in a strategy for the future starting this autumn.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, as we are moving around the country, I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend’s predecessor for the new services which begin a fortnight today: four trains a day between Lincoln and London and, from December, six trains a day. I also renew the invitation to her and her colleagues to pay a visit to Lincoln on one of these trains in the fairly near future.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend for his intervention. I was not aware that we were anywhere near Lincoln, but I am happy to discuss it. I am grateful for his words of thanks. These are just some examples of the extra services that the Government are putting back on the track. I will take noble Lords back up north: on the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises, we are delivering extra capacity of 40,000 passengers a week across 2,000 services.
Elections and Referenda: Protection Against Corruption
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made with ensuring adequate protection of (1) elections, and (2) referenda against corruption by (a) disinformation campaigns, and (b) digital technologies.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the Government take online manipulation and disinformation very seriously, particularly in relation to our democratic processes. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is leading work across government to tackle this. Working more broadly, we have set up a Defending Democracy programme in the Cabinet Office. This pulls together work and expertise from across government to strengthen the integrity of our electoral system and defend it from hostile activity, including disinformation.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, time is moving on. During May, the Government replied to a number of questions from various Benches about preventing online corruption of future elections and referenda. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, always gave careful and considered answers and assured the House that the Government were already taking steps to ensure that there was no such corruption. He talked about ensuring that we have,
“a robust framework for our election process, which is resistant to corruption and enhances public confidence”.—[Official Report, 1/5/19; cols. 962-63.]
Since then, the evidence of online disinformation campaigning has grown very greatly. Some of it is anonymous and some is traceable to hostile states. It has been documented in some part by a very recent report from the Oxford Internet Institute. What steps have Her Majesty’s Government taken since May to ensure that future elections and referenda are not corrupted at source, and that the electorate can have confidence that results are not being secured by foul means?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes some very good points. I have read with interest past exchanges between her and my noble friend Lord Young—who I wish was here at the moment. I know that I am repeating to a certain extent what my noble friend said. We do take the situation very seriously and realise the urgency of it. It is very important that we do something about this, act correctly and get it right. In my initial Answer, I brought up the Defending Democracy programme. This was announced in July and its whole point is to pull together existing work and expertise from a number of departments, to protect and secure UK democratic processes, strengthen the integrity of UK elections and encourage respect for open, fair and safe democratic participation.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, given the advice from the Electoral Commission, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the DCMS Select Committee that our electoral legislation is no longer fit for purpose, will the Minister commit to implementing the Electoral Commission’s excellent codes of practice, which were published in July? They would improve transparency, give clarity to parties, agents and candidates, and move some way to meeting the point made by the noble Baroness. Would the noble Earl give strong representations to his colleagues that the necessary secondary legislation should be included in the Government’s programme next week?
The Earl of Courtown
I thank the noble Lord for his question, and I will pass on his concerns to the relevant Minister whose responsibility this is. Some important work is being carried out. As the noble Lord mentioned, the Information Commissioner’s Office published its draft code of practice for the use of personal data in political campaigning for public consultation on 9 August. The consultation closed on 4 October and it is good to see that some of the social media platforms have their codes of practice already in place.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Will the Minister assure the House that no government spending will be used to promote a partisan approach to Brexit, particularly as we are likely to have an election fairly soon? It appears to be the case now, because a whole lot of ads are being funded by taxpayers’ money saying that we will leave on 31 October, despite legislation passed, including by this House, which makes that unlawful unless certain conditions are met. Can the Government assure us that taxpayers’ money is not being used as part of the upcoming general election campaign?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the important fact that the noble Baroness mentions is that the advertising campaign concerning leaving the EU on 31 October is to ensure that the country as a whole, and business in particular, is aware that this is our plan.
Lord Deben (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that Britain is—or has been—looked at by the rest of the world as an exemplar not only for good government but for perfect electoral practice? As we cannot manage the good government now, could we please get the electoral practice right?
The Earl of Courtown
My noble friend raises a couple of points. This is why I will reiterate what we announced in July—our Defending Democracy campaign—which will bring everything together in all departments to seek various areas of security and safety on the internet.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, does the Defending Democracy unit have a clear definition of what it means by democracy? At present we are in a situation in which the question of whether the rule of law is an important part of democracy is under challenge and the relative weight of referenda and elections is also under challenge. It would be good to know that the Defending Democracy team has some clear definitions to contribute to the public debate.
The Earl of Courtown
I think I made it quite clear where the Defending Democracy programme is moving towards. It is protecting and securing our UK democratic processes. That is my top line on this issue and the most important thing—to protect our democratic processes.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, is not the very nature of this corruption that tech businesses operating anonymously and with no legal limits on what they are able to spend are gathering personal data with the intention not just of predicting the emotions and behaviour of individuals but of influencing them? At the same time, people are unaware of what is being done to them. Is this not a violation of personal freedom? Do the Government intend to legislate to curb these abuses or do they just see electoral advantage in allowing them to continue?
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Lord mentioned data and how it is being utilised. I watched “The Great Hack” last night and recommend it to noble Lords—it is an interesting film. This is why it is so important that we work closely with the Information Commissioner, as we did during the Data Protection Bill and in the wake of the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica controversy, to make sure that she had the powers she needed to investigate complex data breaches in our increasingly digital economy and society. The important thing is transparency. When these imprints and ads come up on various sites, we have to know where they come from. The other day, for example, I was looking at a site and up came an add relating to a hoover. I was trying to buy a hoover the other day and looking for it online. That was not important, but the important thing here is that, if we have political ads coming up on our screen, we know where they come from and they are transparent.
Hong Kong: Emergency Powers
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the devolved government of Hong Kong about its decision to introduce Emergency Powers, which includes introducing a ban on face masks.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we have regular discussions with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government about their response to the protest, including their most recent measures. We are, of course, monitoring the situation closely, including the implementation of a ban on face masks under the emergency regulations ordinance. We believe political dialogue is the only way to resolve the situation. While Governments need to ensure the security and safety of their people, they must avoid aggravating and, instead, seek to reduce tensions.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the very worrying use of emergency powers is a breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, which guaranteed rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, including the freedom of assembly and the right to protest? If not, why not? Does he agree with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, who said on the “Today” programme this morning that what is happening in Hong Kong is “the destruction of a great international city created by Chinese people” and that the UK Government must urge China to give the Hong Kong Government the scope to resolve the conflict through the political means he mentioned?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I totally agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of reaching political agreement. I share her deep concern and that of my noble friend about the situation unfolding in Hong Kong. To call it disturbing would be an understatement. We have seen a real increase not just in tensions, but in the attitude shown towards the protesters. Indeed, the new law has caused deep concern. I reassure the noble Baroness that we are fully committed to upholding Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and its rights and freedoms as enshrined in the “one country, two systems” framework, which is also enshrined in Hong Kong’s basic law. On specific actions, we are in almost daily contact with the Hong Kong Government through our consul general on the ground and I know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will seek an early call with the Foreign Minister, State Councillor Wang Yi, at the earliest opportunity.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, the latest draconian crackdowns on protesters in Hong Kong have failed to deter tens of thousands of people taking to the streets and instead have served only to further inflame tensions. Following my PNQ last Tuesday, I asked the Government to speak urgently to the Hong Kong Government. The House may remember that the Minister responded that although the Foreign Secretary had not spoken to Carrie Lam in nearly two months, he hoped that that would happen in the coming days. I am not clear from the Minister’s response whether that conversation has taken place. Can he confirm whether the Foreign Secretary has in fact spoken to the Hong Kong Chief Executive and expressed the concerns raised across this House over the potential infringement on human rights?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I said in my earlier answer, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to, among others, Carrie Lam. To my knowledge, he has not spoken to her since that Question was asked. We are certainly seeking urgent calls not only with Carrie Lam, but with Foreign Minister Wang Yi. I will certainly come back to the noble Lord on that. The last formal contact was between the consul general in Hong Kong and Carrie Lam’s deputy on Friday, but I assure the noble Lord that we are very much engaged at all levels to ensure that this issue, which we have seen on our television screens, is kept at the forefront and we are consistently raising it with the Hong Kong and Chinese Governments.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that, while we are absolutely right to argue strongly for the right to peaceful protest and to say that we have the right to talk directly with Beijing about the conditions of the original joint declaration, we cannot condone actions that involve throwing rocks and petrol bombs, smashing up legislatures, blocking the airport and moving from peaceful protest to outright violence? There are those who point out, as, indeed, my noble friend Lord Patten has, that this is the path to the self-destruction of Hong Kong as millions of dollars will leave the area as no one will invest there. We should point out to the Government of Hong Kong and the protesters in Hong Kong that they are destroying themselves.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with my noble friend that any kind of violence—I am sure that I speak for every Member of your Lordships’ House—is to be condemned totally, but it is also vital that the response to any action is proportionate. That is why we stress again that the only resolution to this matter, as was reiterated by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is political dialogue. That remains the Government’s primary objective.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I am the director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. It has just had its annual conference, in South Korea. Many lawyers from around the world were there, and we awarded the human rights and rule of law award to Margaret Ng and Martin Lee, two leading members of the Bar in Hong Kong who argue for the rule of law and who will be known to many people in this House. It was interesting to hear from them. They said that the young are protesting about the absence of genuine democracy now and the continuous erosion of the processes that were put in place at the time of the handover. I strongly urge the Government to seek a dialogue and that China is reminded that the rule of law is not rule by law. I am afraid that often Chinese lawyers do not fully understand that the rule of law is not simply law and order but is also protecting the rights of people and strengthening democracy in a place that is going to be important to them as we go forward.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I totally agree with the noble Baroness. She has great experience and insight on these matters, and I fully associate myself with her sentiments and her remarks. Let me make clear that it has always been the position of the United Kingdom Government, irrespective of political affiliation, that all elements, including the elections that take place for the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council, are provided for in Hong Kong Basic Law. Our view is that the transition to universal suffrage should be applied wholesale. That is enshrined in Hong Kong Basic Law .
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn (CB)
My Lords, what has been happening in Hong Kong recently is deeply depressing and very worrying indeed. It is understandable that the Hong Kong Government should wish to deal with people disguising themselves, particularly if they are engaged in violence, but it is not really possible to see how that is going to be an effective move. It is more likely that it will be widely disregarded and therefore seen as a weakness on the side of the Hong Kong Government. That said, and given that these situations are all very worrying and that we must all be concerned about the direction of travel in Hong Kong, does the Minister accept that Her Majesty’s Government would be well advised to be cautious about the way they deal with this publicly, lest they build up a picture—which some people would like to paint—of a lot of this being due to outside interference? That is not something that we would wish to do.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the Government have shown that diplomacy is the way forward. Ultimately, in any public statement that we make, we consistently make the point that political dialogue is the solution. We are very mindful of the history of Hong Kong, but, speaking as the Minister responsible for human rights, when we see human rights being usurped in those countries with which we have a strategic relationship—and yes, that includes China—we stand up for them, and make those views known.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, to avoid the ultimate disaster of intervention by the People’s Liberation Army, and to give all sides a ladder down which to climb without losing face, is there, in the judgment of the Government, any prospect of outside conciliation or conciliation by respected individuals?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Reflecting on the previous question as well, first and foremost we need to see the restoration of law and order but, within that, guarantees of political dialogue. It is clear that the current law, as well as the “one country, two systems” principle, provides for the very notion of ensuring that people’s rights are protected and strengthened and that the autonomy enjoyed by Hong Kong continues. We believe that is enshrined in Hong Kong law. It is an agreement which has also been deposited with the United Nations, and all parties must have due regard and respect for it.
European Travel on Parliamentary Business (House of Lords Commission Report)
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the House of Lords Commission European travel on Parliamentary business (3rd Report, HL Paper 423) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the report before us today invites the House to agree changes relating to European travel on parliamentary business within the scheme of financial support for Members.
The current House of Lords rules are covered by a resolution of the House agreed on 5 March 2003, which specifically links the travel to national parliaments of European Union states or candidate countries and EU institutions in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg. Since then, the eligible countries and institutions have been revised to also include: national parliaments of Council of Europe member states; national parliaments of European Free Trade Association member states; any EU institution or agency—removing the restriction to those based in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg —and Council of Europe institutions in Strasbourg.
This report proposes the removal of the existing requirement for a link to national parliaments and EU or Council of Europe institutions and agencies and proposes that the countries eligible for support for European travel on parliamentary business should be defined as member states of the EU, member states of the Council of Europe, member states of the European Free Trade Association, and the Holy See. It also proposes that the resolution of 5 March 2003 be accordingly no longer operative. The requirements on eligibility of travel for reimbursement under the scheme, and for advance approval, would remain.
These proposals would more closely align the rules of the House in relation to support for European travel on parliamentary business with the rules for Members of the House of Commons. The report also proposes that the provision of support in relation to European travel on parliamentary business be reviewed in a year. I beg to move.
Product Safety, Metrology and Mutual Recognition Agreement (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Duncan of Springbank
That the Regulations laid before the House on 9 September be approved.
Relevant document: 69th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank)
My Lords, the extension to Article 50 requires changes to legislation made earlier this year to ensure continued confidence in our consumer safety system. This statutory instrument will amend three earlier regulations: first, a number of product schedules in the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, made in March 2019; secondly, the Pressure Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016; and, thirdly, the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) Regulations 2019. I will now take noble Lords through the detail of the changes made to each of these regulations—I can see the excitement building.
The change in exit day has created ambiguity for the personal protective equipment industry, necessitating revision to the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The opportunity has also been taken to refine the instrument based on stakeholder feedback and ongoing developments in the sector, notably clarifying the continued use of data from pre-March 2013 as it affects cosmetics and ensuring that the UK will be able to update the lists of prohibited or restricted substances in all circumstances going forward.
I am concerned that, following publication of the main product safety instrument, stakeholders drew to our attention a number of these issues. I wish to apologise that these errors were identified by stakeholders after our own internal scrutiny processes had been cleared. Once alerted to these issues, we held meetings with the representative bodies from across the product areas to discuss the drafting errors identified and review the relevant product schedule for any other potential points that might require clarification. Eight meetings were held and a number of phone calls and emails were exchanged with relevant stakeholders. We have sought to do all we can in this regard to catch any issues that might not have been caught in the first instance.
Consequently, minor amendments regarding outdoor noise, recreational craft, toys, electromagnetic compatibility, electrical equipment, radio equipment, simple pressure vessels, machinery, measuring instruments and accreditation will be made. We will also correct the error whereby pressure equipment manufacturers would have been deprived of the option of having their manufacturing processes of base materials certified by a competent body.
Details of the technical changes are included in paragraph 7 of the published Explanatory Memorandum. These could ordinarily have been addressed through guidance. However, the extension to exit day meant that we were required to make an instrument to address specific exit-related issues, and we decided that it would be good practice at the same time to bring these minor changes into legislation to give full clarity for business.
We have also taken the opportunity to update the Pressure Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 to ensure full implementation of the importer labelling requirements to make it clear that an importer must put their information on both pressure equipment and assemblies. Post exit, UK importers in some circumstances will be able to put their details on a document accompanying the equipment or the assembly.
The instrument also implements into domestic law obligations that the UK currently has as an EU member state with regard to certain goods imported from Switzerland. This was originally implemented through a global provision in the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) Regulations 2019. Following further departmental legal analysis, we considered it more appropriate to make it explicitly clear in the law itself. This instrument will allow UK importers of relevant products from Switzerland to put their details on accompanying documentation rather than on the product for a period of 18 months after exit and extend recognition of Swiss authorised representatives to act on behalf of manufacturers to comply with regulations on noise emissions from outdoor equipment in line with the existing EU/Swiss mutual recognition agreement.
A full impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because no provisions trigger changes to in-scope operational costs. The impact is limited to familiarisation costs for business, which were previously assessed in a full impact assessment on the earlier instrument as de minimis. A copy of that full impact assessment is publicly available on legislation.gov.uk.
On consultation, the department has benefited from significant stakeholder feedback following the passage of the original regulations, all of which has been taken into account in the revised instruments. However, clearly, this was the wrong way round. As I said when taking forward regulations last week, my department will reflect carefully on ensuring adequate consultation before bringing forward such complicated legislation. This commitment from the Dispatch Box follows on from issues raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, whose comments we welcome and will take fully on board.
The amendments made by this instrument will ensure that instruments are correct and that our high standards are maintained after our exit from the European Union. I beg to move.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, moving between topics as varied as Hong Kong to product safety is one of the joys of being a Front-Bencher in the House of Lords.
The House is again debating an instrument to rectify problems with previous no-deal regulations, this time on the crucial issues of product safety and metrology. Before I delve into the specifics of the instrument on mutual recognition, I ask the Minister to explain why the House is still debating regulations which will apply only in the event of no deal when the recent European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act will prevent such a scenario. This feels both disrespectful of Parliament and a little bizarre.
Much of the instrument is intended to ensure that previous regulations will be operable for the latest exit date. As he was asked last week, can the Minister confirm that Parliament will be asked again to revisit these issues if the exit date is again changed?
According to the department’s Explanatory Memorandum, the regulation strives to ensure that products placed on the UK market continue to meet,
“substantially the same essential requirements”.
Why is it only “substantially” the same requirements, not exactly the same ones? If there is no difference, will the Minister clarify this? If there is a difference between substantially copying over requirements and completely doing so, which ones are not required to be copied over?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, once again I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, about the necessity for this debate, but now that it is here it is important to get it right so I am happy to have it.
I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests. I am not actually sure whether I have any interests which coincide with this instrument, but it seems impossible for there not to be, given that it covers ear-plugs to aftershave and toy trains to industrial pumps via explosives. The breadth of this SI is its weakness, because it is trying to bring together a compendium of things that need to be cleared up. I have complete respect for the team that has worked hard on trying to do this, because it really has a very broad remit. It seems unlikely to me that there is not another issue or two in here, so I welcome the Minister’s undertaking to continue to be vigilant on it. Perhaps he could undertake, in the event that further issues are uncovered, that further versions of this will be brought forward.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, about stakeholder involvement is absolutely right. The threshold of monetary value used is not always the right threshold when we are dealing with statutory instruments of this complexity; the problems and issues it creates for business are hard to monetise, and in this case the Government would have been best advised to err on the side of involving as many people as possible. I suspect that there is still a need to do that.
I shall make a couple of general comments and then focus on one particular issue—I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, is in his place, because it crosses over into the next instrument, and he will guess what it is about. My first point concerns the Explanatory Memorandum, which talks at paragraph 2.3 about manufacturers having to have either self-certification or third-party conformity assessment. It is not clear whether that is a change from the current situation—in other words, what was acceptable for self-assessment, will that remain, or will people either have to have increased or indeed, decreased third-party conformity assessment as a result of this change?
My second point mirrors exactly what the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, said about paragraph 2.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum and,
“substantially the same essential requirements”.
That means that not all of them are, yet there is no list of what is materially different. I think noble Lords should be aware, in detail, of what is actually the difference between this andwhat it seeks to replace.
I come to the issue I want to talk in some detail about. Regulation 8 talks about CMR chemicals; those which are,
“carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction”.
Much of the change the regulation makes is around labelling, but the reference to Schedule 34 talks about “historic animal testing data” and starts to stray into issues that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, will know we have discussed around REACH and the rollover use of historic data. It seems strange to me that we are trying to cover similar issues in two separate statutory instruments. What consultation has gone on between BEIS and DEFRA in the drawing up of this, and why should it all not be covered in one instrument?
That also causes me to raise, yet again, that in essence the SI brought by DEFRA, the REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which has yet to be tabled, has very severe financial consequences for the chemicals and cosmetics industries in this country. In the case of the chemicals industry, the relationship is managed, I think, by BEIS, rather than by DEFRA, so it seems to me that there is a lot of crossover here which is not necessarily finding its way through in the statutory instrument.
So there is work to do. First, it must be explained how this has come about as a separate part of a different SI, whereas it is not part of the one that dealt with that the substantive issues of chemical regulation. What awareness does BEIS have of the scale of costs that will be imposed on the chemicals industry by the implementation of the chemical regulation statutory instrument brought by DEFRA? We need an overall look at the process of delivering a sensible statutory instrument that is able properly to use existing data. There are extreme issues around the portability of potential data that seem to have been overlooked and will cause problems for the industry, and indeed for consumers who use the chemicals that are made by the chemicals, cosmetics and consumer chemicals industries.
Therefore, I ask the Minister—who I see is talking to his colleague—to undertake to do something that actually brings these together and gives us some clarity.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest as chair of National Trading Standards, which, as far as I know, is not involved in any of these regulations—but for all I know it might be.
I would like some clarity on two specific points. First, the Minister said that no specific impact assessment was drawn up for this statutory instrument, but that it was covered by the previous impact assessment and that the main impact would be in explaining these changes, which we all look forward to, to the businesses affected by them. Did that assessment also look at the role of explaining these changes to those who are responsible for enforcing the regulations and for ensuring proper compliance? It seems to me that this is quite an important area, particularly when we are talking about product safety.
