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
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
Halfway through the recruiting year, approximately 70% of the Army’s regular soldier requirement have either started training or are due to do so. In addition, direct entry officer and reserve recruitment targets are all expected to be achieved.
Dr Drew
I thank the Minister for that answer, but he must be aware that since 2010 the number of service people has declined each year. The latest figures, which I believe are from 1 July 2019, show that the Army has 74,440 personnel against a target of 82,000; the Royal Air Force has 29,930 against a target of 31,750; and the Royal Navy and Marines have 29,090 against a target of 30,450. What will the Government do to address the shortfall?
Mark Lancaster
I think we are doing a lot, actually. As I said, we need only look at this year, where all the signs are very positive. The real challenge we have faced recently has been in the other ranks in the Army. Officer entry is full, and the Army reserve is growing. The target for other ranks in the Army is 9,404. We have already achieved 70% of that target in the first six months. The second we get to 80%, Army numbers, assuming that outflow remains constant, will remain the same and will not fall. In every single other rank where we manage to recruit over 80%, that will mean an increase in Army numbers. Within the first six months, we have already achieved 70%, so we have 10% more to do within the next six months to maintain numbers, and everyone after that will represent an increase in Army numbers.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
What progress has the Army made towards getting female soldiers into frontline units such as rifle platoons in an infantry battalion?
Mark Lancaster
I am very proud that there are now no roles in the British Army that are not open to women, so all ground and close combat roles are open. We have seen the first women join the Royal Armoured Corps. We also have women in training to join the infantry. I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact number, but I will write to him with that detail.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that in 1982, at the time of the Falklands conflict, we had 327,000 people in the armed services and now we are below 100,000? Is it not a fact that if Mr Putin came steaming towards us tomorrow we would not be able to defend this country?
Mark Lancaster
No, that is certainly not the case. It is certainly true, to quote Stalin, that:
“Quantity has a quality all its own.”
However, the modern armed forces are very different from those of the 1980s. We need only look at the Queen Elizabeth, our new carrier, which, compared with Ark Royal, her predecessor, has a complement that requires just one quarter of the number of crew.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Kent is proud to host a number of Gurkhas across the country, including within the Queen’s Gurkha Engineers, currently located at Invicta Park barracks just outside my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the number of personnel in the Brigade of Gurkhas, which has increased by 25% in the past four years?
Mark Lancaster
I have to declare my interest: the first Army unit I joined was the Queen’s Gurkha Engineers back in 1988 in Hong Kong. I am delighted that, speaking off the top of my head, we currently have 69 and 70 Gurkha Field Squadrons serving in Invicta barracks in Maidstone. I am also pleased to be able to announce that the aspiration is to create 67 Squadron from 2021, and a second further Gurkha engineers squadron, 68 Squadron, from 2023, so the Brigade of Gurkhas continues to grow.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
We all know about the Government’s disastrous record on recruitment of UK personnel, with the fully trained size of the Army, as we have already heard, having now just fallen to 74,000 personnel. But the Government are failing to recruit enough Commonwealth troops, too, and we now hear that they are cancelling plans to proactively recruit from overseas. Can the Minister explain how this decision guarantees sufficient recruitment to our armed forces, and how on earth he plans to meet the stated target of 82,000 soldiers?
Mark Lancaster
I have already explained part of what we are doing. I sense that the hon. Gentleman wrote his question before listening to my answers and has not been able to adapt it, which is a shame but often the case in this House. Equally, I think he has fallen into the trap of reading a Daily Express or Sunday Express article which states what is factually not the case. We have always recruited from the Commonwealth, and over the last two years we have been increasing our recruitment from the Commonwealth.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I have listened to the Minister’s answers, and he intimated that we are replacing quantity with quality. Much of this problem goes back to the Capita contract for recruiting soldiers, sailors and airmen, which was massively criticised in a Public Accounts Committee report earlier this year in terms of both quantity and quality. Today, 10% of our troops are incapable of deployment abroad for medical reasons. What can he do to fix those problems?
Mark Lancaster
Let us be clear: the House is absolutely right to scrutinise this Government over recruiting into our armed forces. I welcome that, because it enables me to put pressure on our service chiefs. While there were, without doubt, challenges with that Capita contract, I have explained today how we have already reached 70% of our target within the first six months of this year. That contract is now performing in a way that it was not before. My right hon. Friend is right about medical standards, which is why there is a series of reviews at the moment of how we can prevent those injuries from happening in the first place.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Happy Trafalgar day, Mr Speaker. Ships transiting the strait of Hormuz are currently exposed to the threat of being harried by units of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and, in some cases, illegal seizure. While the international community is working to de-escalate tensions, up to four ships of the Royal Navy have been active in the strait since July.