Secondly—I hope this is not frivolous—as I understand it, according to the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, there is an error in the instrument. The reference to regulation 15 should have been to regulation 18. The department accepts that this is an error but says that it probably does not matter—I am paraphrasing. I think it is implying that there will be a 24-hour gap during which the mutual recognition agreements will not be in force. If that is the case, will the Minister tell us how frequently the mutual recognition agreements referred to in this SI are in fact employed in this country, and whether an issue really is unlikely to occur during the 24-hour gap?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, this suite of regulations is quite technical, as the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, said. The original suite was a bundle, and anyone who has managed to carry it around will recognise that it could be measured in depth of inches. The important thing to stress is that I have recognised what a challenge it is to face such a large document. I would not wish to see us go forward on that basis again, for the very reasons flagged here today. I am very happy to say that, as far as I can influence the situation, I will do that very thing.
It is also important to stress—this comes back to the notion of why we are where we are—that the date changes which were necessitated by the change in the exit date were necessarily made in the document we are debating. It has now been—I am going to use the term—Brexit-proofed, in so far as we will not have to revisit these dates because of the manner in which they have been drafted. I reiterate, however, that it is the Government’s policy to leave the European Union on 31 October and noble Lords would expect me to say that, so I am saying it again.
I will go through some of the points raised in the order they were made. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, again raised the issue of “substantially” versus “exactly”. My team tells me that broadly they are the same. Noble Lords might notice that I used the word “broadly” in that particular context, but they are the same, so they should not be interpreted as being in any way different. As to the question of the stakeholder feedback—
Lord Fox
“Broadly” and “substantially” are broadly the same phrase, but why is that phrase being used? Is it because the department is not aware that there are any differences but thinks that there might be unintended differences, or is it aware that there are actual differences between the two situations?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My team has helpfully provided a note on that, just in case someone was querying whether they were indeed the same. On “substantially the same” and an essential requirement, certain essential requirements require the involvement of notified bodies. Post exit, these same essential requirements will require the involvement of UK-based approved bodies, in line with the UK-only system developed under the no-deal legislation. We are therefore at that stage of approved versus notified. There will be differences, in essence, but the substance of those differences is textual rather than meaningful in that context—I hope that is helpful and makes sense.
Lord Fox
We are getting there, but I am not sure that I know the difference between an approved and a notified body. Perhaps the Minister could write to me and the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and place a copy in the Library, explaining what difference the word “substantially” makes regarding which organisations are involved in future versus those involved now.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I would be happy to do so, because we are stepping into the etymological element of the debate. As I understand it—I will happily put this in writing—the notion of a notified body and an approved body differs in so far as which is recognised by which entity. The UK itself has a recognised approved body whereas the notified body stems from the earlier legislation. However, rather than going too far down the rabbit hole of exactly how that works, if the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will allow, I will write to him on that point.
On the question of stakeholder involvement, in truth, this is why I apologised. We did this the wrong way round—there should have been greater engagement in advance of such a complex and dense series of materials, to ensure that we had captured all the elements the first time. We did not do that, and we were blessed by the fact that a number of directly affected organisations raised with us the substantive points which have led to the minor changes we have before us today. In truth, although I say they are minor, they are none the less changes we would wish to make to the body of the law—to the instrument itself. However, I acknowledge that this is the wrong way round, and I have said that on the record.
I am grateful to the organisations which have come forward. I am also aware that, once that began to happen, my departmental team therefore recognised that it had to do a thorough combing exercise of the substantive element of the original instrument. I asked the question which I think a number of noble Lords will have asked: “Is there a risk of institutional blindness? If you missed it the first time, will you miss it the second time?” That is why, again, I was assured that the manner in which the second, third and fourth iterations were conducted involved different groups to ensure that we were able to bring before you what we believe to be the comprehensive elements of the corrections which need to be made. I can go through them with your Lordships if you like, but I have a feeling that you probably do not want that. If noble Lords allow, I will therefore put that record into the Library for your consultation. However, noble Lords will be aware that it covers the full range, as the original instrument did, and as we are learning today, it is quite a broad range.
The final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, was whether there are any other redundant statutory instruments. The answer to that is, not to my knowledge. There you are.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Noble Lords will discover that I am full of these lines.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised a couple of points. There should be no change to self-assessment whatever. On the question of the carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic elements—CMR—the rollover of the historic data rests within this particular body because it affects the elements within the EU-defined law which we have brought across. However, the noble Lord is right to note that clearly, the ingredients which are part of these elements rest within the wider EU REACH directive, and therefore will fall under the jurisdiction and leadership of Defra. Happily, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that my noble friend Lord Gardiner will indeed facilitate such a meeting with him regarding the costs of the wider registration or reregistration of chemicals by a British entity. In due course, therefore, such a meeting will take place, and thereafter I hope that we will place on the record useful information for the entire House.
The noble Lord, Lord, Pickles—
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I apologise. My goodness, I would not wish the noble Lord to be seen as dallying with the other side. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised two specific questions, including on the impact assessment in its broadest sense. The detailed impact assessment was specific to the original material. He asked about the familiarisation costs and whether they encompass the costs resting on bodies responsible for enforcement and compliance. The answer is yes, they need to do so, for obvious reasons, because they will have to take forward the management or oversight of this broad area.
As to the question of the 24-hour gap—this feels a bit like the Richard Nixon tapes: a gap during which something has gone on—my team tells me that the answer is no. Immediately before exit date means exactly that. The gap will be a few seconds, and my team assures me that in those few seconds, very little should interfere with the continuity which this suite of instruments represents.
I hope that that answers the questions raised. I also appreciate that this is a technical instrument. This is not the way I wish to do things in future, and I will ensure that there is adequate consultation not just with your Lordships but with wider interested parties. I will learn that lesson and will ensure that my department learns it. On that basis, I commend the Motion.
Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Legislative Functions) and Veterinary Surgeons (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Regulations laid before the House on 5 September be approved.
Relevant documents: 56th and 61st Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, both statutory instruments before your Lordships serve three purposes. They make a number of technical operability changes to existing instruments to ensure that retained EU law continues to operate effectively after the UK leaves; they ensure that our statute book is closely aligned with the EU to support our application for third-country listing for live animals and animal products; and they make minor corrections to earlier EU exit SIs. These technical amendments will have no effect on existing policy, and bring over only those powers that already reside with the European Commission.
Both SIs were made under the urgent, made-affirmative procedure. This is because both instruments support the UK’s application to the EU Commission for third-country listed status for animal and public health purposes for consideration at a meeting due to take place this Friday, 11 October. While we are working hard to secure a deal with the EU, we should prepare for all scenarios—including, for instance, that the EU will not accept a request for an extension.
The European Commission considered the UK’s third-country listing application at a meeting of the relevant committee, SCoPAFF, on 9 April, based on the relevant animal health legislation in place on that date. The United Kingdom was able to assure the Commission that all relevant legislation had been made, and member states voted unanimously to list the UK as a third country. Following the Article 50 extension, another vote is due to be held this Friday. To ensure that we are fully prepared for this listing, both these SIs must already be on the statute book to provide the necessary reassurances of our readiness. These instruments support that requirement, and the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we have a fully operable statute book for day one, whatever.
The Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Legislative Functions) and Veterinary Surgeons (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 serve three broad purposes. First, they make technical changes to existing instruments to ensure that retained EU law continues to operate effectively after the UK leaves the EU. This includes, for example, changing “Community” to “United Kingdom” or “an official language of a Member State” to “English”.
Secondly, they transfer legislative powers that give the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Ministers from the devolved Administrations, power to amend, vary or add to the list of third countries that can export animals and animal products into the United Kingdom. This will ensure that we can act swiftly to prevent any imports from a certain country should the biosecurity risk change. This will support our existing ability to apply import controls and add to our robust armoury of biosecurity measures.
In practice, the Secretary of State would look to the UK’s Chief Veterinary Officers, supported by expert advice from the Animal and Plant Health Agency, to make any recommendations for changing the lists. These decisions would be based on the most expert scientific and veterinary advice, in the same way as they are currently with the Commission. Similarly, they amend previously made EU-exit SIs regarding animal and animal product imports. This allows the Secretary of State, with the consent of appropriate devolved authorities, to publish lists of animals and products that require border veterinary checks. Both these measures are intended to support the UK’s biosecurity. These powers currently reside with the Commission and we are simply making them operable in the UK context. They will further support our application for third-country listing by aligning our statute book with the EU.
Thirdly, the SI changes the previously laid Veterinary Surgeons and Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, by correcting a reference to the Recognition of Professional Qualifications (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to enable certain EU, EEA and Swiss veterinary surgeons to register with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. A paragraph had been wrongly labelled “43” when it should have been “44”. It is very important to get these things right. I assure your Lordships that being a person of detail is irritating, but it is important that we get these things right.
The other statutory instrument, the Animal Health and Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, makes technical operability changes to existing instruments. These ensure that regulations for animal by-products, ABPs, transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, TSEs, and genetically modified organisms, GMOs, are operable. These amendments are of a purely technical nature and make no changes to existing policy. They include recent changes to ABP and TSE legislation that were published in the EU’s Official Journal too late to be included in earlier EU-exit SIs. As with the other instrument, this will enable our statute book to be up to date and accurate, which is a requirement of our third-country listing by the EU.
These changes include, for example, substituting “appropriate authority” for “Commission”. Similarly, they amend references to the EU’s import and export system, TRACES, by adding the wording “or any replacement system in operation in the United Kingdom”. The UK is launching a new system called the import of products, animals, food and feed system, IPAFFS, to ensure that imports of live animals, products of animal origin, animal by-products, germplasm, and high-risk food and feed not of animal origin can continue should there be a no-deal exit. This became available to the public at a beta stage of development only on 30 September. It is important to note that this system has proved popular with stakeholders, and we think we would look to it in the long term, regardless of a deal for access to TRACES, as a way forward. This SI also makes minor corrections as recommended by the JCSI. Again, I apologise for these, and will explain their nature in more detail.
There are three highly technical changes to EU law being made operable by this instrument. These include: changing recently introduced law, as mentioned, so that TRACES or any replacement system could alter certain lists; making operable provisions to permit the export of products containing processed animal protein derived from ruminants and non-ruminants; and making operable provisions that add Egypt to the list of third countries from which gelatine, flavouring innards and rendered fats can be imported.
The final purpose of this instrument is to make minor corrections to previous instruments which were, as I said, helpfully picked up by the JCSI. I am most grateful to the committee for drawing our attention to these. For instance, one correction will change the style of the paragraph numbering from (a) to (d) to (1) to (4) which is intended to help the reader to identify changes. I should also say that both instruments apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and that the devolved Administrations were closely engaged in their development and have given their consent for them to be laid.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
At end insert, “but that this House regrets that the Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Legislative Functions) and Veterinary Surgeons (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 have been laid under the made affirmative resolution procedure to come into effect on 17 October to support the United Kingdom’s application to be listed as a third country by the European Union for the export of live animals and animal products, in preparation for leaving the European Union on 31 October, despite Parliament passing the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 which requires the Prime Minister to seek an extension to the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union if he fails to secure a deal by 19 October; expresses concern that Her Majesty’s Government maintains that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on 31 October with or without a deal contrary to the previously expressed view of this House and the provisions of the Act; and notes the grave concern of the food and farming sectors regarding the potential catastrophic impact of a no-deal Brexit.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing these two SIs. However, as he said, we have tabled a regret amendment and I would like to explain why. The trade in animals and animal products regulations transfer widespread legislative functions from the EU to the Secretary of State, and have been laid under the affirmative procedure to be in place before exit day. Indeed, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee considered that they were sufficiently important that they should be upgraded to the affirmative procedure.
However, the SI and the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum take no account of the subsequent passing of the Benn Act, which was overwhelmingly supported in this House and which, as noble Lords know, requires the Prime Minister to seek an extension of Article 50 if he fails to secure a deal by 19 October. In contradiction to that, paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states explicitly:
“Given the change in exit day to 31st October 2019, we are using this opportunity to ensure we are as prepared as we can be to support all possible requirements of listing”.
Unless the Prime Minister is going to ignore the will of Parliament or somehow seek to subvert it, we are not exiting with no deal on 31 October.
This SI could therefore have been tabled in the normal manner, with proper scrutiny, rather than being rushed through. I say that because this really matters. As the farmers and food manufacturers have all made clear, leaving the EU without a deal would be disastrous for their businesses.
The Minister says the urgency is because the EU is considering our request for third-country listing on 11 October, but this meeting was clearly set up to consider the animal trade protections if we were to leave on 31 October, which we are not now going to do. The Minister has said that the EU already approved third-country listing in preparation for the April exit date—a decision that then became obsolete. It seems that this rushed SI is going to suffer a similar fate.
Given that there seems to be a growing political consensus that, if we leave, it should be based on a negotiated settlement, with a transition period, we may find ourselves back here all too soon with another version of this SI, with new terms of trade and a new start date. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention to abide by the terms of the Benn Act in letter and spirit, in keeping with the wish of Parliament? Does he accept that the Benn Act, if implemented, would take a no-deal scenario off the table and make this SI obsolete? Can he clarify whether the request for third-country listing being considered by the EU later this week is specifically aimed at a start date of 1 November, or does it have flexibility for an alternative date if the negotiations continue? Does he accept that, even with third-country listing, a no-deal Brexit could have catastrophic impacts on food and farming, as British exports will still face significant barriers and the imposition of high tariffs as outlined in the Government’s own Yellowhammer paper?
As I said, this SI matters because it represents the transfer of wide-ranging legislative functions relating to biosecurity, giving the Secretary of State powers to make substantial changes to policies after exit day. In fact, it deals not just with the basics necessary to achieve EU listing; it goes further. For example, paragraph 2.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum explains that the Secretary of State will have the power to vary our listing of third countries to ensure that,
“we can adapt in the longer-term should we assess that biosecurity risks presented by third countries have fundamentally changed after we leave the EU”.
This would allow us to deviate from the third countries recognised by the EU.
Clearly, the trade in animals and animal products is of significant importance to the UK’s food security and economy, as well as being highly politically controversial. We have seen once again in the papers today details of a leaked Defra briefing detailing the consequences of a rushed trade deal with the US, which Liz Truss is promoting but which could irreparably damage the environment and public health. The leaked paper states that weakening our sanitary and phytosanitary standards to accommodate the US would damage our trade with the EU. Does the Minister accept that if the Secretary of State amends UK standards using the powers set out in this SI, it could jeopardise our third-country listing with the EU? Can he explain the circumstances in which we might deviate from the accepted EU listings in the longer term?
I move now to the detail of these two SIs. As I said, the trade in animals and animal products and veterinary surgeons SI gives the Secretary of State far-reaching powers to amend the list of third countries with which we will trade in future, but the only consultation that seems to be necessary is with the devolved Ministers in relation to trade in their own countries. Unlike many other Brexit SIs we have considered over the last 18 months, there is no requirement written into the SI to consult expert bodies or seek scientific advice, so there is real concern that the pressure to secure new trade deals will lead the Secretary of State to water down their assessment of third-country animal welfare and public health protections. For example, Chapter 5, which deals with future poultry imports, refers in paragraph (2) to,
“taking into account … the assurances which the third country can give with regard to compliance with poultry health requirements”.
It is vital that we rely not simply on the assurances from would-be trading partners but on the facts.
The Minister said that advice would be taken from independent and scientific bodies. That guarantee is not spelled out in this SI in the way that has been done in many SIs before us. There is therefore a question mark about whether the UK public can be properly assured that our future imports will be safe and continue to meet our high welfare standards.
These regulations also include a sub-delegated power that enables the Secretary of State to publish and amend lists of animals and products that require or are exempt from border veterinary checks. Can the Minister clarify the circumstances in which the lists of animals requiring veterinary checks might be amended? There does not seem to be any need for it, but will he commit to a prior consultation with the industry, particularly veterinary professionals, before this step is taken?
The Animal Health and Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations update the rules regarding TRACES, the EU’s TRAde Control and Expert System, which notifies member states of the movements of animals and animal products through their territories to ensure compliance with animal health and public health obligations, as the Minister described. Last month, Defra requested that the EU give limited continued access to TRACES for imports. Can he advise whether this request was granted?
Meanwhile, as the Minister said, the Government have been trialling the alternative system, the Import of Products, Animals, Food and Feed System. He advised that this went live on 30 September. Is he confident that this system is robust and fully operable? How can it be fully tested when not all businesses have yet signed up? How many businesses have signed up? Are they currently expected to use both TRACES and IPAFFS? At what date will businesses be expected to transfer completely to IPAFFS? How will this be communicated to them?
Notwithstanding the detailed concerns that I have just outlined with these proposals, we believe that businesses are overwhelmingly against a no-deal exit—with all the chaos that will ensue. The Benn Act gives the Government a route out of no deal and will provide the continuity that food and farming businesses crave.
I hope that the Minister will heed this message and concede that these SIs should not have been laid in this manner and within this timescale in contravention of the Benn Act. I therefore beg to move.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself with the comprehensive remarks of my colleague on the Labour Front Bench and support the intention behind the amendment. It is absolutely clear that businesses in the farming and agribusiness community are extremely concerned about the potential impact of a no-deal Brexit on their businesses. Bringing these SIs forward under the affirmative procedure seems to fly in the face of the proposals agreed in the other place and supported broadly here—the Benn proposals—which would not enable Brexit to take place on 31 October.
I do not want to reiterate the detailed points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. However, I want to add a couple of extra detailed points about the Animal Health and Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which pointed out that we have these regulations because of defective drafting. Clearly, with the number of SIs that Defra has had, those things are bound to happen. I was grateful to hear the Minister’s apology—in a sense—for having to bring this forward, but I query whether this SI is just about defective drafting. If we look at one of the paragraphs that is changing, it removes an existing requirement in EU legislation for companies that deliberately release GMOs into the environment.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I do not wish to speak directly to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but it provides a context for a point that I would like to raise for the consideration of the Minister about the trade in animals and animal products regulations. I do so against the background of what is said in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Explanatory Memorandum. We are told that the amendments in this measure are “technical in nature” with “no policy changes”, so no public consultation has been undertaken. According to paragraph 11.1:
“As no policy changes are included in the instrument no guidance specifically related to this instrument is required”.
The point I want to raise arises under Regulation 19(3)(d). It deals with an amendment introduced in light of Council Decision 2011/408/EC, which lays down simplified rules and procedures on sanitary controls for certain fishery products. The regulation states that the following new paragraph is to be substituted for paragraph (2) of the legislation:
“Products listed in paragraph 1 that originate from Greenland and enter the United Kingdom are not subject to veterinary checks that would otherwise apply to products originating from countries that are not EEA States, provided that the following conditions are satisfied”.
Noble Lords can see what these conditions are in new paragraph (2)(a), (b) and (c). I am particularly concerned about who is to be satisfied that these conditions are indeed satisfied, because there is no explanation of who will consider whether these various tests are met.
The point arises particularly in relation to new paragraph (2)(c), which refers to,
“consignments of such products dispatched to the United Kingdom from Greenland”.
which should,
“conform with the requirements of EU legislation concerning animal health and food safety relating to the products”.
This is a context in which there are to be no veterinary checks, so in the interests of biosecurity and eliminating biosecurity risks, it is very important to know who, other than a veterinary expert, is going to be satisfied that these consignments conform to the requirements of the EU legislation. I know I am putting a question to the Minister which is very difficult to answer now, but the point really arises in relation to paragraph 11.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum. This is perhaps something about which guidance could be given so that everybody knows who will undertake the responsibility of checking that these consignments conform to the regulations. At first sight, without broader context to put it into perspective, it seems very strange that products from Greenland—much though one respects their quality—should be exempt from these veterinary checks by some other means when there is no clarification about exactly how anybody will be satisfied that these other means are actually being met. Had there been more consultation, somebody else might have raised this point and it would have been more thoroughly investigated. At the moment, it looks as though there is a gap that needs to be addressed. If the Minister cannot do so now, it could be done through guidance at some later stage. It would be very helpful if he would undertake that the matter will be examined and addressed in guidance if it is thought appropriate.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer. As somebody who has lived a long time in the farming industry and who was a spokesman for the sheep industry, I am glad that the two opposition spokespeople raised the question of this great uncertainty and the agricultural industry’s reliance on imports and exports. We want to have everything right.
I think most of us find it very difficult to follow exactly what is likely to go on in the weeks ahead. Focusing on the Benn Act is not the full story, because presumably there could be a settlement before we get to the end, or the EU might offer some changes, and we would like to be sure that our legislation is fully up to date. So the farming industry will be extremely grateful to the Government for taking all precautions. Churning out this legislation in the event that something might happen is becoming a bit of a habit. At the same time, the farming industry would be very unhappy if a loophole were left that might surprise us.