Mr Baron
No matter how capable, a Royal Navy ship cannot be in two places at once. On this anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar, given that 95% of our trade is seaborne, is it not obvious that we need a much larger surface fleet, including a larger number of cheaper ships, if we are to play our full part in keeping world sea lanes open?
Mr Wallace
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend’s point, which is why this Government have invested in not only the new Type 26 frigate but the Type 31, which will be designed to be more affordable and will increase the overall number of frigates and destroyers that we are able to deploy. In this example, we very quickly managed to have four ships in the region to tackle the problem. We have now gone back down to supplying two ships there, but it was not the case that we could not get ships in the right place at the right time.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answers thus far. Clearly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a constant threat to shipping in the strait of Hormuz. Does he agree that it is now time that the entirety of the IRGC was proscribed, with their assets sequestered and sanctions imposed on them and their leadership?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the threat that the IRGC poses to not only the region but countries such as ours. The Quds force is currently proscribed. Further proscription considerations are a matter for the Home Office. However, what is really important is that, where the IRGC poses a threat, like-minded countries around the world challenge that threat and ensure that it is dealt with.[Official Report, 24 October 2019, Vol. 666, c. 6MC.]
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Trafalgar day has been mentioned, and later today, when “Up Spirits” is piped, we will all drink a tot to the immortal memory. I hope that the Minister will place on record his recognition and understanding that the Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel currently on active service represent the very finest tradition of our services. Let us put that on the record.
Mr Wallace
I am, of course, delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman about the amazing quality that they bring to our armed forces. I am a landlubber, as a former soldier, so I can only marvel at what I have come across so far in this job.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Happy Trafalgar day, Mr Speaker. Yesterday I had the pleasure of seeing the sea cadets parade in a splendid fashion for Trafalgar day. I welcome the Secretary of State and the new Ministers to their posts.
The situation in the strait of Hormuz and the wider Gulf has significantly escalated in the past few months. We have seen unlawful aggression in the international seas, British flagged ships seized by the Iranian regime, attacks on Saudi oil facilities and a recent commitment by the US to send an extra 3,000 troops to Saudi Arabia. We need to de-escalate tensions. With that in mind, can the Secretary of State confirm that the UK will not be sending troops to Saudi Arabia?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we have to de-escalate the situation in the Gulf, but what we will do is make sure that our allies in the Gulf are able to protect themselves by offering advice about how they can protect their airspace and protect themselves from loss of life, which is incredibly important. One of the ways to make sure this is de-escalated is to ensure, if there was another Iranian attack, for example, on an oil facility or any other facility in that part of the world, that it does not lead to loss of life because that for sure would lead to some form of escalation. We stand ready to help our allies with knowledge on how to do that, and that is the best way we think we can proceed to keep calming the tensions.
Nia Griffith
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but he will also be well aware of the catastrophic impact of the US withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal. Sadly, this is not the only commitment that the Trump Administration have very publicly undermined—withdrawing from the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty and putting the chances of a new strategic arms reduction treaty in doubt—so what discussions has the Secretary of State had with his US counterparts on upholding and strengthening existing international security agreements?
Mr Wallace
On the joint comprehensive plan of action, dealing with the Iranian nuclear capability, I have made it clear to the United States, as have my colleagues in Europe, that we support the maintenance of that agreement. We think that is the best way forward to make sure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, but also to deal with the concerns that the Iranians have had over the years about their security. We will continue to press that, as we continue to press in the areas of Turkey and Syria for upholding international and human rights obligations.
Mr Speaker
The good doctor and the illustrious Chair of the Select Committee on Defence—Dr Julian Lewis.
Dr Lewis
Mr Wallace
I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend. I think I am going in front of his Committee later in the week, and no doubt I shall bow to his knowledge as he will no doubt grill me.
I understand the point that my right hon. Friend has made. All our defence capabilities have to match our ambitions across the board—that is the first point—whether that is land, sea or air. It is the case that our surface fleet is of over 50—of course, 19 are frigates and destroyers—and that means we do allow flexibility in our fleet to meet certain needs, such as disaster relief, which was done by a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship. However, in case the threat changes, we must always be prepared to move to match that threat, and we will always keep under review the size of our fleet, but it is also why we are continuing to invest in new ships—more capable sometimes than numbers because of the very potency they pose. The Type 26 frigate will be a world-leading capability, and that in itself will be a deterrent to many of our adversaries.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
We remain committed to maintaining the overall size of the armed forces, and we have a range of measures under way to improve recruitment and retention. Those measures are kept under constant review. Importantly, the services continue to meet all their current operational commitments, keeping the country and its interests safe.
Andrew Jones
The Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency is proud home to the Army Foundation College, which has 1,100 junior soldiers in training. Last year, the college received an “outstanding” classification from Ofsted. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the educational excellence on offer is a key part of the recruitment package for the college, and that the qualifications the junior soldiers receive set them up not just for their careers in the Army, but for the whole of their lives?