I am very interested that we have up-to-date legislation on spongiform encephalopathies, because we are very much bound by what the EU has said on that. At the same time, the sheep industry is being rather hamstrung, in that it has its own encephalopathy, which has caused the fact that all sheep exported have to be split down the middle and the spinal cord removed. This is putting quite a lot of extra cost on to exports at the moment. The EU is moving towards removing this requirement and we would like to be kept fully up to date on that element. So I support the Government in their efforts on this matter.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and the department for bringing forward these statutory instruments. I also thank the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its work in preparing for today’s debate. As regards the amendment, I think the whole House will accept that it is not the wish of the farming industry, any rural business, or any business or individual or family, that we crash out of the European Union without a deal. However, I do not think this is the occasion when we should be pressing this forward, and I hope it will not come to that.
I have three or four specific questions. A number of noble Lords have spoken today about the ban on free movement and alternative arrangements to TRACES. When this was raised in the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the department said that,
“a pre-final version of the UK’s new ‘Import of products, animals, food and feed system’ went live on 30 September”.
When will the final version be introduced and when will it be operational and trialled to make sure that it works seamlessly on 1 November, if required?
Under the new procedures which require the issuing of certificates, as I understand it, I have a particular question in the context of Northern Ireland’s exports to southern Ireland. In the absence of the Stormont Assembly, which bodies have been consulted by the department to make sure that Northern Ireland industry and Northern Ireland-equivalent producers are satisfied that the requirements are in place? According to the Northern Ireland DAERA office, 18,000 certificates a year are issued, which potentially could rise to 1.9 million or more. Can the Minister assure the House today that there will be the capacity to issue the increased number of certificates that will be required in view of the fact that we will be listed as a third country—or will we be covered by any arrangements? Obviously, we do not know what the final arrangements will be.
My particular question to the Minister is whether there will be a sufficient number of vets or alternative qualified officials to process and issue these certificates. Reading the Irish press last Thursday, it appeared to me that there was grave concern that there are not enough vets, not just in the whole of the UK but particularly to address the issue in Northern Ireland.
Will the Minister outline the arrangements that were announced in a consultation for ending the transport of live animals when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union? I accept that the Secretary of State, representing Chipping Barnet, as she does, will not have been exposed to many suckler cows or spring lambs. However, she must be aware, as the department alludes to in these two statutory instruments, that many of these movements of live animals are for purposes other than for slaughter, such as breeding, showing et cetera. Even when spring lambs are exported from the north of England, Scotland, Wales and, I imagine, Northern Ireland as well, for example, to France, this is a very limited trade. For every live animal that is transported, it used to be said that there were seven in carcass form—I have been unable to get the up-to-date figures.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest since I have a farm. I am very concerned about the welfare of live animals being transported. What happens if there are hold-ups at ports, which might happen very easily? Is this included in the regulations? I am pleased to see the amendment to the Motion. I want to add to my voice to those saying that it will be a disaster to go out without a deal. I just wish that the whole Brexit saga would go away.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I should have declared my farming interests as set out in the register. That was remiss of me.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, took your Lordships to Greenland and asked who is to be satisfied. Unless I get precise detail on that point, I assure the noble and learned Lord that I will write to him with an explanation and place a copy in the Library. We are seeking to bring forward and put on to our statute book that which has gone through the Commission in the agreement. We are not suddenly deciding that we, out of some whim, will add trade with Greenland. We are adopting, refining and getting on to our statute book what has already gone through that rigour.
I will get chapter and verse on who is to be satisfied, but we are not adopting anything new in these instruments. I agree that this is one of the nightmares of having the statutory instrument alongside the Explanatory Memorandum. Statutory instruments sometimes become a source of considerable confusion to me. I am very grateful for a proper Explanatory Memorandum. Of course, what we want to do is to ensure that we have the top biosecurity and that consumers and the people of this country are safe with all products, whether from home or abroad—including, indeed, from Greenland. The whole basis of what we are seeking to do is to ensure that we have those very strong measures in place.
On the points made by the noble Baroness about the recent legislation, the Government will abide by the law. However, our task, and my task, which I alluded to in my opening remarks, is to prepare for any eventualities. We think we might get an extension if one is ever required; I cannot guarantee that today. I am sorry to be so punctilious, but our task—I am looking particularly at the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Parminter, and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville—has been to be able to say, in all sorts of scenarios, that we have done everything possible. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose rightly said that if we did not get our listing on Friday, many farmers up and down the land would say, “You mean you didn’t even try? You didn’t even take the precaution of seeking a listing?” We did.
I understand the thrust of what the noble Baronesses have said and the comments made about the amendment to the motion. However, I want to make it clear that this is about ensuring that Defra does everything it can to ensure that the Commission sees our bona fides in adopting all the law which it has adopted since we went through the exercise of seeking a listing earlier in the year.
As I have said, the majority of the Brexit SIs are needed whether we leave with or without a deal. If they are no longer needed on exit day, they will be deferred until the end of a transition period. There have been many hundreds, and a lot of our work has been about getting the statute book to where we need it to be. We do not see the affirmative route as being used anything other than extremely sparingly. It is not a desirable route unless, with the buffer of timing, we think it in the best interests of the United Kingdom. Obviously, it is not something I would ever want to deploy unnecessarily or wantonly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, made a number of points. On the scrutiny of the variation and the Secretary of State’s powers, having met Ministers from the devolved Administrations, it is important to say that the Secretary of State could vary the list of third countries or alter the import requirements only with the consent of all the devolved Administrations, so it would need to be deemed in the interests of all the Administrations. As I explained, those decisions, and the decisions that Ministers would be required to make, which currently reside with the Commission, will be informed by the four UK Chief Veterinary Officers, who are our top veterinary experts on animal health, and the Food Standards Agency, which is our expert on the public health aspects. The Chief Veterinary Officers would, in turn, be supported by the scientific analysis of the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Given the international respect with which both the FSA and the APHA are regarded, I feel confident that these decisions would be in the appropriate hands. Also, Regulation 18.4 makes it clear that to change these lists, the Secretary of State must bring forward a negative SI, which, if anyone is concerned that this is not a step in the right direction, enables us to scrutinise it.
Noble Lords will understand that the line is that we do not comment on leaked documents. However, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch—and as I have said very often—that the UK is a world leader on animal welfare and environmental standards. We will not water down our standards as part of trade negotiations. We have a reputation for quality that is built on those standards and on the dedication of farmers and growers to meeting UK consumers’ expectations. With what is already on the statute book, the current UK import requirements—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I have been listening carefully to this debate. Given what the Government have submitted to Brussels at the moment, might the Minister reflect on his terminology? He has referred to the UK on a number of occasions, most recently in his last few comments. The Government’s policy is that it would no longer be the UK, as Northern Ireland would operate under one regulatory regime and Great Britain under another. Can the Minister be clear what the legislative relationship would be with this instrument because, for the first time since the 1920s, one part of the United Kingdom would not have the same approach as the rest of it? Will he reflect that these commitments no longer refer to the UK as a whole?
With regard to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about Northern Ireland, can the Minister explain what might happen if there is a no-deal scenario—which he says he has to prepare for—when it comes to some of the checks that would be required in Northern Ireland, given its relationship to the Republic of Ireland? The temporary measures that the Government published in March indicated checkpoints. These would be off the border, but nevertheless those taking and receiving goods would have to go to designated hard areas. Are those temporary measures still planned by the Government if there is a no-deal Brexit? If we are faced with that on 31 October, are the Government indicating that from 1 November there would be hard areas in the United Kingdom to check goods covered by this statutory instrument?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I will return to that because I want to make sure that I have on the record precisely the point that the noble Lord has asked. I will wait for some strong advice to get the form of words right to satisfy your Lordships. The instruments relate to all parts of the United Kingdom. That is precisely why in all cases—particularly the issue I referred to—it would be the chief veterinary officers from all parts of the country who would take a view about the variation of lists.
Quite rightly, there was also some consideration of IPAFFS and TRACES. If there is a deal and an implementation period, we will continue as currently. In the event of no deal, the UK would replace TRACES with IPAFFS, which will be operational for all third-country imports on the day we leave the EU. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked about public beta—quite rightly, as I have asked the question myself. IPAFFS is in public beta and users can register for the system and check their log-in details if they have registered previously. As it is in public beta, IPAFFS is monitored to assess performance and to investigate any issues raised by users. There have been no downtime events or high-severity incidents since public beta commenced.
So far, in terms of feedback on IPAFFS and the status, 155 users have participated in business readiness sessions. Importers and their agents, the FSA and the port health authorities are taking part in sessions around the country. Users were asked to express as a mark out of 10 how confident they would be in using IPAFFS from day one. After the readiness session, the average confidence score was nine. Since launching public beta on 30 September, we have seen a further 127 registrations, bringing our total to 1,198 users registered for IPAFFS. We think that engagement so far has gone well, as has the rate at which users have registered.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
The thrust of the outcry in the Irish press was that, if we have no deal, imports from southern Ireland into Northern Ireland will be deemed to be from a third country. That is why they have evaluated that they will need 1.9 million certificates or, potentially, inspections. That raises the question of where such inspections would take place.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The Republic of Ireland remains in the EU. As I said, we will not be inspecting, because we believe that the EU’s standards are high. We are addressing this matter in these statutory instruments precisely because imports from the EU will not require additional inspection as they are of a suitable standard.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
No. I am going to make progress, if the noble Lord will forgive me. I have had a lot of interventions and I will address his point.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh also raised the issue of veterinary surgeons. We are offering free training for official vets to sign EHCs for food products. Some 736 have been registered with the APHA to assess free training, of which 564 enrolled on the course for this qualification; 152 have since qualified. The total number of official veterinarians who can sign EHCs for food products has increased by 200 to 835 since 8 February. We have also created a new certification support officer role to assist official vets and are offering free training. To date, 170 have registered and 47 have qualified. We have published a list of official veterinary services on GOV.UK to help businesses find official veterinarians. I am absolutely clear that vets are vital in this. That is why the statutory instrument tidies up the position in relation to veterinary surgeons, as I have said.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about animal welfare and transport. There is considerable concern about the welfare of animals in transport and we will continue to recognise EU transport welfare authorisations for an interim period, to mitigate the risk of friction at the border from EU consignments arriving. This is an area where the Government will look in future to see how we can enhance animal welfare. We have been clear that we understand the issues about transport and the Scottish islands, but we think that there is considerable room for improvement, and this is a work in progress. I understand the point my noble friend makes about farming interests as well, but we need to be mindful, clearly, that our standards of animal welfare are clearly understood.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, spoke about the legislative relationship if there were different regulatory regimes in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The Prime Minister recently highlighted that there are ongoing negotiations, and it would not be appropriate to pre-empt those at this stage—I suspect that the noble Lord expected me to say that. The statutory instruments deal with third-country listing and, specifically, operability amendments.
To answer the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, we are absolutely clear on this and it is central to our border delivery group work. We absolutely understand it, which is why I mentioned animal welfare to my noble friend Lady McIntosh. We are very conscious of the importance of planning to ensure that we have the facilities in place and do not have animals held up. There must be alternative ways, including by using other ports, because we all understand that the straits between Calais and Dover, in particular, are going to be pressure points. It is important that we work to make sure we have capacity in place at other ports, including rerouting to EU ports and airports that have the appropriate border inspection facilities. We are very mindful of the importance of our animals coming from this country, where we want them to be well looked after, and moving to other parts of Europe. I know that there will be some details that I have not adequately addressed. Some are detailed and I want to make sure that I get the absolute chapter and verse, so that in no way have I verged into my own personal view, but instead given a distinct expression of view.
I understand everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, but I do not believe that, in bringing forward the statutory instruments, I have done anything other than the best I can to ensure, in whatever circumstances we are presented with, that we are in a position to say clearly to the Commission that we have done everything possible to secure its consent for a listing if there were a circumstance in which that was necessary. I entirely back up my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. I think I know farmers quite well, coming from that stock, and if we had not bothered to do this, with its nearly £5 billion consequence, and had not put this forward in the way we have, there would have been very considerable alarm and disquiet that we had not done everything possible, for any scenario. One thing about these times is that nothing is particularly certain, and therefore we have to cover all eventualities. So, I understand the noble Baroness’s amendment, but I hope she will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I think that we would all accept the Minister’s sincerity on this issue and the courtesy he has shown in answering the many questions that we have thrown at him this afternoon. I do not have a problem with the request for listing; if we withdrew it at this stage, it would be misinterpreted. Our concern is what is riding on the back of that, and some of the other detail in the SIs that is being put forward as a package. That is why we have raised these concerns today.
Of course I understand the need to be cautious about the whole biosecurity issue. The noble Lord has done a significant amount of work in championing that cause. He said—and of course he would say that—that the Government never respond to leaked press releases, but he should understand our concern, because this press release and the leak have a ring of truth. We can all see politically what is happening here: on the one hand there is the desire of Liz Truss and the Department for International Trade to get a new trade deal with the United States and, on the other hand, that is in contradiction with a lot of things that the Minister has been saying this afternoon about high welfare and food standards.
The Defra briefing says that the Minister and the department will come under “significant pressure” from the Department for International Trade to weaken the UK’s food and environmental standards to secure a trade deal with the United States. We cannot ignore that, and we look at the SI partly with that in the back of our minds. We could debate how likely that is, but we can see the culture and policy clashes that are going on there. That is all I will say about that.
Our concern, however, is that these SIs go further than simply ensuring compatibility with current EU rules. We have debated this—this is not new in these SIs—but to compare the European Commission, with all the checks and balances that it has before it makes a final decision, with the Secretary of State, who is one person, and, in the words of these SIs, has a great deal of autonomous power, is always a cause for concern. That is why we like to see the checks and balances that go behind that. When we have debated other SIs—and the noble Lord and I have reflected that we have considered at least 100 Defra SIs, and there are many more, so we have been through the mill on all of these—it has been made clear that the Secretary of State will not act alone but will take soundings and advice. Our concern now is that that was not spelled out in that way in these SIs today. The wording is not consistent with wording that we have seen before. But it was helpful that the Minister spelled out the role that the Chief Scientific Officers would play in all of that, and that that is now on the record.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, the concerns about these SIs are not just about defective drafting: there are a number of other issues as well. It is misleading to say that these SIs are just technical: they are more than that. I was interested in the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, about who decides whether the conditions are satisfied, because throughout the SIs—perhaps it is too strong to talk about “sloppy wording”—there are words that can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Throughout the SIs, for example, it says that the Secretary of State will “take account of” a number of factors. But that could mean, “I took account of it but I took no notice of it”, to put it bluntly. So it would be helpful for the future, perhaps in guidance, to make it more explicit where the responsibility will stand and who will have the final say on things.
I agree with the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that the amount of uncertainty in the farming community is huge. We do not want to add to that or to inadvertently open the door to cheap imports that would undermine the existing farming community or lose that very precious EU market for our farmers going forward. That is why we are so sensitive about this issue and why it is important to have this debate today.
I am grateful for the answers that the Minister has given on a number of the issues I have raised. It is certainly early days for IPAFFS—if that is how you pronounce it. The number of users that the Minister talked about is not that great in the big scheme of things; we will find out whether it is really robust enough to take the amount of trade that we are going to be dealing with only when people do not have another option. Nevertheless, I am grateful for that information.
I agree with a number of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Again, this is not just a concern about this SI; Northern Ireland trade across the border was an ongoing issue way before this became the new political touchstone of issues. On the one hand, there are the huge political connotations of what should happen in Northern Ireland regarding trade—but there are also the practical issues of all those people who have not had to take their produce to a third place that is not on the border but might be, and then of course you get into the complications of people who are food manufacturers and who constantly cross the border. It feels like nobody is reaching out to those people to say, “We understand, and we will do whatever we can to try to make that easier”. All the political solutions that are being proposed at the moment certainly do not make it sound like trade in Northern Ireland will be anything like as easy as it is today.
I do not think that I have missed any points. We have had a good debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I will not push this to a vote. Although there are issues in the SIs that I still feel need to be addressed, if we do not put in a request for the listing, that would also be misinterpreted. I am grateful for the Minister’s response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Animal Health and Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Regulations laid before the House on 5 September be approved.
Relevant document: 61st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Repeat of an Urgent Question asked in the House of Commons on proposed changes to the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration—
Lord Bethell (Con)
We would like to move on to the capital requirements SI, please.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, there may have been a change in the order of business as expressed in my brief, for which I apologise. I therefore assume that we will now hear the repeat of an Urgent Question—the tariffs? I hope that the House will bear with me while I discover what I am supposed to be asking the House to consider. Right—let us have another go.
Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 5 September be approved.
Relevant document: 61st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Bethell (Con)
I beg to move that the House considers the Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Risk Transformation and Solvency 2 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Perhaps I may help the Minister. I think he wants to move that they be approved. His speech has been prepared for a different venue.
Lord Bethell
I beg to move that they be approved.
As the House will be aware, the Government had previously made all the necessary legislation to ensure that in the event of a no-deal exit on 29 March 2019, there was a functioning legal and regulatory regime for financial services from exit day. Following the extension to the Article 50 process, new EU legislation has come into force and, under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, it will form part of UK law at exit. Further deficiency fixes are therefore necessary to ensure that the UK’s regulatory regime remains prepared for exit. The two instruments being considered today deal with two new pieces of EU legislation that have recently come into force.
The first instrument resolves deficiencies in the EU’s prudential regime for credit institutions and investment firms to take account of revisions the EU has recently made to the capital requirements regulation. This regime sets out how much capital institutions, such as banks and investment firms, need to hold. The CRR is a directly applicable EU regulation that has applied since 2013. An exit instrument correcting the deficiencies in retained law was laid and approved by Parliament in 2018. Earlier this year, the EU finalised a revised banking package, which included amendments to the CRR made by an amending instrument known as CRR2. This gives effect to some of the internationally agreed Basel reforms, which are the centrepiece of the post-crisis reforms aimed at making banking safer. Similar changes are expected in all G20 countries that follow the Basel guidelines.
Through the UK’s membership of the G20 and its Financial Stability Board, we have committed to the full, timely and consistent implementation of the Basel 3 reforms. Our deficiency fixes for CRR therefore need to be updated to take account of CRR2. There are three main areas where fixes are required: third country treatment, transfer of functions and updates to definitions.
Consistent with the approach taken in the 2018 exit instrument to amend the CRR, the regulations remove the preferential capital treatment given to the largest banks and investment firms in the EU 27 to reflect the fact that the EU and UK will treat each other as third countries in a no-deal scenario. In line with the approach that the Government are taking to all onshored financial services legislation, the instrument transfers a number of functions currently within the remit of EU authorities to the appropriate UK bodies. Functions such as the development of detailed technical rules on certain provisions of CRR will now be carried out by the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority or the Bank of England. Where CRR2 confers a delegated legislation-making power on the Commission, these powers are converted into regulation-making powers conferred on the Treasury. Use of those powers by the Treasury will need the approval of Parliament. Finally, CRR2 amended some definitions used in CRR. The instrument corrects those updated definitions so that they can operate in a UK-only context.
The Treasury, financial regulators and industry agree that it is critical to have deficiency fixes in place by exit day for these new CRR provisions. Without them, there will be considerable legal uncertainty around the capital requirements that apply to banks and investment firms, particularly those that apply to global, systemically important banks. The powers of our regulators to supervise and enforce capital requirements would also be in doubt, increasing the risk of financial instability.
I now turn to the second financial services instrument we are considering today. In January this year, the Solvency 2 and Insurance (Amendment, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations were approved by Parliament. Those regulations addressed deficiencies in Solvency II as it will form part of UK law at exit. Since then, revisions by the EU to the Solvency II delegated regulation have updated aspects of the approach to setting insolvency requirements for insurance funds, including the simplification of capital calculations and greater alignment of capital requirements across insurance and banking legislation. These revisions took effect on 8 July 2019 and will form part of UK law after exit. The substance of the revisions will not result in deficiencies after exit, and the updated provisions will continue to operate in the UK as they do now.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, these capital requirements regulations and indeed the solvency II ones follow a well-trodden path in terms of allocation of powers from the EU to UK regulators, as relevant. By and large I have no problem with that, apart from the fact that it occurs to me that this might be one of the very few occasions on which there would have been a possibility—I will save noble Lords by not indulging in it—to debate in this Chamber some very important things about bank resolution and bailing. For such important things following the financial crisis not to return, shall we say, with more frequency to this place is not the way it should be with our largest industry.
I shall give an interesting bit of history about the particular requirements here. Country-by-country reporting was inserted in CRD, as is mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum. We had been told how damaging such revelations would be to the banks, but nevertheless I found a way to get country-by-country reporting included so that if there were proof of damage, the Commission could come in and stop that provision from coming into force. And—guess what?—that provision was never exercised. So it is just a question of being persistent. Of course, I had hoped that country-by-country reporting would extend still further into other areas, but I was not the person in charge of those negotiations.
A lot of the substance of the capital requirements regulations 2019 now relates to minimum requirements and eligible liabilities—the so-called MREL—that banks must hold so that in resolution they can both recapitalise themselves and hopefully proceed as a new bank or make funds available for resolution. Under those rules, as the Minister said, there are ways in which assets and liabilities from within the EU receive preferential treatment. They receive, if you like, better valuations, but those priorities will go when we are no longer in the EU, which will mean higher provisioning. One assumes that a reciprocal thing will happen at the EU end so that it will no longer be giving favourable treatment to UK assets and liabilities.
The Bank of England is proposing to postpone those changes. I do not necessarily object to that, but some of the changes in terms of how the MREL is to be held within subsidiaries merit a little more examination. That is because I have been trying to work out in my own head, and I tried to explain this to the Minister in the Tea Room, I am afraid rather badly, what actually happens to the group when the MREL additional provision is waived. We could have a situation where, because we are giving a kind of transitional relief in the UK to a subsidiary of a UK business, but corresponding relief is not given on the other side of the Channel to a UK bank with a significant EU subsidiary, although we are not going to be asking the EU bank to find more MREL, the EU could be asking for that to happen.
What would happen to the UK group and its MREL when a greater amount of it is going to be allocated to the subsidiary that is in the EU? One thing that could happen is that it just uses up some of the spare MREL in the group. But, realistically, if there is no change happening at the UK end to increase the required MREL, that means that there is now more MREL backing what happens in the EU on resolution than what happens in the UK on resolution.
It may be that this is very minor or technical, because many of these changes are still being phased in, and I strongly suspect that the period in which we are not going to impose it will be covered, at least in part, by the fact that there is this transformation. I suppose it boils down to this bottom-line question: can we be sure that there is not an additional risk being imported to the UK end of things in resolution?
I noted that the response to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s second question seems to make it look as if these things are irrelevant for large groups where they base things on internal models, because they make up or compute their own risk. I would like to know whether that is the case and whether this is therefore yet another occasion when the smaller organisations will find that their costs are going up and the larger organisations will find that theirs are not.
The other point is that if we do not have equivalence provisions with existing third countries with which the EU has equivalence decisions—if we have not remade those equivalence decisions—a similar kind of change of treatment will come about. Do we have all those equivalence decisions under way or queued up, ready to happen at the relevant point?
I will switch now to risk transformation and solvency II; I have very little to say on that. It seems right that a UK special-purpose vehicle has the same rules no matter from which country it is going to receive assets. I do not think I believe in the notion that you give better treatment in any particular circumstance. Giving shoddy treatment if the assets are coming in from one country, better treatment if they are coming in from another and different treatment again if it was entirely UK-based would be a way to get a bad reputation, so that seems to be a highly sensible outcome. No doubt the other way around is also true: our insurers and reinsurers are likewise not able to transfer assets into any kind of what one might term a less rigorously regulated special-purpose vehicle.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief. We on these Benches are obviously not going to oppose either of these SIs. We understand why they have been produced in such a hurry. Like my colleague, I really have no issue with the risk transformation and Solvency II SI. It genuinely seems to be simply technical and not to raise any non-technical questions.
I have two sets of questions about the capital requirements regulations, some of them picking up on my noble friend’s comments. The first is a democratic deficit comment. Reading this, it looks as though the European Banking Authority and European Securities and Markets Authority, which would have been supervisors of many of these functions within the European Union, have quite a strong accountability relationship with the European Parliament. In the process of transfer, initially to Treasury and then on to the FRA and FCA, that is lost. It looks as if we now have a series of fundamental and important decisions and issues removed from the purview of any democratic body at all. Can the Minister comment on that? Frankly, it is an underlying problem with quite a few of the SIs that we have seen and the kind of changes they make.
My second set of issues—around trying to get to the bottom of the impact—has been well described by my noble friend, so I will not go through it in detail. The problem with the impact assessments is that they do not really tell us what happens to the industry, just the admin cost of making a change. I share my noble friend’s concern that one of the costs involved would be making it more expensive to do business in financial services than it has been, and it therefore being advantageous for financial services companies to move that business out of the UK to the EU. That seems a rather awkward and pointless way to set up future arrangements.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, that we debate the whole issue of resolution too infrequently. The tone of much of the paperwork here is concern about whether we are putting burdens on the industry that put it at a disadvantage, but one must remember that the whole issue of resolution is about catastrophe. We have had a serious resolution issue only in the 2008-09 crisis, and that was a frightful example of the taxpayer taking the losses in an area where the banks had previously taken the profits. Therefore, resolution is a very important issue, which we should perhaps bring to more democratic discussion more often. I say that with some trepidation because I am at some disadvantage compared with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, since they are professionals and tend to know what they are talking about in this area.
I have to glean the essence of the debate from the Explanatory Memorandum, which I therefore look to a more robust test of the quality of. The problem with British legislation is that so much of it is a statutory instrument that modifies another that amends another that amends a previous Act of Parliament which is by now a decade or so old. It is almost impossible to understand the meaning of this particular statutory instrument from looking to the instrument itself; one is entirely dependent on the Explanatory Memorandum to bring out the essence.
On Saturday—a lovely day to be in, reading an Explanatory Memorandum—I therefore set out and got about as far as paragraph 2.2:
“The EU’s prudential policy regime for banks, building societies and investment firms consists of the CRR”—
the capital requirements regulation—
“and the Capital Requirements Directive IV … together with a range of Binding Technical Standards (BTS). CRR is directly applicable while CRDIV was implemented in UK legislation, predominantly through the Capital Requirements (Country-by-Country Reporting) Regulations 2013 … the Capital Requirements (Capital Buffers and Macroprudential Measures) Regulations 2014”,
at which point I went to the guidance for Explanatory Memoranda. The best bit of guidance comes from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in May 2015:
“The purpose of the EM is to provide members of Parliament and the public with a plain English, free-standing, explanation of the effect of the instrument and why it is necessary. It is not meant for lawyers, but to help people who may know nothing about the subject”—
that is me—
“quickly to gain an understanding of the SI’s intent and purpose”.
I have said things like this before: at its best, the Treasury produces some excellent documentation, but the real burden of these SIs is getting some feel for what they mean.
As has already been mentioned, we will not object to or vote against the statutory instrument. That would produce a constitutional crisis, and we have got enough people creating those at the moment without the Labour Front Bench in the Lords doing it. Accordingly, the Minister may have no fear of a Division. I am therefore going to do no more than pick out one or two issues that concern me.
The first is about the commencement. Regulation 1 states:
“(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
(2) Parts 1 and 2 come into force on the day after the day on which these Regulations are made.
(3) Part 3 comes into force on exit day”.
I have a real problem with that. My understanding is that this is a no-deal-only SI for. I do not understand what happens if we exit the European Union—as is the declared intention of the Prime Minister and many others on the Government Front Bench—with an agreement. Perhaps the Treasury has decided that it is an unreal possibility. If we leave with an agreement, we surely go into a transition period during which this SI would not apply. Can the Minister explain what happens on 31 October if we in fact leave with a deal?
I plodded on through the document and more or less understood what it was about until I got to paragraph 2.16:
“A resolution-specific example of the removal of preferential treatment for the EU27 relates to provisions introduced by CRRII regarding MREL. CRRII imposes additional internal MREL requirements for non-EU G-SIIs”—
which I understand to be global systemically important institutions.
“This has the effect of increasing the amount of MREL that material subsidiaries of non-EU G-SIIs should maintain from a range of 75%-90%, to 90% of the full amount of external MREL that the entity would be required to maintain if it were a resolution entity”.
Since it is in the EM, I assume that that is important. However, I do not have the faintest idea what it means. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain. Lest Members feel that I am being unfair to the Minister, I did alert him to this point this morning.
Later in paragraph 2.16, I found it slightly worryingly that it says:
“The Bank of England, supported by HM Treasury, has proposed to apply its transitional powers to delay the impact of this change until 31 December 2020, giving affected firms in the UK time to adjust to changes to meet their obligations”.
That seems to say in plain language that the MREL reserves will be less than is required in the long term under these regulations, during a period when the world is likely to be particularly turbulent. This seems somewhat unwise. Granted, it has the effect of reducing the burden on the appropriate firms, but I would like to have seen in the document some examination as to what inquiry the Government have made to assure themselves that the increases in risk due to the reduced reserves have been thought through and are deemed to be satisfactory. While I can see that the Treasury has moved with respect to the burden on the industry, it does not seem to have considered the possible increase in risk.
At paragraph 3.1, we are told that this is an “urgent ‘made-affirmative’ procedure”. It is obviously urgent now, but it seems to me that it did not need to become so; it was possible to see somewhat earlier that this statutory instrument was needed. Why were these problems not anticipated? Why could this instrument not come to us under the normal procedure?
I turn to the second statutory instrument. Paragraph 2.1 in the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“This instrument also addresses deficiencies in the UK’s Risk Transformation Regulations 2017 (‘the RTR’) and related legislation. The RTR implements a competitive UK regime for Insurance Linked Securities … business”.
That sounds to me as though it is introducing policy, although it is too complicated for me to be sure. One of the almost sacred tenets of the withdrawal Act was that it would not introduce policy; it would essentially only use the appropriate powers where necessary. That assurance is repeated in paragraph 7.2, which says:
“The financial services onshoring SIs are not intended to make policy changes, other than to reflect the UK’s new position outside of the EU, and to smooth the transition to this position”.
What I found even more confusing was that I could not find where this promise in paragraph 2.1 was. I wondered—as they are in quite separate places—whether it was anything to do with the various references to “special purpose vehicles”. I know that the financial services industry is comfortable with special purpose vehicles—more than at the receiving end in industry—but, having come across them, I slightly shudder. I hope there is no material change to the use of special purpose vehicles brought about by this instrument.
Lord Bethell
I thank noble Lords for this powerful debate on a highly technical subject. I endorse the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in her opening comment that this Chamber does not see enough discussion of financial services and this critically important industry. By this afternoon’s account, that is a very great shame; there is a huge amount of expertise in the Chamber and it would be great if that could be put to use more often.
I take on board completely the comments of frustration about the Explanatory Memorandum. I too spent some of Saturday negotiating it and share that frustration; it is incredibly difficult to navigate. I reassure the noble Lord that there is no deliberate effort to obfuscate or be unclear. This is simply a very technical area where, unavoidably, one layer of legislation is on top of another in the British manner. There is no simple explanation for technical SIs such as this without running through the narrative in the way that he, frustratingly, found.
I start by answering the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about the MREL, which is possibly the most delicate and central issue raised by these SIs. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, questioned the timing, and whether that opened up some form of gap or concern, where Britain might be underregulated. I reassure him that that is not the case. The SI does not in itself delay the change until 31 December 2020. Rather, the Bank of England, like all financial regulators, has a general legal power to phase in Brexit-related changes by law. In this case, the Bank has proposed to delay the MREL requirement until 31 December 2020.
The Treasury is very sympathetic to this proposal because it gives the industry the ability to make arrangements for compliance instead of facing some kind of cliff edge, which would create uncertainty and a rush to do things on 31 November 2019. The industry is also completely sympathetic to the Bank’s proposals. In other words, this SI does not introduce new risk or appreciably increase existing risk. If anything, it reduces risk by phasing the introduction of a difficult measure in a reasonable, pragmatic and sensible way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, raised questions about the use of subsidiaries and whether capital in one subsidiary in one country might in some way be favoured over capital in another subsidiary in another country. I reassure her that the Bank of England may waive requirements for UK subsidiaries of UK banks without reciprocity but only if, in the Bank of England’s judgment, it would be a means of preserving UK financial stability rather than importing risk from the EU. That decision lies with the Bank of England and hopefully provides some reassurance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised the question of democratic deficit. Under the new arrangements, the European Parliament will not have oversight over British arrangements. However, both the FTA and the PRA are creatures of statute. They are both accountable to Parliament through existing primary legislation. They must both act within their statutory objectives; this provides scrutiny that we believe is comparable to that exercised by the European Parliament.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked about MREL equivalence. I reassure her that the Treasury has legal powers to replicate any existing EU equivalence decisions and import them into UK law vis-à-vis third countries. The Treasury is in the process of reviewing all these decisions before retaining them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about the impact on business. I reassure her that we are absolutely not hurting small firms; these firms do not hold capital across borders and therefore do not need to worry about the scope of these changes. More generally, this SI seeks to preserve legal stability, so any impact on commercial profits will be a function of a firm’s response to the business environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the affirmative procedure. I share his concern about such measures being used without need or care. I reassure him that in this instance the use of the affirmative procedure was reviewed very carefully and only because this was felt to be extremely important. The Government have laid over 600 Brexit SIs to ensure that we have a functioning statute book when we leave the EU, in all scenarios. We have been incredibly careful and very limited in our use of the “made affirmative” urgent procedure under the EU withdrawal Act, using it for a tiny percentage of the total figure. In this instance, using the “made affirmative” procedure was really the only reliable way we could make the necessary legal changes given the uncertainty around the number of sitting days. The timetable was also driven by fresh EU legislation which made it difficult for us to lay these at an earlier stage.
Lastly, I reassure the Chamber that these SIs are not the vehicle for new policy. They are very much about implementing existing policies. They are supported by industry after a large amount of engagement with all the major players and in no way is this an effort to try to cook up new ways of doing things. The Government believe that these instruments are essential to ensure that prudential regulation of UK credit institutions, investment firms, insurers and insurance risk transfer continues to operate safely. I hope that the House has found today’s sitting informative and that it will join me in supporting these regulations.
Risk Transformation and Solvency 2 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 5 September be approved.
Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to an Urgent Question in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, we are unconditionally committed to finding a solution for the north/south border which protects the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the commitments which can best be met if we explore solutions other than the backstop. The backstop risks weakening the delicate balance embodied in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement between both main traditions in Northern Ireland, grounded in agreement, consent and respect for minority rights.
Any deal ahead of Brexit on 31 October must avoid the whole of the UK or just Northern Ireland being trapped in an arrangement without consent in which it is a rule taker. Both sides have always been clear that the arrangements for the border must recognise the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland and, reflecting that, be creative and indeed flexible. Under no circumstances will the United Kingdom place infrastructure, checks or controls at the border.
On Wednesday 2 October, the Government proposed a new protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. These were serious and realistic proposals that reflect the core aims put forward by both the UK and the EU. These proposals are consistent with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and deliver our aim of avoiding any checks or infrastructure at the border. These proposals were set out in detail in an explanatory note and in a letter to the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. The Prime Minister deposited both of these documents in the Library of the House on Wednesday 2 October and published them in parallel on GOV.UK. To support these negotiations, a draft legal text was also shared with the Commission on a confidential basis.
The Prime Minister’s Europe adviser, David Frost, and UK officials have been in intensive discussions with the Commission for some time now and will continue meeting with their counterparts from taskforce 50 for further technical talks this week. These meetings will cover our proposals on the protocol and the political declaration to reflect the goal of a comprehensive free trade agreement. The previous withdrawal agreement and political declaration would have trapped the United Kingdom within European regulation and customs arrangements. The Prime Minister is continuing talks with EU leaders today, including the Prime Minister of Sweden, the Prime Minister of Denmark and the Prime Minister of Poland. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is also travelling to EU capitals, including Amsterdam and Valletta, over the course of this week.
Discussions with the Commission are ongoing and sensitive, and we must ensure that we as a Government act in a way that maximises our chance of success in these negotiations. We will of course keep the House informed as these discussions continue. The legal text that we have shared with the Commission will be published only when doing so will assist the negotiations. We hope that those in Brussels will decide to work with us over the upcoming days. If they do, we will leave with a new deal. If they do not want to talk, we are prepared to leave without a deal. We need to get a new deal or a deal, but no more delays. We must get Brexit done so that the country can move forward and focus on the cost of living, the NHS and other domestic priorities”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I feel I have heard some of those words before in many other Statements. To be clear, what the Urgent Question asked was when the Government intend to publish the full legal text of proposed changes to the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. MPs will be asked to make a judgment on this and consider the Prime Minister’s offer. I am not going to call it a deal, because a deal to me is something that is agreed between two parties. At the moment, this is an offer from the Government which, as I understand it, has not found favour with anyone yet except the Government’s partners, the DUP. Unfortunately, they are not in the Chamber.
The Prime Minister’s language on this has changed. First, he said he would die in a ditch rather than ask for an extension beyond 31 October, then this was going to be a take-it-or-leave-it offer and now he talks about negotiations and having a basis for discussion. There are probably three things to ask here. First, there is the issue of confidentiality. My understanding is that both the President of the European Commission and the Irish Prime Minister have called for the legal text to be published. It is just the British Government who are saying that they do not want to publish it.
Secondly, in two different places, the Statement says that:
“Under no circumstances will the United Kingdom place infrastructure, checks or controls at the border”.
“At the border” is very specific. I have two questions for the Minister about that. Could the offer that is being made to the EU, which we do not know the details of, mean that the EU would need to put checks or infrastructure in place? Is the UK considering checks or infrastructure at locations other than the border? Those are very important questions, given how specific the Statement is.
People also want more information on employment, consumer and environmental rights—that is why seeing the detail of the legal text, rather than just brief Statements, is so important. Can the Minister confirm that we will maintain the levels of protection we have and keep pace with the EU in future?
My final point relates to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive having to consider the arrangements on the border every four years. Can the Minister give any examples of such arrangements being in place, or reference any treaty or agreement, in respect of which the parliament or assembly that has to make the decisions is not active? It seems an extraordinary way forward.
It would help the House if the Minister could respond to these questions. I struggle to understand why the legal text cannot be published to parliamentarians in this country so that we can see the detail of it.
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. Of course, implicit in her first question was the fact that discussions are continuing; she was quite right about that. These are proposals from the United Kingdom, as she says. It appears that they may not have found favour with the EU, so talks will continue and the texts may change. She can rest assured that, as soon as we have any concrete proposals, we will bring them back to the House and we are considering whether they should be published before then. As soon as it is helpful to the negotiation process, we will indeed do that.
The noble Baroness asked whether the EU will put checks or infrastructure in place. I do not know. It is a question for the EU. How they choose to interpret their regulations is a matter for them. We very much hope not. We have said that we are prepared to work with them.
We have no plans for any infrastructure at the border, as I said. We have always said that there will have to be customs checks, but they can be done in traders’ premises and places such as haulage depots and others away from the border, similar to the way in which we conduct excise checks now. I remind the noble Baroness that there is already a VAT border, an excise border, a currency border. The excise regulations are currently enforced by both sides, by co-operative, pragmatic, low-profile, intelligence-led policing, in co-operation with the Irish authorities. We envisage something similar.
The issue of social and environmental protection goes back to a question that I answered last week from the Liberal Democrats. I remind the noble Baroness that we already exceed EU minimum standards in a whole range of areas—be it holiday pay, maternity protections, workers’ rights, et cetera, our standards are already higher than those mandated by EU minimum standards. That also applies to environmental standards; our climate change targets are higher than the whole of the rest of the European Union.
Lastly, on the noble Baroness’s question about the consent procedure, clearly, it is a challenge that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting, and we are working hard to get it reinstated. We are prepared to discuss the details of these proposals but we believe that, when one is going to subject an area of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to control by an external body through alignment with EU single market standards, which we are proposing in a compromise for Northern Ireland, it is right that the people of that area should have the opportunity to give their consent or otherwise to those proposals.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, by way of explanation, I said that the DUP were not represented here. I see that they have now taken their seats, and we look forward to hearing from them.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I hope that the Minister understands that part of the reason for our demand to see the full text is that many of us neither trust the Government nor are convinced that they understand quite where they are going. In answer to my question last week, the Minister insisted, as he just has again, that the Government are aiming for higher standards than common European standards. Yet, since he gave that any answer, I have seen a number of briefings for the press from Ministers and sources in No. 10 which suggest that we want more flexible standards to be able to open up to a range of things, which suggests lower standards. It says here that we are not prepared to be a “rule-taker”. It also says that we want to renegotiate the political declaration so that we can have our own regulations.
When I was following Margaret Thatcher’s proposals for the single market in the early 1980s—the Minister is probably too young to remember that period—the argument which was made by those around Margaret Thatcher was that we were a rule-taker. We by and large took US regulations and taking part in creating European regulations would give us much more of a handle on questions such as how we coped with the internet, and what is now the whole digital economy, and we would therefore be able to take part in making our own regulations.
There seems to be a fantasy in the Government that we are not going to follow American regulations or European regulations but we will be a wonderful island with our own special regulations in this whole area, which will make it much more difficult to trade and produce services in collaboration with others. Is that the direction we are going in, or are we going back, as some Ministers seem to have suggested at the weekend, to following American regulations instead?