Mark Lancaster
I thank my hon. Friend for being such a champion of this outstanding college, and he is absolutely correct. There are a multitude of excellent opportunities, of which the Ministry of Defence and the Army are extremely proud. These are reflected not just in the formal qualifications and apprenticeships but in the self-esteem, confidence and leadership skills the junior soldiers gain.
Robert Halfon
In Harlow, we have outstanding cadet forces and outstanding cadet leadership. They provide the training that young people need and they develop qualities of leadership. May I ask my right hon. Friend: what more can we be doing to support our cadet forces in Harlow and elsewhere to encourage young people into the services, and will he come and visit one of our great Harlow cadet forces?
Mark Lancaster
How could I resist such a kind invitation? I should be delighted to visit. Indeed, I started life as a cadet, so I know the value of it. In accordance with the UN convention on the rights of the child, that is not a conduit for entry into the armed forces. However, it is a fact that while just 4% of cadet forces joined the armed forces, 20% of the armed forces were once cadets.
Vicky Ford
Our cadet organisations give young people an invaluable insight into the potential of a career in the armed forces, but they need places in which to meet. I understand that the Ministry of Defence will help to give financial support to buildings and other facilities for Army and air cadets, but not for sea cadets. Given that today is Trafalgar day, will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss how we can help to raise money for a new home for Chelmsford’s excellent sea cadets?
Mark Lancaster
A training ship, Upholder, in Chelmsford is indeed an excellent base for the Chelmsford Sea Cadets. It is right that the sea cadets have a different funding formula from the other two services. They receive a mix of funding from the MOD and other sources. Each sea cadet unit is an individual charity. There has been much debate over the years as to whether or not that is the right way to move forward, but I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend.
Sir Robert Syms
In the past, the MOD has offered a number of bespoke packages to recruit people whose skills they need—for example, qualified doctors when the medical services have been short. Does the MOD intend to offer more bespoke packages to get people with a range of skills into the armed services?
Mark Lancaster
My hon. Friend makes a really interesting point. As we move forward there are different specialist skill sets that we need—cyber is an example, as well as medical services—and have to consider whether or not we should look at different models for joining the armed forces. One area that we are looking at is greater use of the reserves for those specialist skills and, equally, whether or not we should have some form of lateral entry, as we do with medical services.
Giles Watling
For the past two years, I have been honoured to be part of the wonderful armed forces parliamentary scheme. I graduated only last week. I have visited all three services, which are engaging people with amazing work to keep the peace and keep us safe. Overwhelmingly, they get great satisfaction and lead interesting lives, but I was shocked to hear that some universities are resistant to those terrific people visiting and advertising that unique career path to students. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what more can be done to get our young people to engage with an armed forces career?
Mark Lancaster
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments about the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust. Indeed, that is a scheme from which many hon. and right hon. Members have benefited. When it comes to young people, we are the largest provider of apprenticeships in the UK, and when it comes to encouraging university students to join, we have a bursary scheme as well as an undergraduate scheme. There is also the university officer training corps, the university air squadrons and university Royal Navy units, in which undergraduates can participate.
Emma Dent Coad (Kensington) (Lab)
Mark Lancaster
It is normally family pressures that are the No. 1 reason cited by members of the armed forces for leaving the armed forces, which is why it is absolutely right that we get this whole package correct. Faslane, as the hon. Lady knows, will soon be the home of the entire submarine force for the Royal Navy. It has been subject to large amounts of investment, and it has some of the best accommodation for the armed forces. The mess itself has faced challenges, and I will happily write to her to update her on exactly where we are on that issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The respected and celebrated president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Mrs Madeleine Moon.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
During visits with the NATO PA and, indeed, the Select Committee on Defence to Finland, Norway and Sweden, I have noted their highly selective and competitive attempts to recruit young people to national service schemes, to the armed forces, and Government defence agencies. Those are much sought-after schemes in all those countries, and are highly effective not only in recruiting young people but in retaining them in the reserves. May I ask the Minister to look at Elizabeth Braw’s excellent article on this in The RUSI Journal, and will he look at that as an example for the UK?
Mark Lancaster
I am grateful to the hon. Lady—Madam President—for those words of advice, and indeed for that constructive suggestion. I am more than happy to consider any way we can encourage more people to join and, crucially—this is the other side of the coin—remain in the armed forces.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The north-east has traditionally provided a higher proportion of armed services personnel than any other region in England. Can the Minister confirm whether that is still the case following the recruitment shambles, and can he set out the improvements to pay and housing that he will make so that the sacrifices of our armed forces are in the interests of the country, not austerity?