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Lord for his question and particularly for his age compliment, although I am not sure I am that much younger than he is; I accept it none the less.
I said last week, and repeated to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that we already have higher standards in virtually all those areas than the EU minimum standards. What standards we have in the future is one of the great opportunities of Brexit. What standards we might like to have is a matter for this House. The great thing about Brexit is that we no longer have to have these things dictated for us by the European Union. This is about taking back control. We can decide these matters for ourselves.
I am not clear why the Opposition think that this is such a bad thing. We can decide whether we have much higher standards, different standards, alternative standards. The opportunity to better regulate new and emerging areas of technology is one of the great opportunities of Brexit when we are no longer attached to the lumbering dinosaur of the EU. We can decide these things in a nimble and flexible way.
In terms of the noble Lord’s general comments about standards, obviously it is the case that if we want to export to the US market, the Chinese market, or the Indian market, we have to follow those standards in those particular areas. For the vast bulk of our trade and commerce which goes on within our own internal economy, we can determine those standards for ourselves.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister address this issue about standards? He seems not to have properly understood, if I may say so, what actually happens. We have higher standards now in many cases than the EU, but we are in the EU. Being in the EU has not stopped us having higher standards. We are not stuck with a dinosaur at all. We are setting our own standards. The only reason that I can see for removing this passage from the political declaration about the level playing field is so that we may be able to have lower standards than the EU in future; otherwise, there is no need for it. Will the Minister will reply to that point?
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Lord for his question, but I understand the issue very well. I have taken part—as he did—in the standard-setting procedure in the European Union and understand very well how it works and how cumbersome it is. I maintain my point. I do not understand why we need to dynamically align to have exactly the same standards as the European Union. We may want to have different standards. Who is to take a view or a judgment on whether standard A is appropriate, different, lesser, or higher than standard B? That is something for this House to decide. We might decide to have an alternative policy which regulates some things in a different way. It is the flexibility to do that which is appropriate. I maintain the commitment of this Government to have higher standards than the European Union, as we do now.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, one reason why I think your Lordships believe we need to see the legal text concerns the arrangements that are being proposed for democratic consent in Northern Ireland. As I understand the arrangements under the Good Friday agreement, a majority in both communities have to agree to any major change. Why is it that this is being briefed as giving the DUP a veto? Why should not Sinn Féin also have a veto on any change that might introduce a hard border in the island of Ireland?
Lord Callanan
The arrangements for decisions in the Northern Ireland Assembly are set out. This is one of the areas that we are prepared to have detailed and intensive discussions on, and we are doing so. I take the noble Lord’s point about publication. I am not ruling out publishing the legal text. We will do so when it is helpful to the negotiation and when we can aid discussions in this House.
Brexit: No-deal Tariff Schedules
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given in the other place earlier today by my honourable friend the Minister of State for International Trade. The Statement is as follows:
“On 13 March, the Government announced that they would implement a temporary tariff regime in the event of a no-deal Brexit. This regime would apply equally to all imports that are not subject to alternative trade arrangements and would apply for up to 12 months while a full public consultation will take place to inform long-term tariff arrangements.
The Government would prefer to leave with a deal, and will continue to work energetically and with determination to get that better deal. This will require the European Union to show the same spirit of compromise that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is demonstrating in his engagements with our European friends and allies.
As the UK leaves the EU the Government are stepping up their preparations to get the UK ready to trade if there is no deal. The temporary tariff regime would maintain open trade on the majority of UK imports, helping to support consumers, business supply chains and sensitive sectors of the UK economy. Due regard has been given 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 to promote external trade of the UK; the desire to maintain and promote productivity in the UK; and the extent to which these goods are subject to competition. It reaffirms our commitment to become a free-trading nation. It realises the benefits of an independent trade policy to support increased trade and investment with partners new and old around the world, and increased choice for British shoppers.
At the same time, Her Majesty’s Government recognise the importance of retaining some tariffs. Tariffs would therefore apply on just over 10% of imports, supporting sectors facing unfair global competition, mitigating otherwise significant adjustment costs for the agriculture sector, supporting the strategically important automotive sector, and maintaining our commitments to developing countries. Preferential access to the UK market is important for our developing country partners and tariffs have been retained on a set of goods, including bananas, raw cane sugar and certain kinds of fish, to demonstrate the Government’s ongoing commitment to countries in the developing world. During the Article 50 extension, the Government have remained responsive to the concerns of business and have reviewed the tariffs that would come into effect if the UK left the EU without a deal.
To answer the honourable gentleman, the Government will publish the final tariffs shortly. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on any amendments being considered prior to that announcement. As he will understand from his former guise as shadow Chancellor, to do so would be irresponsible. The Government will ensure that Parliament is informed as soon as practically possible once a final decision has been made”.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
Ah, “shortly”; that wonderful word.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer. Tariffs are, of course, the simplest and most direct of the tools of trade policy. They are taxes on imports. Higher tariffs shelter domestic industries; lower tariffs increase competition and benefit consumers, so Governments should be interested in them. We are interested in the announcements that are about to be made.
Having apparently lost interest in the Trade Bill—maybe it just got lost—we should perhaps not be surprised by the way the Government have been treating tariffs. The interim announcement in March was done without consultation and with very limited debate. We have yet to see an impact assessment or even an Explanatory Memorandum. Can the Minister confirm that these important documents will be published for the next round?
There are rumours about changes that will be made to the original list, which was heavily criticised from all sectors in industry. Can the Minister say more about that? He said that he would not comment on it, but can he give us a timeline rather than just “soon”? We know that the rumour is that the statutory instrument dealing with this is to laid on 21 October, although it will be a made affirmative SI, which I understand to mean that this House will not have a chance to comment on it. Can the Minister confirm that?
Do the Government intend to have our final WTO schedules formally ratified by the WTO this time, or is this just another temporary announcement? On a related issue that bears on the same point, have we reached an agreement yet on our tariff rate quotas? We know that significant challenges by other countries have already been logged that may require substantial compensatory offers. Where are we on that? What assessment have the Government made of likely new tariffs on our exports which will be introduced by our new trading partners? Does this not just mean that UK companies will face competition from a flood of cheap imports that undercut them, putting thousands of UK jobs at risk? What remedies do the Government have in mind to counteract that?
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. He will understand my difficulty as I cannot comment on a specific date for the announcement, but it will be made shortly.
On his question about SIs, there will be one made affirmative SI and 10 made negative SIs to implement the tariff schedules. We will introduce them as soon as possible following the tariff announcement, which, as he will know, is market sensitive. We expect to liberalise roughly 87% of tariff lines and that tariffs will be applied to roughly 13%. We do not expect to have significant changes from the previously announced regime from March. As always in these things, there is the difficulty of getting a balance between the interests of consumers and the interests of producers.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister repeated the estimates from March of how this would impact British business. I remind the House of how the business community described those figures. The CBI described them as a “sledgehammer to our economy”, and said that they show,
“everything that is wrong with a no-deal scenario”,
and that there had been no input from businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses described them as “undercutting”. When I took the textile firms that I used to represent in my former constituency through what the implications would be, they described them as devastating for the remainder of that sector.
If these measures are a “contingency”—as the former Business Secretary described them to the BEIS Committee in the Commons when it asked him about them in March—rather than anything definite, what consultation has there been with the business community? If the figures have not changed, as the Minister indicated, then we can assume that there will be no changes, so we would start to feel their dramatic impact almost immediately if there is a no-deal scenario.
Secondly, the Minister will recall that these “contingency measures”, as they were called then, were published alongside what would have been the emergency measures for the Northern Ireland border, because we cannot have this tariff regime in place without mechanisms for what would be our land border with the European Union. Can the Minister be very clear: would the contingency arrangements covering the Northern Ireland border that the Government also published in March be implemented in a no-deal scenario?
Finally, the Minister rather glibly said “shortly”. If this measure is put in place, it will be because there has been no deal. That could be in a little more than 10 days in which Parliament can consider the implications of the next European Council. If businesses are not to see a repeat of the lack of input that they described in March, will the Government at least publish what the responses from the business community have been if we are to take the Government at their word that it has been consulted?
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. I genuinely would like to be helpful, but I cannot go further than to say that the announcement will be made shortly. We have been responsive to business concerns. We have been listening to businesses and sectors since the original announcement, but, as I said in response to the first question, there is always a balance to be struck between the benefits for consumers and for industries that rely on imports for their productivity and domestic producers. These are difficult decisions; I am not hiding that. I did not say that there would be no changes; I said that there would be no significant changes. I can confirm that we will not be implementing these tariffs on the Northern Ireland border.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
How can our Irish and continental partners possibly be expected to take seriously the document they received from the British Government last week when it promises “an open border” but at the same time provides for customs controls internal to the island of Ireland?
Lord Callanan
I think the noble Lord is a Question behind. That is on the previous Question; on this Question we are talking about the tariff regimes.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As my noble friend knows, I have been concerned all along about the tariff schedule. As has been said, business and consumer interests need to know what charges will be levied if we have no deal. I know that there are some concerns about the detail in some sectors, so I am very glad to hear that the SIs are on their way. I hope that business will have been listened to by the new Government.
My concern is actually a longer term one, which I raised with my noble friend the Leader. Assuming that we go down the road of free trade agreements, as has been promised, there has to be an incentive for countries to agree to them. We might be talking, for example, about an FTA with the EU, which sends us so much more in the way of goods than we send it, or about Canada or Japan, which would do very well out of the temporary schedule published in March. When I was a business executive, I was involved in a successful EU FTA with Korea and a failed one with India. I know how difficult it is if you do not have strong levers and protections that the other side wants lifted. How are we going to win in these difficult circumstances?
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for her question. She speaks with great knowledge in this area. I remind her that the announcement, when it comes, is a temporary tariff regime lasting for up to one year. We will still have considerable levers over the countries that she mentions because we can revise it in the future if they are not interested in a free trade agreement. We are a free trading nation and we want to have tariffs as low as possible on a mutual basis, but we retain the levers because they will want long-term certainty for their businesses.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, following on what my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was saying, my noble friend will be aware that if we have a temporary tariff regime of our own we need to establish at an early stage what our notified schedule with the WTO is going to be in the longer term. In the unhappy event that we have to go out of the EU without a deal, will the Government commit to consult rapidly and substantively on what that longer term schedule with the WTO should look like?
Lord Callanan
My noble friend makes a very powerful point. We will want to move to permanent arrangements as quickly as possible and to consult widely with both business, consumers and parliamentarians before we do so.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, can the Minister respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed? How is a Northern Ireland farmer expected to compete when the Republic’s farmers will be able to bring produce into Northern Ireland tariff-free, whereas they will not be able to send it to Great Britain tariff-free? Surely common sense dictates that our market will be used to dump because they can bring in products for next to nothing. How can the Government maintain the pretence—particularly after last week’s documentation—that Northern Ireland is being treated the same as the rest of the United Kingdom? It blatantly is not.
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for his question. As I said in a previous answer, this will not be a permanent arrangement. We will want to look at it and revise it in the light of circumstances, but we remain of the view that it is the best thing to do in the short term to ensure that the Northern Ireland border works smoothly with no infrastructure or controls put in place there.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as we have three Urgent Questions to follow, I remind the House that the procedure for Urgent Questions is as a Private Notice Question so there should be questions rather than speeches.
US-imposed Trade Tariffs
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given to an Urgent Question today by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for International Trade in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“The UK continues to be a champion of the international rules-based order of which the WTO is a cornerstone. However, the UK Government are clear that resorting to tariffs is in no one’s interests. Low tariffs and free trade underpin prosperity and jobs in the UK and globally. That is why we are pursuing an ambitious free trade agenda, lowering tariffs and quotas where possible, and working on an ambitious package of bilateral free trade agreements. Our Government are disappointed by the US Administration’s announcement that they intend to impose tariffs on the UK and our European partners following the recent ruling.
My right honourable friend asks what communications there have been between the Government and the United States. We have continued to raise the issue at the highest levels. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has herself spoken to US Trade Representative Lighthizer, Commerce Secretary Ross and Vice-President Pence. My right honourable friend the Chancellor raised the subject of Airbus tariffs with US Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin in July. My right honourable friend the Member for Maidenhead raised the issue with President Trump during his state visit to the UK in June of this year.
This dispute has a long history, going back to 2004. I will not detain the House by setting out that history, but it is long and complex. It has led to this WTO judgment, and although the UK, France, Germany and Spain took steps to bring their support into compliance with the WTO, the WTO ruled last year that further steps were required to bring this support fully into compliance.
Following this ruling, the UK and other Airbus nations have now taken steps to bring their support fully into line. The Airbus nations are seeking confirmation from the WTO in ongoing proceedings that these steps are sufficient to achieve compliance. A ruling is expected in the coming months. However, WTO procedure allows for the US to seek authorisation to retaliate on the EU in parallel to these proceedings, and therefore the WTO has confirmed whether the Airbus nations have now complied with their WTO obligations.
On 2 October, the WTO announced that the US can be authorised to impose up to approximately $7.5 billion annually in tariffs. Following this, the US published a list of tariffs on the EU, targeting products produced by the Airbus nations and wider EU. These measures are not in the interests of the UK, the European Union or the United States. Tariffs would only inflict damage on businesses and citizens on both sides of the Atlantic, and harm global trade and the broader aviation industry at a sensitive time. We are working closely with the US, the EU and European partners to support a negotiated settlement to the Airbus dispute, along with the separate Boeing dispute. I would like to reassure the House that we will continue to press this issue at the highest levels and urge the United States to withhold tariffs until the WTO has confirmed that we have complied in the compliance proceedings, something we expect to happen in the next few months.
Single malt scotch whisky has been tariff-free with the US for more than 25 years now, and whisky exports to the US are worth over £1 billion annually. Single malt producers are often small and medium-sized businesses, and these tariffs will hit those who can afford them least.
We will continue to talk to the US at the highest levels to press for a settlement and for the US to hold off applying these tariffs until the WTO has had time to rule”.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, with this episode we move from the sunny uplands of the free trade world, which we so often hear about, to the reality of trade activity. It should not be a surprise that this is happening. It is no secret that the American President has sought to define his Administration on a trade warfare basis. He seeks to put the interests of America first and to repatriate jobs and industry to the USA. What else could we expect? We should not be surprised at this latest démarche. We saw the United States’ negotiating objectives for a future trade agreement with the UK. It was obvious that the language of the UK-US document was extremely aggressive, demanding concessions but offering little in return. The introduction says it all:
“The United States seeks to support higher-paying jobs in the United States and to grow the US economy by improving US opportunities for trade and investment with the UK”.
We have seen it all before.
The measures being imposed by the United States will see tariffs on a range of food, drink and textile products including olives, cheese, wine, jumpers and Scotch whisky. Many of these products are subject to geographical indications, appellations awarded under trade agreements to protect products of cultural heritage. American producers have made no secret of their desire to apply iconic labels such as Stilton cheese or Scotch whisky to products made wholly in the USA using similar production techniques.
I have a question about this. During the proceedings on the Trade Bill, we got the Government to agree to support the continuation of EU GIs. Is that still our policy?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I repeat what I said before to the noble Lord and I declare my interest in the register of a shareholding in the drinks industry.
Resorting to tariffs is not in the interests of this country, the EU or the United States if we are to have the productive economic relationship with the United States which we are working on and want to have. It is already our largest trading partner outside the EU. It is clear that we need to have a positive, mutually beneficial relationship with the United States. We believe that that is the way forward because the United States is an important market for our produce.
Geographical indicators is not my specialist subject, I am afraid, but it seems to me that Scotch whisky comes from Scotland and Bushmills comes from Northern Ireland. We should cherish our produce and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, given the indicators under WTO rules that these products are unique, they will become even more vulnerable to a tariff regime that the United States may play across the European Union. This industry is uniquely Scottish and British. As with distinct elements of our cashmere industry, which was referenced in the Answer to the Statement—I represented many mills in my former constituency—the industry has been able to flourish in the past, certainly within textiles, because when it has been a victim of international trade disputes, European structural funds have supported it. What are the Government’s contingency arrangements for rural businesses and the whisky industry?
The noble Lord gave figures for the Scotch whisky industry showing that single malts account for one-third of the £1 billion in whisky exports. There are 7,000 rural jobs in that sector, and the cashmere and textile industry is particularly vulnerable. Will the Government give a commitment that whatever the European Union decides, we will be in lock-step with it? If so, the tariff proposals we have just been questioning the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on will have to be amended to be in lock-step with the EU response to the United States. I hope that Ministers have given that commitment to our interlocuters from the United States. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that that commitment has been given.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, as I have said, we are working with the EU. This issue concerns tariffs imposed on the EU, and we are part of the Airbus quad that I have been learning about. We are working very strongly with our EU friends and partners, in working with our American friends and partners, on something that we in this country do not think is beneficial for American trading interests or our own. Whatever our status—whether a member of the EU or not—we are clear that we do not believe that this is right or beneficial. If we have left, we will also be saying that this is not a basis on which we should be working. These tariffs are not beneficial to the EU, the UK or the third party in this, the United States.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, according to the figures from the Food and Drink Federation, Scotch whisky is the single most successful export across the world? Is he not as concerned as I am that the US seems to have chosen to pick on UK brands such as Bushmills from Northern Ireland and Scotch whisky? Why has it not been extended to products from another Airbus nation, such as French champagne or brandy? Does the Minister share my concern that this does not augur well for our future trade relations after the UK leaves the EU?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my understanding is that tariffs will be levied on the Airbus nations and the EU. The data shows me that 38% of French trade is directly targeted, compared to 10% of ours. These tariffs will affect the EU as well. My noble friend is right—to repeat it and put it on the record—that Scotch whisky is the UK’s largest agrifood export, at £4.7 billion in 2018. It is the largest contributor to the UK’s balance of trade in goods and, thinking of Scotland, it provides 7,000 rural jobs and 11,000 in total. It is very important to Scotland.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer but I cannot help but contrast it with the answer given by the Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, on Thursday when asked a similar question about 25% tariffs on Scotch whisky. He saw the opportunity to attack the EU for what he calls its illegal acts and he stated that the Scotch whisky industry would be better off post-Brexit—if we can believe that, given the amount we sell to Europe.
In his answer, the noble Lord substantially reflects the press release the Government put out when the WTO ruling was made. I am reassured that he has repeated the Government’s view that they are not acting illegally, and that no European nation is; that is very important. If we can get the WTO to establish that, that is good. There is no question of illegality, despite what Jacob Rees-Mogg said, but now there is a question about support for engineering jobs in Airbus. He was disparaging about them. Some 124,000 people in the United Kingdom are employed or supported by Airbus. Will the Minister join me and the Unite union and write to every one of those 124,000 to say that the Government still support that industry?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the Government are clear that the United Kingdom is compliant with WTO rulings in the Airbus dispute. That is where we pitch our line. We think we are compliant so it is not right that the US Administration should impose tariffs when we are clear that we are acting lawfully. I use this opportunity to encourage our friends in the United States to see that this is a time when we should be seeking free trade and encouraging these industries, wherever they are, whether they are small rural ones or large industrial ones.
Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 5 September be approved.
Relevant document: 61st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument is part of the Government’s package to prepare for the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without a deal. The instrument relates to safety and security declarations on goods imported and exported between the UK and the EU. The Government’s aim is to leave the European Union on 31 October 2019 with a deal that works for citizens and for businesses. Until that final deadline, we will do everything in our power to reach an agreement with the EU. However, as a responsible Government, we have a duty to plan for all scenarios and to prepare comprehensively for Brexit. I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has included this instrument in its report of 3 October 2019 as an instrument of interest.
I will set out the context of the provision we wish to introduce for managing the safety and security risk of goods entering and leaving the UK. These measures maintain many of the aspects of the current safety and security regime. They help facilitate the flow of trade while ensuring the continued safety and security of our borders.
In 2005, the World Customs Organization adopted the SAFE Framework of Standards as a deterrent to international terrorism, to secure revenue collections and to promote trade facilitation. As a result, safety and security declarations became a requirement when goods moved across borders. The UK as part of the EU has previously required safety and security declarations only for goods leaving or entering the EU. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, UK importers and exporters will be required to complete safety and security declarations for goods moving to and from the EU as well as the rest of the world.
This instrument has four key purposes. First, HMRC has listened to industry concerns about the readiness of business to comply with safety and security requirements on UK-EU trade from day one. Therefore, the instrument gives businesses more time to prepare to start to submit declarations to HMRC for movements to and from the EU. It introduces a 12-month transitional period until 1 November 2020, during which there will be no requirement for entry summary declarations for goods imported from territories where the UK does not currently require them. This means that entry summary declarations will not be required for imports from the EU.