Mark Lancaster
The hon. Lady rightly highlights the important contribution that the north-east and the north-west have made to recruitment to all three services over many years. I am determined that our armed forces should reflect modern Britain, which is why we are trying to encourage more members from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities to join the armed forces and, equally, more women—currently we are achieving 7.3% for the former and 12.2% for the latter. Last year we saw a decent pay increase of some 2.9%, and we continue to invest an awful lot of money in improving accommodation standards for our armed forces.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
May I first declare an interest, as my son-in-law will soon be going on active deployment with the reserves? I also wish to point out the magnificent contribution made by the Carlton reserve base in my constituency. I want to ask the Minister a simple but really important question. The reserves are a crucial part of our armed forces—I know he knows that—but there are really significant problems in recruiting and retaining reserve personnel and integrating them into our armed forces, so can he say a little more about what the Government are doing about that?
Mark Lancaster
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. It will come as no surprise to him that, having been a serving member of the reserves for 31 years, I take reserve service very seriously. I think that maintaining that offer is absolutely key, which is one of the reasons why I have imposed a target to ensure that at least 5% of our reserve community have the opportunity to go on operations, as his son-in-law is doing. It is that offer that is so key.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I congratulate the Minister on holding his post, and I welcome the new team to the Government Front Bench. His boss is, of course, a Scot, and he will tell him that Scots do not take kindly to broken promises from Tory Governments. At the Scottish independence referendum we were promised that there would be 12,500 personnel in Scotland by 2020, but at the last count the figure stands south of 10,000, so will that not be another broken promise from this Tory Government?
Mark Lancaster
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to welcome the fact that Scotland will soon be home to all Royal Navy submarine personnel. I am sorry that he does not seem to recognise that there will continue to be an Army brigade based in Scotland. I am sorry that he does not seem to recognise the important investment in Lossiemouth, as the P-8 is soon to be based there.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Ministry of Defence routinely monitors the performance of all contractors, including those who provide outsourced services. Performance against contract targets is regularly scrutinised and officials take appropriate action when standards are not met.
Bambos Charalambous
The latest figures show that the Army is currently more than 9% under strength, and that the full-time trade trained strength is now well below the Government’s stated target. It beggars belief that Capita still holds the contract for recruitment. Have the Government just given up trying to hold Capita to account?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the multiple answers that my colleague has just given.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to her new post, which is very well deserved. She is a graduate of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—that is where she learned everything—so I am glad that she is now at the Dispatch Box. I very much welcome the fact that the new Type 31s are to be built in Rosyth, which should be a very good contract indeed, but what evidence can she bring forward that the contract will be delivered on time and within budget?
Mr Speaker
For the benefit of those observing our proceedings, so that they are intelligible, it ought to be explained that the hon. Gentleman is what might be described as the overlord, or the Gandalf figure, who oversees the armed forces parliamentary scheme.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
You know that your comments may go to my hon. Friend’s head, don’t you, Mr Speaker? I thank him for his question. Indeed, one of the most exciting things that I have had the opportunity to do in this role so far has been to set running the new Type 31 class of general purpose frigate. It will be built in Rosyth under Babcock’s guidance. At the moment, the contract is being drawn through to the final details so that we can hopefully get cracking early in the new year.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I welcome the new Minister to her post. A report in the Financial Times today demonstrates that botched public sector outsourcing contracts wasted more than £14 billion-worth of taxpayers’ money just in the last three years, with the MOD found to be the biggest culprit, accounting for £4 billion-worth of the extra cost. At a time when our defences are badly in need of investment after nine years of Tory cuts, does the Minister accept that this Government’s ideological obsession with outsourcing is failing our armed forces and the taxpayer alike?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I have had a chance to look a little at the Reform think tank’s paper, which highlights some issues. All of us would agree that contracts have not always been managed as tightly as possible. I direct her, most importantly, to the outsourcing review that was done by the Cabinet Office and was set in place by the former Prime Minister in February this year. It has been very clear and set some really good guidelines for all Government Departments on thinking more proactively about early market engagement, in particular—I think that has been a weakness historically—and being much more active in the management of contracts, so that when we have great contracts, such as with Leidos and a new contract that I have just signed with Atos, we make sure that we are responsible in the governance of those contracts so that we get the best for our money and that the contractors provide the service that we need.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I am sorry, but I did not quite catch the start of the hon. Gentleman’s question. In relation to call centres and Capita, we have to remember that those who are applying, who are 16 and upwards, live in a digital world. They live on apps and dealing with those systems is very much part of that. The call centre is one part of the whole. That service ensures that young people can really ask those questions and get to grips with their initial questions about whether joining the armed forces is for them. How that follows on from that is something that, as I think we would all agree, my colleague the Minister for the Armed Forces has spoken about at length this afternoon. We are making huge progress in making sure that we get the numbers that we need in the armed forces.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Mr Jim Cunningham
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
We are committed to supporting the UK defence manufacturing industry. On 14 March, the Government provided an update to Parliament on our ambitious defence prosperity programme, which includes work to sustain an internationally competitive and productive UK defence sector. In 2017-18, the MOD spent £18.9 billion with UK industry and commerce, directly supporting 115,000 jobs.