Entry summary declarations will continue to be required for goods imported from the rest of the world. Therefore, the UK will receive the same safety and security import declarations in no deal as it does today. The transitional period introduced by the instrument applies to declarations that the UK does not currently receive. As a result, there is no increased security risk to the UK from this approach.
Secondly, the instrument gives HMRC a discretionary power until 1 November 2020 to allow businesses to submit safety and security declarations for certain exports after the goods have left the UK. This is a contingency power subject to HMRC’s discretion, and the specifics will be set out in a public notice. The power would be used if required in combination with a similar power granted in a previous statutory instrument to extend the time to provide the export customs declaration. Together, they could allow an extended time, if needed, to provide the combined export customs declaration and the export safety and security declarations. HMRC would use the power if needed to facilitate movement of goods to assist in the continued free flow of trade.
Thirdly, the instrument removes until 1 May 2020 the requirement for exit summary declarations for empty containers, empty pallets and empty vehicles moving from the UK to the EU. They are not also required for any spare parts, accessories, equipment, pallets, containers and means of transport. Such declarations are not required at present, so we are giving businesses a longer time to prepare.
Fourthly and finally, the instrument also clarifies that a combined export safety and security declaration can be accepted when exporting goods. This ensures that exporters are not required to submit separate exit summary declarations.
The instrument does not apply to movements of goods between Northern Ireland and Ireland. A previous statutory instrument set out that, in no deal, there would be no safety and security declarations between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The Government are committed to supporting the all-Ireland economy by avoiding checks and infrastructure at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Under no circumstances will the Government put in place infrastructure checks or controls at or near the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
This instrument strikes the right balance between giving traders time to prepare for new arrangements with the EU and maintaining the safety and security of the UK. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, to give a degree of context about the scale of smuggling into the United Kingdom, the Government’s most recent figures, from August 2019, suggest that there was lost revenue to the United Kingdom of £2.5 billion in smuggled tobacco alone. To put it into further context, HMRC estimates that lost duty on smuggled tobacco represents 14% of all duties. For alcohol, HMRC considers 8% of all duty revenues being lost through smuggling and crime.
How does this happen? It is because of the context that the Minister described—this is my first opportunity to interact with him, so I welcome him to his position. As he said, these measures and security checks have been there for a purpose. Yes, we have seen progress in the form of a reduction, but the figures are still stark. Any one of us during the short debate on this statutory instrument could do a quick news check: “HMRC”, “crime”, “smuggling”. With the checks, mechanisms and security procedures uniform and in place across the European Union, the Government take credit for the reduction in organised crime. Parts of our national security strategy are contingent on eradicating organised crime from the Balkans and thereby smuggling into the United Kingdom. I sit on the International Relations Select Committee. During our inquiry last year on the Balkans, we were told by the Government that their top priority in respect of the Balkans was smuggling into the United Kingdom from organised crime. It was therefore no surprise that when this issue was debated in March there was considerable disquiet that a waiver for a year would, in effect, put in place a new regime. That was debated in March and those concerns were highlighted, so it is almost breathtaking that this is considered an urgent matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said in the previous debates on statutory instruments, it is urgent only because the Government have not acted earlier, and we may be in a position of crashing out of the European Union. The terminology of urgency in relation to bringing forward this measure is not a result of our not being unaware of these issues, it is just that the Government and HMRC do not have mechanisms in place.
The Minister said that there would be a transition period for businesses which were not prepared, but what have the Government been doing over the past seven months in order that there is heightened preparedness? In all our debates in this House since March on what the Government claimed was no-deal planning, they have spoken of heightened preparedness. We saw most recently that HMRC had to auto-enrol businesses to have an economic operator registration number; now there is a waiver for security procedures. What proportion of trade in goods into the United Kingdom will this measure cover? Have the Government prepared an impact assessment with regard to law and order and our strategies for reducing organised crime? If the Minister were able to highlight where that is, it would be helpful. I was not able to find it, so it would be helpful to know whether the Government have prepared such an assessment. The Government’s own Explanatory Memorandum states:
“This instrument will be covered by an overarching HMRC impact assessment”.
It then gives a link. I looked at the link, but I could not see anything relating to this instrument, so it would be helpful if the Minister were able to state what the position is.
The Minister’s terminology was interesting. He referred to the measure being “transitional”, but if you have a transition you start from the status quo until a new mechanism is in place. This is the new mechanism; a waiver is a new mechanism. It is not a case of the status quo carrying on until there was some form of agreement with the European Union as to what the procedures would be for imports from the European Union, because that would be covered if we had a withdrawal agreement. If we do not have one, this is not a transition—it is a new system that may well last for 12 months, as the Minister said. Can the Minister give clarity on that? He said that this is for 12 months, but Regulation 3(3) suggests that there could be,
“different extensions for different exporters, goods, places or means of transport, or any combination of these”,
if a further public notice is provided. I may have misread the measure, but it would be helpful to know where the restriction of it being only for a year is: that is a genuine question.
The Minister referred to one element of the declarations being waived for empty containers. How will we know if they are empty? If no declarations are required, what is the distinction between an empty container and a full one? How will our authorities be able to know? The Minister is suggesting that there would be no checks, on any grounds whatever, on any containers coming across the Northern Ireland border. I remind the Minister that, according to Northern Ireland government figures, there were 46 million transport crossings at 15 points on the Northern Ireland-Ireland border last year. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that none of the containers that cross the border will have any kind of determination for their security, at destination or source? Not only would there be no checks, there would be a waiver at source and on receipt at the destination. What will that mechanism look like? Nothing that the Minister said today gives clarity on what that would be and how it would cover many elements of 46 million vehicle crossings. There is also little in the revised Northern Ireland protocol. It is of concern that the Government did not do specific impact assessments.
One element raised by the business community in March, in relation to the other measure to which the Minister referred, was the reciprocal nature of this. Can the Minister confirm that this is indeed part of a reciprocal agreement with the European Union? If there are to be no mechanisms and if this is a unilateral waiver—which would, I suspect, have to be applied to all other countries under WTO rules—it opens up the European Union market via Northern Ireland. If the Minister can clarify that this is part of a reciprocal arrangement, some in the business community may be slightly eased. If not, there are considerable difficulties in having a unilateral system and none of the benefits referred to by the Minister will apply. Presumably, they will apply only to those wishing to export to the United Kingdom—our economic competitors—rather than the British businesses which wish to export from the United Kingdom. Given that the Government have been very coy in giving information about how many British businesses have registered with their destination countries for an EORI number, it would be helpful to know about the reciprocity of this too.
Finally, 40% by value of UK imports and exports are from air freight. How will this mechanism apply to the European aviation single market, which we are also leaving, and the interaction between the security procedures and checks that many businesses have had to comply with? Given that, as the Minister indicated, this should be in place if there is no deal, what response have the Government had from the air freight industry?
In many respects, these are very concerning measures. As the Government say, they could last 12 months but potentially longer and are, potentially, unilateral rather than reciprocal. They potentially open up many areas of abuse, especially on the United Kingdom’s land border with the European Union. As the Minister indicated at the outset, this mechanism does not apply to goods between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. What mechanisms will? I hope that the Minister is able to respond to these points.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I echo the comments that have been made welcoming my noble friend to the Front Bench. I support the regulations that we are discussing today but I have some questions; I hope my noble friend can reassure me.
If we have a no deal, the culture at the ports and on the border in Ireland could change. Other member states may be less concerned about what is sent to us in the UK than they have been in the past. I note that there will be a 12-month period when no safety and security declarations will be required. That is probably sensible, to keep the lorries rolling, but, to put it simply, we in this House need to understand what will happen with the enforcement of important laws at the ports and on the border. How will we stop the import of illegal migrants, dangerous knives, machine guns and cocaine—all the things that the Home Office, very sensibly, tries to keep out—let alone illegal cultural works, exotic plants and animals that are prohibited from coming into the UK? What will happen at the ports and on the Irish border? Can the House have some reassurance about how these laws will be enforced in the transitional period and in the longer term?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his new role. It will be interesting to see if he will be the permanent Treasury representative; it is an onerous task that has worn out many a noble Lord.
I am generally unhappy with Explanatory Memorandums and the Minister has gone out of his way to make my point for me. His speech illustrated how an Explanatory Memorandum should be. It is about imports, exports, empty bits and combined declarations. That I can understand but not much more because I do not understand the export and import business. I hope the Minister forgives my somewhat naive questions. It seems that these regulations are designed to create frictionless trade. Unlike the other instruments, there is no problem with deal or no deal because the powers are discretionary in all cases; if there is a deal HMRC can withdraw its discretion.
Taking imports first, the regulations say that there will be no requirement for declarations on any imports from EU countries for 12 months. That is simple and straightforward. What I do not understand is whether EU countries—I was about to say the French—will require the declarations to be generated, even if we do not want them. I do not understand what WTO rules say on things like that. Is there a worldwide agreement that these declarations should be flying about unless there is an equivalent mechanism, which the EU has internally? I hope the Minister will be able to answer the question of whether the French will feel the need to require declarations to be made. The reverse of that is the key question the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked. We may not want to make declarations for 12 months for our exports, but how will EU countries react to that? Are these declarations pieces of paper? I do not really understand. When you get to Calais do you say, “Here is my declaration; the British have said this is good”? Will lorries without these declarations, having avoided a friction problem on this side of the Channel, end up in a big lorry park while they somehow or another overcome this process?
Finally, I did go through all the paragraphs and paragraph 3.2 talks about public notices being issued when these discretionary factors come into effect. I have trouble with the fact that it is being done by the made affirmative process; clearly, had the Government started earlier it would not be urgent. If there is a need for a public notice for these things to happen, should that public notice not already have been published?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for a really intense debate on a key Brexit measure that has been brought to the House. A lot of expertise has been brought to it, and it is my intention to try to reassure the House that this important statutory instrument has been carefully thought through, that it is very much a product of consultation with the haulage industry and that it works as part of the Government’s Brexit programme in a thoughtful way.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, spoke about the very large amount of smuggling that there already is and asked what proportion of trade is affected by the waiver. Goods moving to the UK from the EU are not currently subject to safety and security declarations: that is a key point of this debate. This is a new measure that will introduce new requirements on imports to the UK. It is difficult to measure exactly, right now, what proportion is involved, but I undertake to write to the noble Lord about the exact proportion of trade affected by this transitional period in which entry summary declarations will be required. I will get back to him with a precise figure, since he asked such a specific question.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about the impact on air freight. Interaction with air freight is exactly the same as it is with land ports. Entry and exit summary declarations apply to air freight in exactly the same way, and these easements will also apply in exactly the same way. Declarations will still be required for the rest of the world. On whether these waivers are something new, the waiver is not currently a requirement for hauliers. Declarations are not required by importers in any case so deferring them for a year is not thought to have a big impact on either smuggling or crime.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Can I could seek further reassurance? Will the rules that are currently applied to keep these heinous crimes at bay continue, or will that actually be a problem because of the sheer scale of no-deal activity? That is my concern. Obviously, the security notice, once introduced, will help as well, because there will be a further item that can be checked, but is there going to be a problem in the interim? If the Home Office and its people at the borders are going to continue to do all they are doing at the moment, that would be good to know.
Lord Bethell
The sheer scale is enormous, but the feedback from the haulage industry and HMRC is that they are putting in place the measures necessary for the highest level of declarations. Most of the measures put in place to tackle crime and smuggling are intelligence and data-led; they do not involve inspection of vehicles on a mass scale. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to 46 million crossings of the Northern Irish border. Quite clearly, only a very tiny proportion of those could possibly involve any kind of inspection. So, in answer to my noble friend’s question, the same intelligence and data-led measures will be in place, even during this deferment.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked whether the 12-month waiver could be extended by Regulation 3(3). I reassure him that Regulation 3 is for exit summary declarations only. A 12-month waiver for any entry summary declaration is in Regulation 4 and I reassure the noble Lord that this cannot be extended under the SI. Let me clear up some confusion about the impact assessment. The HMRC impact assessment was republished this morning. I would be happy to share a link to it and a copy of it. It was widely distributed and makes important reading.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Does the Minister think, in all honesty, that for a measure laid before Parliament on 5 September the publication of an impact assessment only on the morning that it is debated in this House is in any way appropriate, whether or not it is urgent? Is it not really rather an abuse?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord makes a very fair point, but I reassure him that this impact assessment is not solely on this SI and is not an effort to try to mislead the Chamber. It is the overall HMRC impact assessment that covers, I believe, duties and the impact of all these measures. Its publication today is an effort to get it out as quickly as possible, and it is coincidental to the fact that we are discussing this specific SI. It is the updating of a previous impact assessment which is, I believe, more than six months old and has been available on the website for some time. If I can provide some clarification on where it can be found, I would be happy to share it. It refers to all the measures contained in this SI.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked why we are using the urgent procedure under the EU withdrawal Act after giving assurances that we would not do so. The truth is that the number of times we have used the urgent procedure is very low indeed—minimal, even. I pay tribute to officials at HMRC and the Treasury for getting through a huge amount of work to get the legislative frameworks in place to prepare for a potential no-deal Brexit. On the eve of prorogation, when certain clocks on SIs that were laid before the House are ticking down, it made sense to use the urgent procedure to make sure that the request of industry and HMRC could be reassuringly executed so in this instance we decided to do that. This has been a really valuable debate—
Lord Tunnicliffe
I hate to be picky, but I asked only one substantive question, which is whether the French have to agree to any of this.
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord asked a very good question. I apologise for not putting it at the top of the list because it is absolutely right. No. This is a matter for the UK. France and other EU member states will have their own requirements for safety and security which UK businesses will have to comply with if entering or leaving those countries. No waiver from them is necessary as this is purely domestic law. I hope that that answers the question clearly.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
That is very illuminating and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, reminded the Minister of that point. I hope that this information on the impact on British business will be considered in any form of impact assessment. If the wavier is not part of a reciprocal agreement, what is the benefit of export for British exporters? Clearly, the waiver will be a benefit for those who are receiving the goods and for exporters to the United Kingdom. What is the benefit of no waiver from our European export markets?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord puts it very well. The truth is that, in order to execute the SI before us, we do not require EU permission, which I think was the substance of the noble Lord’s initial question.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My question is on very much the same point. We are creating this SI, and I entirely accept that it is within domestic law to create a frictionless border, but if at the other side of the border there is a piece of EU bureaucracy—I must call it that rather than French bureaucracy—then the exercise becomes a bit pointless.
Lord Bethell
My Lords, in this Chamber we can execute only what is within the realms of our legislative ability. These are the measures that the industry and HMRC have sought from us. Negotiations with the EU to create the right kind of border will take place in the future. What we are trying to do here is to put in place whatever we can do as a country to have the best possible framework for our importers and exporters.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Perhaps the Minister might like to reflect on this conversation and see whether any of his colleagues could add some colour to that answer. There are quite a lot of deals relating to no-deal situations—I believe the EU calls them bonus deals—and I would be grateful, if there is further information, if he could write to us both.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
This will be the last time I jump to my feet. If the Minister is coming back to the very sensible suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, might he expand a little on our discussions with the Irish Government? The European Union is land-bordered with the United Kingdom, and if this is applying only to those who are importing goods from the European Union, which would cover the Northern Ireland border, but there is no reciprocal mechanism for those exporting, then this would apply to the Irish Government, who are the European Union. What discussions have there been and where would we, in Parliament, be able to understand the position of the Irish Government where this 12-month period could be completely intolerable? Of course, it can be solved by not leaving without a deal, but if we do leave without a deal—which is prohibited by law, but if the Government are determined to get around it—what is the position of the Irish Government and how do we know?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I see the point of passing this order, even if we do not have a reciprocal situation. Business has asked for it. We rightly have done what is necessary. HMRC has done that. I also think that if we behave in a good way, the other member states will be able to see that we have done this, which helps, as it were, to keep the lorries rolling. That could be helpful in forward discussions in a difficult situation of no deal, which I do not think any of us want to see.
Lord Bethell
My noble friend puts it very well. I note the obvious disquiet in the Chamber, and I am very glad to undertake to write, as requested by the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Purvis, to try to clarify this. However, I can only present to the House what is before me. I cannot bring to noble Lords a trade agreement with the EU and I cannot resolve our future trading arrangement with Ireland because those two things are massively out of the scope of this statutory instrument and well beyond my pay grade or my ability to answer in the debate this evening. As my noble friend put it, all I can do is to present to noble Lords a statutory instrument that has been asked for by the industry and HMRC. I hope that it will provide some kind of example and format for our trading partners to lock into and set an example on energy and oomph and on technical jigsaw-making that they can connect with. The Treasury thinks that this is the kind of format that we should aspire to in the future to create the right kind of statutory framework for a successful trading future for the country. It is in that spirit that I commend these regulations to the House.
Motion agreed.
Draft Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) Order 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Order laid before the House on 4 September be approved.
Relevant document: 61st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the draft Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) Order 2019 and the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) Order 2019, along with the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 3) Order 2019, which requires the negative procedure, are a package of measures and it is important that they should be debated together. I am grateful to the House for facilitating this.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have been supporting partners in Kent to develop Operation Brock. Brock is a co-ordinated multi-agency response to cross-Channel travel disruption, specifically when capacity for heavy goods vehicles to leave the UK through the Port of Dover or the Channel Tunnel is significantly restricted. We are prepared to use Brock should cross-Channel disruption occur because of the UK’s departure from the EU in a no-deal Brexit, although it could, of course, also be deployed as a result of disruption resulting from bad weather or industrial action. These orders are a vital part of Operation Brock, as they will significantly expand and strengthen the enforcement regime that underpins it.
Operation Brock replaces Operation Stack, and the difference is that it has been specifically designed to keep the M20 motorway in Kent open in both directions, with access to junctions, even in periods of severe and protracted disruption. Operation Brock consists of three phases, the first being a contraflow queuing system on the M20, between junctions 8 near Maidstone and junction 9 near Ashford. The contraflow system enables all other traffic to travel in both directions of the M20 on the London-bound carriageway when cross-Channel heavy goods vehicles are stored on the coast-bound carriageway. When the M20 queuing system—the first phase—is reaching capacity, cross-Channel heavy goods vehicles bound for the Port of Dover would be diverted to Manston Airport. That is the second phase. The third and final phase is the use of the M26. If needed, the M26 can be used as a last resort to store trucks heading to Europe via the Channel Tunnel.
It is important to note that the Kent Resilience Forum, which comprises bodies such as the county council and the police force, is responsible for the Operation Brock plans. Any decisions relating to the activation and timing of the different phases of Operation Brock will be taken by Kent Police as the Gold Command, in consultation with the Kent Resilience Forum.
We are undertaking an extensive communications programme to inform traders and hauliers of new requirements resulting from our departure from the EU. We recognise that if there is widespread non-compliance, it could lead to serious congestion on Kent’s roads. In the summer of 2015, when Operation Stack was deployed for an extended period of time, compliance with the traffic management system was low. Almost a third of cross-Channel heavy goods vehicles avoided the system, causing serious traffic problems on the local road network, with parts of Kent becoming gridlocked. Over the past year, the department has held regular discussions with the Kent Resilience Forum and other stakeholders in Kent. They have been keen to see gaps in the legislative framework addressed and measures to strengthen the enforcement of Brock.
A final consultation on the package of measures was undertaken this summer. This was targeted to affected stakeholders in Kent, such as Kent County Council, the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel, and freight and road haulage associations. As mentioned in the Explanatory Memoranda, the responses received were broadly supportive and provided helpful points of detail that assisted us in drafting the orders, such as refining when the new restrictions and powers should be used, as well as raising wider points on the deployment of Operation Brock, such as on the provision of welfare for truck drivers. I would like to thank everyone who responded.
It is crucial that these instruments are brought into force by 31 October to ensure that the scheme operates as efficiently as possible and to reduce the impact on businesses and local communities in Kent. I am grateful that time has been found for these debates to take place so quickly and for the speed with which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Select Committee have scrutinised these instruments.
I will now set out what the two orders we are considering today, as well as the associated third order, provide. Under order No. 1, traffic officers in Kent will be able to require the production of documents to establish a vehicle’s destination and readiness to cross the border. If the driver can produce the appropriate documents, they will be given a permit for onward travel. In addition, the order provides powers to direct drivers to proceed to a motorway, removing the vehicle from the local road network, and powers to direct drivers not to proceed to the Channel Tunnel or the Port of Dover except via a specified road or route. Document checks to help make sure that a haulier has the right documents will be carried out on the M20 by temporary traffic officers contracted by, and under the direct supervision of, Highways England, while broader traffic management and enforcement will be dealt with by permanent staff and the police.