Matt Western
I thank the Minister for his response, but last week the former head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, said that the deal for Cobham, which is being taken over by Advent, the private equity company, should be blocked. The Business Secretary said that there would be guarantees, but we know that in the case of GKN and Melrose, those guarantees were worthless. If the US President can say that the US automotive industry is a concern that should be protected for national security, what sort of protections do we have in place for our industry?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about protecting our sovereign capability and I take that incredibly seriously, as someone who worked previously in QinetiQ, in the UK aerospace sector. The issue with Cobham is ongoing. It is currently before the relevant Department in Whitehall. We have made our internal submissions on that and I therefore cannot comment on that particular issue. It is important that we maintain and keep our sovereignty, where that is viewed as necessary for our future, but we should also not forget that the reason we are the second biggest aerospace exporter in the world is that we take an international consortium attitude towards it.
Mr Cunningham
Can the Secretary of State tell us the future value of contracts to British companies such as GKN and Rolls-Royce and the future cost of those contracts?
Mr Wallace
Given the recent increase in our settlement of £2.2 billion, of which a large proportion will go on investing in the capital part of our budget, the future for UK aerospace should be bright and looks bright. The Type 31 frigate, for example, will be made in Rosyth and will be delivered by UK yards.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Although the bulk of its work in the United Kingdom is civilian, Airbus also does some military work—for instance, on the A400M transport aircraft. More importantly, leaving aside the problems with that aircraft, which are dreadful and multifarious, the current chief executive, Guillaume Faury, and his predecessor both threatened to withdraw up to 14,000 jobs from the United Kingdom if we left without a deal and in a disorderly manner. Now that we have a deal and are not planning to leave in a disorderly manner, does the Secretary of State agree that the chief executive of Airbus should withdraw that threat and should start talking about investment into the United Kingdom rather than disinvestment?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point. My only advice to chief executives of aerospace companies is to invest where the skills are and where the customers are, and that is in the United Kingdom.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Although the order for the CVRT replacement, the Ajax tank, was placed with General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Rheinmetall—American and European companies—the hulls are being kitted out in Merthyr Tydfil and the turrets are being built in Bedford. How important is it that, if we place orders for the best equipment available in the free world, we should have as much UK content as possible?
Mr Wallace
Where possible, we should do all we can to ensure a huge proportion of UK content in all the contracts we deliver so that our forces get the kit they need.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I welcome the new Ministers to their posts. A little more than three months ago, a prominent Conservative Member of this House said:
“We must continue to hammer home the importance of sovereign capability”—[Official Report, 16 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 277WH.].
That was, of course, the new defence procurement Minister, speaking before she was promoted. Thinking about the fleet solid support ships, for example, can I ask the Secretary of State why his Ministers do not practise what they preach?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to comment on an ongoing competition. As he knows, if we were to prejudice that competition, both the UK taxpayer and potentially UK industry would be at risk of being sued by the other consortium. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), whom I welcome to my team, was not the Minister at the time of that competition, so to hold her to account in that way is unfair.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
To help sustain future capabilities we have published strategies for shipbuilding and combat air and refreshed our defence industrial policy with a new emphasis on supporting growth and competitiveness, which are central to our procurement programmes, including, for example, the Type 31 frigate and Tempest.
Stephen Metcalfe
The UK has a world-beating defence industry that is dependent on high-value design. How is the Department supporting the Government’s “Engineering: Take a Closer Look” campaign to ensure that people understand how vital engineering is to our defence industry?
Mr Wallace
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being appointed engineering envoy by the Government. Engineering is incredibly important, which is why we support the “Engineering: Taker a Closer Look” campaign, which will form part of that legacy and focus on STEM youth engagement, targeting not only young people but the gatekeepers, such teachers and parents. We are fully supportive of the campaign objective, which is to increase consideration of a career in engineering with a specific focus on 11 to 16-year-olds, especially among under-represented groups, such as girls and black and minority ethnic groups.
Andrew Lewer
What steps is the Department taking to ensure key industries maintain sovereign capability?
Mr Wallace
To keep skills and innovation here the Government have been determined to invest in home-grown innovation. It is the best way to sustain UK capability in the long term. That is why the defence and security accelerator, launched in 2016, is so important, as is the defence innovation fund, under which £800 million will be spent in that sector over the next 10 years.
Mrs Miller
Thousands of people in north Hampshire contribute to the defence of our country, and the ability of companies such as Fujitsu, Harris and BAE Systems and their supply chains to recruit experts from across the world to work with our domestic home-grown talent is an essential part of our winning formula. How will the Government ensure that that recruitment can continue after we leave the EU?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been very clear about the need for a points-based system to enable us to secure the skills that we need, but, again, the long-term solution is investment in our skills base. I was pleased about the increase in further education funding that was announced in the recent spending review, which will be important to ensuring that that happens. In my constituency in Lancashire, investment in schools and higher and further education colleges is the bedrock of BAE’s capability.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I know that the Secretary of State is reluctant to talk about the fleet solid support ship contract, but may I ask him what percentage of the bid is being taken into consideration in terms of support for UK jobs and manufacturing? Will he really be content to be the Secretary of State who is willing to export jobs to Spain rather than investing in this country?
Mr Wallace
I think that the last part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question anticipated the result of any competition that will take place, and I am not going to comment on who or what is going to win if we progress to that stage with competent bids. It will be important for all the bids to include an element of UK capability, and we will ensure that we take that into consideration. It is important to us, and to the skills in this country, for the customer—the MOD, which is spending all that money—to secure not only an export market but a UK base.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Project Tempest is delivering and investing in a future fast jet programme. However, given what we are hearing about the potential closure of Brough, may I ask what conversations the Secretary of State is having with BAE Systems about replacement training jets, and what investment he is planning to make in some new Red Arrows?
Mr Wallace
I shall have to write to the hon. Lady about the Red Arrows, because I was not expecting that question, but the Tempest project is an important signal to BAE Systems that the Government are committed to another generation of fast jets. I shall be meeting representatives of BAE soon, and I shall ensure that its desire to be part of the programme is reflected in the locations of its workforce around the country.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State made a very significant statement from the Dispatch Box a while ago when he said that companies should invest where the skills are and where the customers are. That only applies if the customers are prepared to use their buying power to insist that the manufacturing takes place in the UK. Why will the Secretary of State not change Government policy, even before Brexit, and insist that the solid support vessels are built in British yards? Make a decision, man!
Mr Wallace
The two aircraft carriers are built in British yards, the Type 26 is built in British yards, the Type 45 is built in British yards, the offshore patrol Batch 2 is built in British yards, the Type 31 is currently built in British yards, and we will continue to invest in our yards. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) ask how we could ensure that BAE continued to invest in its workforce. It can continue to invest in its workforce because it also manages to export around the world When we export, we must recognise that we need an international consortium, because we cannot sell purely to ourselves; we have to export around the world.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Our armed forces have suffered decades of being hollowed out to meet short-term pressures. Eventually, that takes its toll on the men and women of the armed forces and the equipment and maintenance programme. The funds announced recently in the spending review will allow us to reinvest and to maintain our forces at their present levels. The adequacy of our capability is of course defined by the extent of our ambitions, and by whether we as a nation are willing to fund them.
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend has raised some concerns about the engagement with Europe, and, indeed, about Europe’s ambition. I think it absolutely right that the European Commission has a strong ambition for a single defence capability. We have made it clear that we will only join any part of this European defence arrangement voluntarily, and on condition that there is a unilateral mechanism for exit. That is the key purpose. We will, of course, work with international partners often to face threats.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
If the Secretary of State wants to assess the strength of the armed forces, does he now agree that it is about time that they had a trade union to stand up for ordinary members of the armed forces against his puny Government?
Mr Wallace
Coming from a party that would reduce the armed forces to a rubber boat in Scotland, I do not think we should take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman and the SNP. It is absolutely clear: the SNP is obsessed with trade union representation rather than investing in armed forces.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
I have already met the Schools Minister on this issue. We work hard to get the message out there through payslips, posters and an advertisement campaign. We can all, as MPs, play a role in making sure the families of those who serve receive the benefits they are entitled to.
Mary Creagh
There are over 400 serving armed forces personnel in the Wakefield district, and they make a huge contribution to our nation’s defence, but there are concerns from the Army Families Federation that the service pupil premium is not being used properly by schools to improve pastoral outcomes for service children. What discussions has the Minister had with schools on guidance?
Johnny Mercer
I am very keen that the service pupil premium is used in the way that it has been designed for—pastoral care and things like that—and if the hon. Lady has evidence that that is not taking place, I invite her to write to me and we can look into it.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Ind)
When the Minister next comes to visit the Royal Military College in Shrivenham in my constituency, will he pop into Watchfield primary school, where he will see a brilliant primary school that educates children from all over the world—the children of those of many nationalities who study at the military defence college—and when he gets back will he ask the Secretary State why the Ministry of Defence gives no financial help to this primary school for the language teaching it has to do for those children?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to the school in question, which does a great job of looking after the children of those who come and serve at Shrivenham, and I am more than happy to look into the case my right hon. Friend raises.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
All service personnel with non-EU citizen dependants are subject to the minimum income requirement when applying for visas to enter the UK. I recently met my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), the Immigration Minister at the Home Office, to discuss the minimum income requirement for visa fees. This is now being taken forward by officials from both Departments, and I am very hopeful of a good outcome.