This order also sets the amount of the financial penalty deposit for offences relating to Operation Brock, so it may be helpful if I briefly explain the roadside enforcement regime. A driver with a UK address who commits a road traffic offence can be issued with a fixed penalty notice, which must normally be paid within 28 days or it can be enforced by a local magistrates’ court. If a driver does not have a UK address and therefore could avoid that follow-up enforcement action, the police or the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency—DVSA—can require the immediate payment of a financial penalty deposit. If a driver cannot pay the deposit, their vehicle is immobilised. This regime is used for many road traffic offences and ensures that penalties are paid. The amount of the deposit introduced by the other two instruments for breaching the traffic restrictions or for failing to comply with a traffic officer exercising the new powers is set at £300. The fixed penalty notice amount is also set at £300 by the No. 3 order, to which I will return later.
Order No. 2 prohibits cross-Channel heavy goods vehicles using local roads in Kent other than those on the approved Operation Brock routes. To facilitate traffic flow, the legislation also requires cross-Channel heavy goods vehicles to remain in the nearside—left-hand—lane when using those parts of the Brock routes that are dual carriageway local roads. Appropriate exceptions to this prohibition have been provided after consultation with the Kent Resilience Forum and freight associations. For example, a vehicle on a cross-Channel journey can make a local collection or delivery provided the driver can provide information sufficient to satisfy a constable or traffic officer that the vehicle is being driven on a particular road for that purpose alone.
To complete the whole picture, order No. 3, which has been laid using the negative procedure, prohibits cross-Channel heavy goods vehicles accessing the coast-bound carriageway of the M20 between junctions 9 and 13 unless the driver is displaying a permit. As I said, this permit will be issued in the Brock queue between junctions 8 and 9, enabling a driver to demonstrate that they have followed the approved Brock route and have complied with any border document checks that may be undertaken in the queue. This order also prohibits cross-Channel heavy goods vehicles joining the M20 contraflow between junctions 8 and 9 of the London-bound carriageway. It also sets the amount of the fixed penalty for offences relating to this series of instruments.
We have provided that the new powers and traffic restrictions in the orders will cease to have effect at the end of December 2020. This date coincides with the end of planning permission for the holding of heavy goods vehicles at Manston Airport. Manston is of course an integral part of the Brock system, so this is a suitable and consistent date for them to cease to have effect.
Crucially, these instruments introduce powers to require the production of border documents and the obligation for drivers to comply with any readiness check before using the roads leading to the ports. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the UK will become a third country, and the customs authorities in EU member states will introduce EU border and customs rules. For goods to move smoothly across the border, traders will therefore need to complete new processes for customs and provide documentation to their hauliers, who will need it when carrying goods. If drivers try to take goods across to the EU without the right documentation, it is possible that they will not be able to complete their journey. That may be because the UK port turns them away because they do not have the required documentation; for example, some of the customs documentation must be scanned at Eurotunnel before the vehicle can board the train. Or they may be blocked from progressing through an EU port by a member state customs authority; vehicles could be delayed and fined or returned to the UK, or goods could be destroyed. Both scenarios could lead to congestion at UK and EU ports. This could be particularly severe at the Channel ports of Dover and Calais, given the volume of traffic that they handle and the existence of French passport controls on the UK side of the Channel at these ports, and could lead to significant delays on Kent’s road network.
We propose conducting border readiness checks in the Brock queues. In practice, this means that: if Brock M20 is active, HGVs heading to Dover and Eurotunnel will undergo checks on the M20 between junctions 8 and 9; if Brock Manston is active, because congestion at the ports has worsened, Dover-bound heavy goods vehicles will be queued at Manston Airport, where checks will take place, and Eurotunnel-bound heavy goods vehicles will continue to queue on the M20 and be checked there. A haulier who is deemed to be ready to cross the border will be given a permit that allows them to go to the port. Hauliers who try to go to the port without a permit could be stopped, directed to the back of the relevant Brock queue and receive the proposed on-the-spot £300 fine by the police or the DVSA.
These orders are of vital importance to allow sensible traffic management in Kent. It is critical that we demonstrate to the public and to business that Operation Brock will be ready, fully operational and enforceable on day one should it be needed to deal with the impact of cross-Channel disruption. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that there has been local consultation on this. However, my word—this conjures up a depressing and distressing picture of the world we might be entering into, and the people of Kent need to be seriously worried about the way in which this will impinge on their lives.
It is worth noting at this point that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew these orders to our attention, noting that it believed that the use of Section 8 powers of the Traffic Management Act 2004 was a “significant” issue that the House should be aware of.
The Minister referred to the fact that the third order was not before us. I hope she will forgive me but I could not hear her explanation of why we do not have it. However, I want to hear clearly from her that the third order is being made at the same time. Could she also please address the fact that, as part of this whole package of activity, there are three special development orders which apply to Manston Airport, Waterbrook in Ashford, and car park D at Ebbsfleet station? They all allow the use of land for the stationing of vehicles, for facilities for drivers and for the pre-processing of papers required in order to export goods if there is no deal. As they are an intrinsic part of the package—although I realise that they will not be part of the Minister’s responsibilities—I think it is important that we know how that will all fit together and when all the information will have come to us that needs to.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, the regulations on custom safety and security, which we have already discussed, have arisen from HMRC’s assessment that the haulage industry and ferry operators will be unable to meet the new requirements that will be imposed on imports and exports in the event of our leaving the EU by 31 October. The regulations will give them leave to submit the necessary safety and security declarations with a delay of up to 12 months.
Of course, these easements are on the side of the UK, and there can be no presumption that they would be met by similar easements on the side of the European Union—a point made persistently by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe—but perhaps it is now more interesting to consider the associated statutory instruments that concern the heavy goods vehicles that carry our exports and imports to and from the Channel ports. Some 90% of this traffic passes through the Port of Dover. The roads leading to the port would be subject to severe congestion in the event of a hard border with the European Union. The statutory instruments speak of the likelihood of utter chaos. They are a belated wake-up call, albeit that warnings arose months if not years ago. An indication of what is in store arose as long ago as 2015, when the French ports were beset by strikes. Then, there were tailbacks on Kentish roads of 12 miles or more. These circumstances were met by a set of powers and provisions given to the transport authorities that were described as Operation Stack. The controls were widely evaded, as we have heard, and huge costs were entailed.
To meet the eventuality of a hard border with the European Union, much more extreme powers are now envisaged. The new enhanced powers that supersede those of Operation Stack are known collectively as Operation Brock. Tailbacks much longer than those of 2015 will occur. I talk of a “hard border” because that is what we must envisage in Ireland in the event of the Brexit deal being proposed by the Government, notwithstanding their protestations to the contrary. In this case, logistical difficulties of the sort I have been describing will affect the Irish border. We must also contemplate extreme political difficulties of a sort familiar to those such as me, who witnessed them directly in the 1970s and 1980s, but which are being wilfully ignored by many of the party in power.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for setting out the reasons for and intended objectives of these two statutory instruments. As has been said, the department laid three instruments, each with an Explanatory Memorandum. The first is a draft affirmative instrument, which confers new powers on traffic officers that will enable them to identify cross-Channel heavy goods vehicles and control their movements in Kent. It also makes provisions relating to enforcement. The second order is also an affirmative instrument and allows for the use of such vehicles to be restricted to the motorway network and other approved routes by prohibiting access to local roads in Kent. The third order follows the negative procedure and allows for the use of such vehicles on the M20 motorway in Kent to be restricted, and makes other provision to facilitate more effective enforcement.
As the Minister has said, these three instruments form a package that allows for the movement of cross-Channel heavy goods vehicles in Kent to be regulated during periods of severe disruption to travel via the Channel Tunnel at Folkestone and the Port of Dover. As has been said, the DfT has indicated that it,
“has worked closely with the Kent Resilience Forum on developing traffic management plans, known as Operation Brock, to be used as a contingency in the event of severe disruption to travel via the Channel Tunnel at Folkestone and the Port of Dover. These instruments support Operation Brock”,
which has been designed to ensure that the M20 motorway in Kent will be kept open and traffic will continue to flow in both directions. Operation Brock is intended as a replacement for Operation Stack during periods of severe and protracted disruption. Operation Stack did not prove an unqualified success, hence the new Operation Brock.
As I have said, the first draft order enables the movement of cross-Channel heavy goods vehicles in Kent to be controlled during periods of severe disruption by conferring new powers on traffic officers. These new powers will be used to tackle non-compliance with the scheme, which would cause or contribute to severe traffic congestion. The new powers are conferred under Section 8 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. Apparently, the draft No. 1 order is the first use of the Section 8 power. As has been indicated, these powers will enable traffic officers to detect and direct vehicles that are not compliant with the traffic restrictions imposed by the second and third orders.
The Explanatory Memorandum notes that, in particular, traffic officers will be able to require the production of documents to establish a vehicle’s destination and to demonstrate readiness to export goods. Powers to direct the driver of a heavy goods vehicle in Kent to proceed to a specified motorway in Kent, or to direct such a driver not to proceed to the Channel Tunnel or Port of Dover except via a specified route or road, are also provided to traffic officers. This order also creates an offence of failing to comply with a traffic officer exercising such powers. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has already said that in many ways, it is difficult to understand the full potential consequences of these orders on the movement of goods and traffic in Kent.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to a very thorough debate today. A number of issues have been raised. I will do my absolute utmost to cover as many issues as I possibly can, but of course I will write, as I am already fairly sure that there are certain issues I cannot cover in great detail.
I start with the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. She started by painting a rather grim picture that this is some sort of a takeover of Kent by the Government. It certainly is not. She mentioned that there has been local consultation, but the request for these powers very much came from the local resilience forum.
Baroness Randerson
I specifically welcomed the fact that there had been local consultation. I am afraid the Minister misheard me.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am sorry if I phrased that incorrectly. I know that the noble Baroness welcomed the local consultation. The point I was trying to make is that this was more than the Government just going to Kent and saying, “What do you think of this?”. This was more about Kent saying, “Actually, given what happened with Operation Stack, we’d really like these powers, and if the Government could sort it for us, that would be great”. So that is what the Government are trying to do today. As has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, these powers are available in the event that there is congestion at the border caused by a no-deal Brexit, but they can also be used for bad weather and/or industrial action.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, noted the use of Operation Stack in 2015. I, too, was unfortunate enough to drive through Kent at the time, and it was a nightmare. It caused great trouble, so we are well aware of the issues that can happen, and they do not have to be Brexit-related. Having said that, however, these powers are limited to 31 December 2020. That is right, in that we would not want to extend powers then leave them hanging for a long period of time if they are not needed in future. Certainly, should we or a Government in the future decide that they are useful and benefit the people of Kent, I would expect similar legislation to be passed again in future, once these powers have fallen away on 31 December 2020.
As I have mentioned, these powers are very much for the benefit of businesses, residents and people who—like me—travel through Kent. They are being made under a variety of different Acts, which is why—I am sure noble Lords understand—one is draft affirmative, one is made affirmative and one is negative. They stem from different parts of our legislative scope and the different things we have available to us. They are a series of instruments and will not come into effect without Parliament’s approval, so the negative does not come into effect on its own.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned the SDOs and referred to three different sites. The SDOs are in place for Manston, which has been in place since January 2019; Ebbsfleet, which has been in place since September 2019 and will be used as an HMRC transit site; and Ashford, which has been in place since September 2019 and is an HMRC transit site and turnback site so that HGVs that arrival at Eurotunnel and are found to be not compliant will have somewhere they can go that will have facilities for them to try to get themselves compliant, so that they can be border-ready and can head across to the border.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned empty lorries. These will be treated the same as other lorries. I will be honest with noble Lords: we looked at whether we could treat empty lorries separately, but there are various issues around, for example, packaging. Some packaging, although it is empty, must have the relevant certification with it because obviously there is no way of making sure that that packaging is empty. Therefore things such as beer kegs need some customs documentation. An empty lorry that does not carry beer kegs will not need it.
This brings us on to the general discussion about the documentation needed, who is checking it and how qualified these people are. There are levels—layers—to this entire system. The traffic officers, whether they be temporary or permanent, will look for the existence of certain documents. This is not a shadow French or EU customs operation; they are looking for the existence of the documents. If those documents exist, they assume that that HGV is compliant; it will get a permit and continue. They do not have to be experts. However, I take the point: training is under way and is being done in order that the traffic officers, whether permanent or temporary, recognise the documents that we will require when they get to the border.
The classes of documents we are looking for are fairly straightforward: for travel documents, it is a passport or ID card, and for customs, it is the movement reference number from two different types of document. Only in the case of phytosanitary certificates, export health certificates or export licences for chemicals and drugs will we look for additional documents. The training is under way and will continue. To do the checks, the traffic officers will have screens. It is done online. The software is translated into 11 different languages so that if the traffic officer speaks to somebody who does not speak English but perhaps speaks one of the languages in front of them, we can make sure that the person has the documents and can be on their way with a permit as quickly as possible. To help noble Lords’ understanding, the traffic officers are doing the checks; they are also responsible for traffic movements. We are looking to the police for enforcement, not checks, and to the DVSA, which has similar powers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, went on to talk about the contraflow. We are very seized of the issue that the contraflow brings to the M20. We completely understand that it is not a permanent solution. I can give the noble Baroness some hope. I have seen some proposals for what the permanent solution may be. We are getting to the bottom of them, and I very much hope that in the not too distant future we will be able to share with noble Lords what the permanent solution will be. I do not believe it will be as terrifying—as the noble Baroness mentioned—as driving down that stretch of the M20 can be at this moment in time.
Turning to the local lorries, I suppose there are two issues here. First, there are lorries that need to do a delivery or pick-up within Kent before they proceed to the border. I would expect them to have all the appropriate documents because they are heading to the border. In all this there is an overarching assessment of reasonableness. They should have the right sort of documents. We spoke to the Kent Resilience Forum about the other local lorries, and the police are well aware of the rat-runs that HGVs trying to get to the border might use. They know where people are going. They will not be covering every single road in Kent. Most of the local traders in Kent will be able to get from A to B with no trouble. Many noble Lords have recognised that a lot of these hauliers—well over 80% —will be operating businesses based out of the EU. I suggest to noble Lords that the number plate might be a bit of a giveaway anyway, but of course it is clearly not 100% fool-proof.
I turn to the impact assessment or lack thereof. A de minimis assessment was undertaken with these SIs about the actual or potential imposition of this contingency plan. We followed the approach agreed with Defra advice. The more general issue of potential disruption in Kent in the event of no deal has been assessed by the Kent Resilience Forum with input from the border delivery group and DfT.
I turn to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I have what I hope are some helpful numbers that will put his mind at rest about the additional staff. If operational, it is true that this will need a significant number, but remember that these powers are only needed if Operation Brock is in. We are probably looking at 125 temporary traffic officers. They will do the traffic checks on the M20 and will be on three-month contracts extendable by three months. We will be looking at about 130 DVSA enforcement staff, 60 of whom will come from outside Kent. There will 120 Highways England traffic officers. There will be 350 police officers, 160 of whom will come from outside Kent, given the very well understood structures that exist for when police forces need to help one another. Any deployment from outside the Kent area will be time limited. Appropriate arrangements will be put in place to ensure that roles are covered as people move to different responsibilities.
Lord Rosser
The Minister made reference to 125 traffic officers and three-month contracts that could be extended. Does that indicate that problems may arise immediately after 31 October that the Government think will diminish—not disappear—sufficiently over the three-month period so as to not need 125 traffic officers?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Lord is right: if there are impacts from a no-deal Brexit, we expect them to fall away. The issue here is the readiness of traders and hauliers—the former obviously being more important, as they are responsible for the documentation. If a haulier is caught by this system and has to go back to the end of the queue—for not being trader-ready and not having ready the right documents—he or she is unlikely to do that again. I suspect not only that the jungle drums between the different hauliers will be saying, “You need to have your documents ready if you’re going to get out of the UK in one piece”, but that, because of the work that we are doing with traders to make sure that they are ready as possible, we will see a significant decrease over the three months in the number of hauliers approaching the border who are not ready.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how the £300 penalty was built up. He was quite right: it is for every contravention for which that person is caught. However, again there would be a test of reasonableness. If a haulier was consistently breaching the regulations and taking routes that they should not, I suspect that being penalised many times would probably be appropriate, because we have to stop the behaviour. At the end of the day, the hauliers do not want to get to the border without being border ready—so, to a certain extent, this is for their benefit. When the noble Lord asked whether one could look in the back of empty lorries et cetera, it is for the haulier to benefit from getting the permit, so that they can crack on and get to where they want to be. It is not really in their interests to act against what the traffic officers are trying to do.
I turn to communications and guidance. We are in an active programme of communications at this time. As noble Lords will know, communications with traders have already started, as have those with hauliers. We have pop-up stands throughout the country encouraging hauliers to get ready for a potential no-deal exit on 31 October. Guidance for the hauliers will be available shortly, subject to these SIs going through—once that happens, guidance will be available. It will be sent to the haulage associations, with whom we have a very good relationship. As the noble Lord mentioned, we will send it to unions as well. I am not sure of the extent to which this is a highly unionised industry. To the extent that it is, we will make sure that the unions have those documents.
On that subject, we have not specifically spoken to unions about this. We have a good relationship with Unite, for example. In normal circumstances, we find that it generally comes to us if it has specific concerns—we have not heard about any on this. However, at the noble Lord’s prompting, we will make sure that they are looped into the information as it is available.
Lord Rosser
I appreciate that the Minister has not had a chance to get around to answering this point. I am sure that there are a number of areas that unions representing drivers will be interested in. I am sure that they would be interested if it turned out that the working time directive went for a fourpenny one—to use that expression—immediately the severe disruption powers were activated. If the Government’s answer is that that will be the situation, have the trade unions been advised of that?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
It is not the Government’s intention to suspend the regulations on drivers’ hours or any other regulations around working time. We would do it only if we needed to. The noble Lord asked whether they had been suspended before; I am not aware that they have been. I think the issue arises where the rest times for hauliers are often required to be spent outside of the cab et cetera. When they are in a long queue of trucks that is not moving, they will have the opportunity to get out of their cab—although I understand that it might be winter and they may not want to.
Lord Rosser
The context in which I asked whether the powers had been used before—bearing in mind that there is now a reference to severe weather or industrial actions—was about whether they had been used in the context of severe weather or industrial action. If they have not, the power in these SIs is not related purely to Brexit; it is, in fact, a new provision being brought in. In other words, you can use these powers if you want to, in relation to severe weather or industrial action. I do not think that the Minister understands my point. The Government have said that these powers to suspend the working time directive have not been used before. But we have a reference here to the possibility of them being suspended in relation to severe weather or industrial action—which is not something necessarily related to Brexit.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am doing my best, but I might have to go back through Hansard to try to understand the noble Lord’s exact point. To my mind there are two separate issues here. The first is whether these powers—the operation block enforcement powers—can be used in circumstances of industrial action or severe weather: yes, they can. Secondly, and entirely separately, there is the issue that we might get to whereby drivers’ hours or working time directive regulations might need to be suspended. We do not want that to happen, obviously. I thought that the noble Lord had asked whether that had happened before; I am not aware that is has and will have to write to the noble Lord on that. In doing so, I will ask whether those circumstances arose.
I believe that I have covered as much as I am able to today. I will certainly go back through the notes—
Viscount Hanworth
Are the Government confident that they will be able to recruit a sufficient number of officers, with a sufficient commitment to their duties, if they are going to offer only a three-month contract with a possible extension? It strikes me that rather few people would be prepared to accept those terms of employment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Viscount raises an important point, but those people are already recruited. Although it sounds like a huge and responsible role, the temporary traffic officers will have a very specific role—which is for the M20, to do the border-readiness checks. They are recruited and are undergoing training.
Baroness Randerson
I would like to press the Minister for a little more information about what information is currently on the GOV.UK website to help hauliers. The Minister referred to warnings about getting ready for a no-deal Brexit. That brought to mind those irritating adverts on the television that tell you absolutely nothing; they tell you to get ready for a no-deal Brexit but do not say what you should be doing. We need much more precision in this case. Is that information on GOV.UK already, so that hauliers and their employers can look at it?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Baroness for reminding me to go back to this. I know that I am not supposed to have extra documents in the Chamber, but I have one here. There is a document, which has been available for quite some time, and there is also a shortened version. This document, Transporting Goods Between the UK and EU in a No-deal Brexit: Guidance for Hauliers, is available on pop-up stands as well as on GOV.UK. On the basis of my answers to these questions, and that I will write, I hope noble Lords will see fit to approve these regulations.
Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) Order 2019
Air Services (Competition) (Amendment and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Regulations laid before the House on 5 September be approved.
Relevant document: 61st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are working to secure a new deal with the EU. However, if we have to leave with no deal, the Government are committed to preparing for this outcome.