Danielle Rowley
Penicuik in Midlothian is home to the Royal Highland Fusiliers at Glencorse barracks, and the battalion has had a number of serving Commonwealth soldiers, particularly from Fiji. Commonwealth citizens have made significant contributions to the defence of the UK throughout history, and continue to do so. I appreciate the warm words from the Minister and that he has had conversations, but is it not time that we repay their sacrifice by scrapping the minimum income requirement so they can be reunited with their families?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to those from Commonwealth countries for their sacrifice and service over the years, which is exactly why we are looking to recruit more people from those parts of the world. I am in conversations with the Home Office to try and work out ways to get over the minimum income requirement, and a lot of options are being looked at—such as whether we can work with credit unions or advertise on payslips—but I am more than happy to meet with the hon. Lady.
Afzal Khan
Much like ordinary civilians, Commonwealth soldiers are being unfairly treated by the Government under their hostile environment policies. Is the Minister aware of the significant difficulties that Commonwealth personnel have encountered in bringing their families to the UK, and will he engage with me to address these issues?
Johnny Mercer
I will be delighted to engage with the hon. Gentleman, and I would reiterate my point about the sacrifice and the service of so many of our Commonwealth soldiers, who have contributed so much to the armed forces in this country and who make them such a diverse and incredible set of armed forces that do such a good job on our behalf.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Defence exports will continue to be supported, not just by the Ministry of Defence but by other Government Departments including the Department for International Trade, after the UK leaves the EU. Work is ongoing to explore how to strengthen the competitiveness of UK industry and to support exports, both to the EU and globally. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has regular conversations with the Secretary of State for International Trade, including through the defence security and exports working group.
Harriett Baldwin
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment. I know that she is a fervent champion of the tremendous exporters that we have in the defence sector. She will know that they often face non-tariff barriers when they export to the United States. Can she reassure me that she will be championing their cause and ensuring that those non-tariff barriers are broken down when we have a new trade deal?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. I reassure her that, through our long-standing bilateral relationship with the US, we work closely across the full spectrum of defence, including on issues of shared economic interests such as reducing barriers. Free trade agreements are not used as a means of increasing defence exports. For non-sensitive and non-warlike defence goods and services, the UK may pursue greater access to US public procurement opportunities through the free trade agreement.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The 13 old nuclear submarines tied up alongside Devonport provide a really important case not only for generating jobs in Devonport but for exporting skills and technology around the world. Will the Minister put forward a strategy for how we are going to recycle those old nuclear submarines within the next year?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his optimism that anything so big as that project could be done in a year, but I will certainly take up the challenge. I have been described by some in the Department as a poacher turned gamekeeper on this particular subject, especially as I have made it a priority to move this forward. I saw the work being done on the Resolution project up in Rosyth a couple of weeks ago, and I have been encouraged by the progress being made there. We are starting to see a structured framework that will enable us to move this project forward and move our way right through our elderly submarines that are now in need of retirement.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
In the light of recent events at the Syrian border, the Government urge all parties to ensure that they comply with international law, including international humanitarian law and obligations on human rights. We urge a swift de-escalation of the conflict by all parties.
Vicky Ford
I note that changes were made last week to the political declaration on the future relationship between the EU and the UK. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm that no member of the British armed forces would ever be obliged to serve alongside any EU army without Ministers’ support?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend makes the key point when she suggests that this could not happen without Ministers’ support, or indeed without the intention of this Government to voluntarily join an EU task force, a NATO task force or any other type of international task force. I can absolutely reassure her that we will not enter into any of these European schemes without doing so voluntarily and without a unilateral exit.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
As we approach Remembrance weekend and the launch of the Royal British Legion’s poppy campaign, we remember all those who have given their lives for our country and of course all the veterans who have served. Many veterans have accessed the veterans gateway for help and support, but there is significant concern that the funding for the gateway is not guaranteed. Will the Minister address that concern today and guarantee the necessary funding to enable the veterans gateway to continue its good work?
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The veterans gateway received an initial period of funding, and it is supported by a consortium of charities. It has been a success in helping veterans access help in this country, and a long-term plan is being devised for it at the moment. I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that in due course.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I welcome the opportunity to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss the Eastriggs site in his constituency. I am aware of the aspiration of Rail Sidings Ltd to develop its railway rolling stock storage business at MOD Eastriggs. Defence Medical Services continues to manage the site and may support initiatives to commercially exploit the rail infrastructure, provided that any increase in use does not conflict with the primary demands of defence.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing his Department’s analysis of leaving the European Union as far as forfeiting our rights and responsibilities under article 42.7 of the Lisbon treaty is concerned?