With regards to commercial aviation, we have already conducted intensive work to ensure that there is a functioning legislative framework and an effective regulatory regime for this critical part of the UK economy. This new instrument will ensure that the legislative framework and regulatory regime for this sector remain robust. The Government have given very careful consideration to the appropriate procedure for progressing this instrument. For the reasons I will shortly outline, it is important to have this instrument in place by exit day. That is why we have selected the “made affirmative” procedure which, while allowing for parliamentary scrutiny, should ensure that outcome. These draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and amend EU regulation 2019/712, which sets out an approach to safeguarding competition in air transport.
Fundamentally, this instrument ensures that, w responding to anti-competitive practices, the UK will have the same powers to protect UK airlines as will be available to the EU to protect EU airlines. Previously, regulation 868/2004 provided for redressive measures to be imposed when subsidisation and unfair pricing practices by third-country airlines caused injury to EU airlines. The previous SI on this subject introduced corrections to that regulation to ensure it would apply when the UK left the EU. However, since the extension to the UK’s departure from the EU, regulation 868/2004 was repealed and replaced with regulation 2019/712. The reasons given were that the previous regulation was judged to be ineffective in respect of its underlying general aim of fair competition. For instance, there was a lack of definition around the initiation and conduct of investigations or the criteria for doing so.
The new EU regulation provides the European Commission with the power to conduct an investigation where there is prima facie evidence of anti-competitive practices causing or threating to cause injury to EU air carriers. Areas where discrimination could occur include the allocation of slots, administrative procedures and the arrangement for selling and distribution of air services. If such evidence is found, redressive measures can be taken to offset any injury. Such redressive measures include financial duties.
The withdrawal Act will retain regulation 2019/712 in UK law in its entirety on exit day. The draft instrument being considered today makes the changes necessary so that this EU regulation continues to function correctly after exit day. The policy content of the retained regulation will remain substantially unchanged. The changes that have been made are primarily technical and necessary to ensure the correct application of these measures after the UK leaves the EU.
As part of these changes, the UK Civil Aviation Authority will assume some of the responsibilities previously placed on the European Commission. For instance, the UK Civil Aviation Authority will examine and investigate any complaint of this nature. The UK CAA will report on these findings to the Department for Transport, where the Secretary of State will take a decision whether to adopt any redressive measures. Such measures will be adopted by statutory instrument, using the affirmative procedure.
In the event of no deal, the EU could apply its regulation to the UK or its airlines if they were engaged in the practices described in the regulation. Therefore, the changes being made by this SI also ensure that EU member states and their airlines will be subject to the UK’s measures. This preserves a level playing field from exit day and is why we have selected the “made affirmative” procedure, which ensures this important measure is in place on 1 November, if required. While we would prefer to leave with a deal, this instrument will ensure that, in any scenario, the UK and UK airlines will have equivalent access to the type of measures EU member states and EU airlines can take against anti-competitive actions. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for her introduction. I am sure she will be delighted to hear that I have only one substantive question. However, I want to comment in passing that this statutory instrument applies a rule to ensure a level playing field, as the Minister said. It ensures that the CAA will examine complaints in future, rather than the European Commission. The CAA comes in at every possible turn, and I question whether it has the expertise and the resources needed for this. It is used by the Government for a wide variety of activities—everything from repatriating air passengers to space travel—and is therefore extremely broadly stretched. My concern is always that it should be given the resources it needs for this.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that, while the CAA will investigate in future if there is no deal,
“it is possible that the Department for Transport will play a supporting role”.
Exactly what supporting role do the Government envisage the Department for Transport playing? It strikes me that this is an unsatisfactory blurring of the edges. The proposal that the CAA does this follows a well-established principle: you have an independent or arm’s- length body that investigates a situation, makes a recommendation to the Minister and the Minister makes the decision. However, if the Government now envisage some kind of blurring of the situation, with the Department for Transport involved in a supportive role with the CAA and the Secretary of State making the final decision, you have a mixing of roles in a way that is not normal and which could lead to discussion, argument and even court action if a company is accused of anti-competitive practices. Could we have a little more detail on that from the Minister? That is my significant concern on this.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Once again, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the content of this SI, its purpose and objectives. As she said, it revokes and replaces an SI already passed by this House and it is necessary because the EU has revoked and replaced its own regulations on this issue. This SI makes the necessary changes to the new version of the EU regulations.
I, likewise, only have a couple of points to raise. The first relates to paragraph 7.8 in the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:
“In Regulation (EU) 2019/712, it is the Commission that both conducts the investigation and then, if appropriate, pursues redressive measures. The effect of the changes in this instrument is that the CAA will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State following its investigation, and the Secretary of State may then decide to adopt redressive measures. Such redressive measures will be adopted by regulations in a Statutory Instrument, subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament”.
Does the reference to the regulations being adopted in a statutory instrument refer to the form that the redressive measures can take that will be adopted by an SI, or should the redressive measures be imposed in a particular case that will be adopted by the statutory instrument referred to in paragraph 7.8?
Secondly and finally, the “Consultation outcome” paragraph, paragraph 10.1, is not terribly specific about whether the consultation resulted in support from those consulted for this SI or not. For the purpose of clarity, will the Minister say whether any objections or issues were raised about this SI by the aviation industry, the travel industry and consumer representatives, or were they all happy with its content as it stands?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank both noble Lords for their contribution to this short debate. I hope I will be able to answer all the questions that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about the CAA. I agree with her—at the moment the CAA can do no wrong in my eyes, quite frankly. It brought our people home without fuss or nonsense and mostly without error—all credit to it for its work on Operation Matterhorn. However, it has the expertise in this area. It is a substantial organisation with a lot of people with expertise in a range of areas and it understands the air services markets particularly well.
The noble Baroness was concerned about resourcing. That is always my concern with the CAA as well. Section 11 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 permits the CAA to make a scheme for determining charges. These charges would be met by those airlines that would be harmed by the anti-competitive practices. In essence, resources for the CAA would be met by those airlines that would be harmed by this action. Officials have worked very closely with the CAA in the development of this instrument and we believe it is content.
The Department for Transport might have a role in the investigatory stage. It will get involved only if it has the relevant expertise and, as importantly, only if its assistance is requested by the CAA. It is not as though the department will get in there and stick its nose in where it is not welcomed. We do not envisage a proactive role in the investigation. There will be a specific request. For example, sometimes the CAA can feel that it is more appropriate for the DfT to request information from third-party Governments. That sort of request comes better from the Government than from the CAA. But as I said, the department would very much be there in a supporting role.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about the SIs that might be tabled in the unlikely event that the CAA recommends that redressive measures should be adopted. I point out to noble Lords that we do not expect that the provisions in this SI will be needed—it is very much a safety net just in case—but if that happens the Secretary of State will put forward regulations in the form of a draft statutory instrument. If there was one airline involved, it clearly would be a single airline instrument that would set out the redressive measures proposed. It would be up to Parliament to decide whether it was appropriate. If there are multiple airlines, they could be within the same SI or they might not be. It would really depend on the circumstances. As I said, it is slightly uncharted territory because these sorts of issues rarely get to the stage where one would use an SI such as this. Usually they would be sorted out in air services agreements much in advance of getting to this stage.
The noble Lord asked about the engagement we have had with industry stakeholders. I reassure him that we meet the aviation industry very frequently. Indeed, I was the Aviation Minister for a while and I had the honour of meeting the industry on many occasions. At each of the groups we had—for example, the round-table meetings we had on 18 February, 10 July and 16 September—we put forward where our future legislative programme might impact the industry to ensure it responds appropriately where it has concerns. I have to be frank: I have found the aviation industry to be extremely responsive. It is represented very well by various trade bodies. For that reason, we believe that there are no concerns, since none was raised with us.
I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these regulations.
Operation Midland
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat in the form of a Statement the response to an Urgent Question given by my honourable friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and the Fire Service in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, this is a deeply concerning case. Operation Midland was the Metropolitan Police Service investigation into allegations of child sexual abuse made by Carl Beech against a range of public figures. Beech is now serving an 18-year prison sentence for perverting the course of justice. He has appealed his conviction and sentence, which is a matter for the courts to consider. This case has had a devastating impact on those he accused and their families.
Sir Richard Henriques’s report of how the Met handled this investigation raises many concerns. The Met has already apologised for failings in the investigation and acted on many of Sir Richard’s recommendations. We very much welcome the publication by the Met on Friday of the fuller detail of what Sir Richard found. I note that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service has issued a further statement and apology today.
It is now vital that the public receive independent assurance that the Met has learned from the lessons identified in Sir Richard’s report and has made the necessary improvements. This is crucial in restoring public confidence that police handling and investigation of such sensitive matters is both fair and impartial. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary wrote last week to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Chief Inspector of Fire & Rescue Services to ask him to undertake an inspection at the earliest opportunity to follow up on Sir Richard’s review.
It must be right that a body independent of the Government takes this work forward. She has also asked that this inspection take account of the findings of the report of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which was published this morning and which we will be considering carefully.
The public must have faith in the impartiality of their police service, and no one should have to suffer the ignominy of public false accusations of the most heinous kind. This Government are determined to ensure that lessons are learned and that the failings of this investigation are never repeated”.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question. Clearly, false allegations of serious crimes are deplorable, and all those who promote them without evidence should face the appropriate consequences. However, any lessons that are to be learned from what has happened must not lead to any downplaying of the seriousness or prevalence of the rising crimes of child sexual abuse and serious sexual assault, including rape. We cannot go back to a culture of not believing victims.
There are a few specific questions that I wish to ask the Minister. They concern the reference in the Statement to the inspection that the Home Secretary has asked Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Chief Inspector of Fire & Rescue Services to undertake. What exactly is he inspecting that would be different from a normal inspection of a force? Will he be taking the findings of the Henriques report as read or will he be able, if he so chooses, to consider whether some of its findings are valid criticisms or comment? What is meant by him taking into account the findings of the Independent Office for Police Conduct report, which has just been published? Does it mean that he will take its findings as read, or will he be able to consider, if he so wishes, whether some of its conclusions or statements are, in his view, valid or not?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord for those questions. On the point about the impact of false accusations on people who are accused, he is absolutely right: the impact must be devastating, and we have heard many a time in this House of people who are falsely accused. It is important in the context of this case to say that the case of Carl Beech is not a typical one. On the contrary, in the context of sexual offences, it is the under-reporting of the crime to the police that is known to be particularly acute. I think that that is what the noble Lord is driving at. He will know that great progress has been made in encouraging people to report crimes. In responding to the issues raised by this case, it is important that we do not undermine this progress, and that victims continue to feel confident about coming forward and that they will be listened to and taken seriously. We do not want any diminution in that, I agree.
Regarding the HMICFRS investigation, obviously, it is a matter for the inspectorate, and we now need to allow it the space to take its work forward as it sees fit. The purpose of the inspection is to consider the Metropolitan Police Service’s progress in learning from the points made by Sir Richard’s report and the learning recommendations of the IOPC report.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Answer and agree that the inspection could bring some useful results. However, we are still left with the fact that Operation Midland seemed to take no account of the inherent implausibility of so many well-known people supposedly acting together to carry out child rape and murder without the knowledge of anybody except Mr Beech. Is the Minister not worried that there is such a wide gap between the conclusions that Sir Richard Henriques drew and those that the IOPC has drawn?
To give one example, Sir Richard points out that it was possible that senior officers knew full well that no judge would grant the applications for search warrants if they were accurately drafted, setting out the undermining factors, and that junior officers with incomplete knowledge of the operation were deployed to make the applications. That is one example among many of his reaching different conclusions. Surely the Minister cannot be satisfied that there is such a wide gap between the IOPC’s conclusions and those of Sir Richard, particularly when the IOPC investigation appears to have been dilatory and lacking interrogation of officers and full examination of documents. Of course, because it was dilatory, some officers would not have appeared in front of disciplinary proceedings, even if they had been recommended. Given the amount of damage done to so many people and their families in this case, can that really be accepted?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord points to the need for an institutional overview in the body of the HMICFRS to look into this. Clearly, the Government will look into its findings. We received the IOPC report this morning and will be looking at it with great interest. He is right that the warrants are the most contentious issue in the Henriques report. Was the district judge misled into signing off warrants to search the homes of Lord Brittan, Lord Bramall and Harvey Proctor? He is clear that the IPCC—now the IOPC—should investigate this issue.
Lord Lexden (Con)
In view of the immense public concern created by Operation Midland, with the delay in producing the full report, the further report published today, is it not important that the chief inspector’s work proceeds thoroughly but as swiftly as possible? Should he not extend his inquiry to include grave police misconduct during Operation Conifer, when some of the evil fabrications of Carl Beech seemed to have helped besmirch the reputation of Sir Edward Heath? Have the Government noted the resolution I tabled for debate last December, calling on them to establish an independent inquiry? I have been denied a debate, but I have no doubt that the House would have supported the resolution overwhelmingly. Let the inspector of constabulary examine Operation Conifer.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
To answer my noble friend’s question, Operation Conifer has been subject to considerable external scrutiny and although Carl Beech was one of those who made allegations against Sir Edward, Wiltshire police has made it clear that they were discounted by Operation Conifer. Beech’s conviction is not therefore relevant to the seven unresolved allegations from the investigation and the Government do not consider that there are grounds to intervene. On my noble friend’s point about swift action, I know that the HMICFRS is keen to proceed swiftly.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question asked in another place on the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. The Statement is as follows:
“I start by congratulating the honourable Lady on her Urgent Question. I also thank her for the passion and persistence that she has brought to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s case. Her constituent can be sure that she and her family have been well served by her as a constituency MP.
In recent weeks, we have seen further cases of unwarranted detentions of foreign nationals in Iran. These cases are completely devastating for the individuals concerned and are deeply upsetting for their families. However, we are of course delighted to hear that Joely King, a British-Australian national, has been released from detention in Iran. This is good news, but it invites us to think about others who are detained in Tehran. But equating the cases of foreign nationals in detention in Iran and the cases of British-Iranian dual nationals is unlikely to be helpful, since Iran perceives the two to be quite distinct, and it is Iran with which we have to deal.
We want to do everything we can to resolve Nazanin’s case. We also want to see the resolution of the cases of other British-Iranians detained in Iran. The trouble is that the Iranian authorities do not recognise dual nationality. They consider Nazanin simply to be an Iranian national. Consequently, they do not grant us consular access nor give us sight of the legal process or charges, despite all our efforts. The House will be fully aware of the lengthy chronology of representations made at ministerial level on this issue. On 11 September, the Foreign Secretary again raised his serious concerns with the Iranian ambassador to London about Iran’s practice of detaining foreign and dual nationals. The Prime Minister raised his concerns with President Rouhani on 24 September, and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary did so with Foreign Minister Zarif on 17 September. My colleague Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon hosted an event at the UN General Assembly on 25 September to bring attention to these incredibly important issues; and I did so myself in Tehran earlier this year. I can assure the House that our efforts to raise the plight of those detained with the Iranian authorities at ministerial and ambassadorial level will continue.
It is a matter of deep regret that a country such as Iran, with such a rich history, is failing to uphold its basic international obligations. That this sophisticated and cultured country is arresting individuals on unclear charges, failing to afford them due process and, in some cases, committing acts of torture and mistreatment, not only on dual nationals but its own citizens, is deeply disappointing to put it mildly. Dealing specifically with dual nationals, we are absolutely clear that Iran’s behaviour is beyond unacceptable. The treatment of our dual nationals, including Nazanin, is unlawful and unacceptable and it must end. Be in no doubt, this matter remains a top priority for the UK Government. We will continue to lobby at all levels for Nazanin’s unconditional release so that she can return to her patient, long-suffering family in the UK”.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. The family of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe continues to raise concerns over her mental health, and reports emerging today suggest that this may be exacerbated by solitary confinement and being deprived of medicine. Nazanin is awaiting the outcome of her appeal to an Iranian health commission, in which she is seeking release from jail on the grounds of ill health. Can the Minister confirm when the FCO expects the judgment and what exact support is being offered in relation to the appeal?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank the noble Lord for his questions and for the consistent support that has been offered on this important issue. It is difficult to predict the specific date on which we will hear the next update on this matter. However, I can assure the noble Lord that we are offering full assistance to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s family. I met Richard Ratcliffe when I was at the UN recently and reassured him again of our full support. As I said in the Statement, we are continuing to raise this bilaterally and internationally, to ensure that we get consistent support. Unfortunately, Nazanin’s case is different because the Iranians refuse to recognise dual nationality and regard her as simply Iranian.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is indeed in a desperate situation. As the Minister mentioned, it is expected that her daughter is about to come home, but her exit has not yet been approved. Can he update us as to what the Government are doing? Of course, Gabriella is not a dual national but a British citizen—but obviously, her departure leaves Nazanin in an even more vulnerable position. She had a medical assessment today, as was just mentioned. Can the noble Lord tell us whether she was seen by an independent doctor? Above all, how is the UK working with other countries to try to end this pattern of hostage taking in Iran—a country that we are actually trying to support as the Americans have pulled out of the nuclear deal? In particular, do the Government regard Nazanin and the others who are being held as hostages under the terms of the UN convention on hostages?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments and I very much share the sentiments she expressed. She raised the important issue of the return of Gabriella. I am sure that she will understand that I am not going to go into specific details, but I assure her that we are working directly with the family to ensure that Gabriella can come back to the UK at the earliest opportunity. We will continue to work directly in support of that. On her other questions, of course we are working with other countries. The recent release of the dual British-Australian national was very welcome and we will continue to ensure that we share information in this respect.
The noble Baroness rightly raised the issue of the JCPOA. We are also making it very clear to the Iranians that the British Government, along with our colleagues in Europe, are absolutely committed to keeping the JCPOA alive. I assure her that, in our bilateral exchanges with the Iranian Government, this point is reiterated time and again. The continuing taking of hostages, as we have seen, and the holding of detainees in Iran is not helpful to the situation; it works against Iran and against the Iranian people. I assure the noble Baroness that we will continue to ensure that in every case, not all of which receive the publicity that this case has, we will continue to work directly with the families to ensure that when we can agree consular access, we gain that, and, where we do not, we continue to raise the issues of those detainees directly, bilaterally and internationally.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that within this there is some sort of technical disagreement about the concept of dual nationals? In the UN system, the world’s system, the Vienna Convention or whatever, is it possible for a country to say, “We do not recognise the concept of a dual national”? Or is it the position that people recognise that there is such a concept but think it does not apply to them? In the case of Iran, does it not recognise that someone is Anglo-American, or something like that? At the bottom of all this, is there some disagreement about the fact that there is an obligation to accept that there is such a thing as a dual national in international conventions? I am not clear what the answer to that is.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Perhaps I can help. It is very much down to the countries themselves. We in the United Kingdom recognise the basis of dual nationals and react accordingly. However, the Iranians do not recognise it. If someone is Iranian and British, as in the case of Nazanin, they do not recognise her British nationality; they regard her as Iranian and that is why they do not provide us consular access. There is a difference, quite clearly, in how we view dual nationals in this country and how Iran views dual nationals in Iran.
Lord Lea of Crondall
Is it perfectly legitimate for a country to say that it does not recognise the same concept of a dual national that we and many other countries do? Is it perfectly legitimate to say that it does not recognise that?
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, if Gabriella is successfully repatriated to this country, which appears to be desirable, it is pretty clear that that will disproportionately affect the mental health of her mother, who has said very publicly that the visit, once a fortnight, is what keeps her going. I think any mother or father would still wish their child to return to the UK under those circumstances, but I wonder whether we could make a significant offer of immediate mental health support for her mother if she were repatriated to this country. Indeed, I wonder whether somebody, either from this House or a very distinguished nurse or psychiatrist with experience and a mental health background—noble Lords will know that I have 40 years of such experience—would be willing to support the mother in her return if that would help Iran in any way in considering repatriating her on mental health grounds. I am sure that many people in this House would be willing to support such a venture: I know I would, and I know of at least one psychiatrist who would as well.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
On the return of Gabriella, speaking as a parent I know that the hardest choice that a parent has to make is sometimes separation. That applies to any parent, father or mother, if they need to make a sacrifice for their child. I am sure that that sentiment is very relevant to anyone who has experienced parenthood: their first thought would be for their child. I cannot speak for either Richard or Nazanin, but having met Richard, I know where he stands on these issues.
On the other point, I very much welcome the noble Baroness’s suggestion. We seek the return of Nazanin at the earliest opportunity and she will be afforded every support when she returns to the UK. The sad reality is, however, that this issue does not hold with the Iranians. They are preventing a mother being reunited with her daughter and a family reuniting altogether. That is why we implore the Iranian authorities, and we will continue to do so, leaving no stone unturned, to ensure that we eventually see the safe return of Nazanin Radcliffe to her family here in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Northover
May I press the Minister further? He did not answer my question on whether the Government regard Nazanin and others being held in Iran as hostages under the terms of the UN hostages convention.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I know that she has the status of a detainee. I cannot say anything more specifically because I do not want to speak inappropriately and I want to ensure that I get the right answer to the noble Baroness, so I will write to her specifically on that issue.