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
The UK remains fully committed to the long-term security of the region and to the counter-Daesh coalition. We continually assess UK and coalition logistical capability to ensure that we are well placed to continue to contribute to the counter-Daesh effort, and we remain at the forefront of the coalition’s air campaign.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Mark Lancaster
I am delighted to say that my understanding is that, as a result of the recent pay review, the starting salary of a private soldier has risen to over £20,000 a year.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Johnny Mercer
The issue of protecting our servicemen and women from vexatious and repeated prosecution in Northern Ireland is something that the Government take incredibly seriously. Regular meetings are now ongoing between me, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We are absolutely committed to the Prime Minister’s determination that there will be no vexatious or repeated allegations and prosecutions without new evidence, and we will achieve that objective.
Emma Dent Coad (Kensington) (Lab)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Sadly, I cannot speak about the procurement of other Departments, but I can reassure the hon. Lady that, in my new role, I take how we do procurement, who we do it with, and how contracts are managed extremely seriously.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Johnny Mercer
I have not had any discussions with the Mayor on this issue. Transport is devolved to the Greater Manchester Authority, so it is a matter to be decided upon locally. However, as a supporter of the armed forces covenant, Transport for Greater Manchester provides free travel on Metrolink for veterans on important days, such as Remembrance Sunday. I am of course happy to meet the Mayor to discuss the matter further.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I recently met some veterans of the far east campaigns of the 1950s, and they impressed upon me the gross unfairness of the pension situation for some of them who served for 15 years. Will the Government change the rule that means that people who served before 1975 must have served for 22 years to get a full pension?
Johnny Mercer
In respect of pensions for those who served pre-1975, there is a long-standing convention for which responsibility lies with the Treasury. We simply do not have the resources to backdate pensions, as has always been the case with pensions across the public sector.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Mark Lancaster
The Home Office has responsibility for counter-drone activity within the United Kingdom. The MOD has a layered air defence capability, and we are happy to allow other Departments to use that capability when they specifically request it.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Ministers will be aware that Hawk manufacturing at Brough is due to end in 2020 after more than 100 years of aircraft manufacture. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), for agreeing to meet me on Wednesday, but ahead of that meeting will she please consider all suitable BAE MOD contracts and what pressure can be put on BAE to ensure that some of them are manufactured in Brough?
Mr Wallace
I have regularly met the unions from Brough over the years, and not only because I represent a site in Lancashire that also employs BAE workers. The key is for us to support BAE to get more export bids and, at the same time, to prepare for the next generation of fighter. With that, we will make sure that with our money and with taxpayers’ money comes a commitment from BAE that the jobs are as much based here, throughout the country, as they have always been.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Mark Lancaster
The University of Northampton’s research into the social impact of cadet forces, including those in state schools, suggests that membership can increase social mobility and help children reach their potential because of the activities they undertake. That is precisely why this has been such a successful process.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State will be aware of reports of the use of white phosphorus by Turkey in northern Syria. What is he doing to assist NATO allies with the investigation into this?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady is right that white phosphorus is permitted only for use in signals and markers; it is not allowed, under the Geneva convention, to be used as a weapon. A number of people are collecting evidence about that and many other incidents. When that evidence is presented either to me, to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons or to the UN, we will consider together what the next step should be.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Finally, because he must not miss out, I call Ranil Jayawardena.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome what the Minister has just said and what the Prime Minister has said repeatedly—in March, in July and last week—that we must not let politics trump justice. I trust that legislation is coming to stop vexatious prosecutions, but when?
Johnny Mercer
The Department has completed a consultation—it closed only last week—brought forward by the previous Secretary of State on enhanced legal protections. We are now collating the responses and look forward to introducing a Bill early in the new year.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
On Saturday last, as reported at column 658 of Hansard, the Leader of the House rose on a point of order to announce the Government’s intention to bring forward a motion today under section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Unfortunately, the point of order did not prove to be a prelude to an emergency business statement on which colleagues could question, probe and scrutinise the Leader of the House.
Rather, for approximately an hour, 30 points of order were raised with me by no fewer than 24 colleagues expressing disquiet and consternation that the Government intended to require the House to consider again on Monday the same matter which it had decided 48 hours earlier, on the immediately preceding sitting day. It was my privilege to listen and respond to the views of colleagues. I then undertook to reflect further on what Members had said and to give a ruling this afternoon, which I shall now do.
There are two issues, one of substance and the other of circumstances, to consider, and I shall address each in turn.
First, I have to judge whether the motion tabled under section 13(1)(b) of the 2018 Act for debate today is the same in substance as that which was decided on Saturday. Page 397 of “Erskine May” is clear that such a motion
“may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
It is equally clear that adjudication of cases is a matter for the Chair.
I invoked “Erskine May” and ruled on this issue as recently as 18 March 2019. Saturday’s motion sought approval for the withdrawal agreement, the political declaration on the future relationship between the EU and the UK and the declaration concerning the operation of the democratic consent in Northern Ireland provision. Today’s motion seeks approval for the withdrawal agreement, the political declaration on the future relationship between the EU and the UK and the declaration concerning the operation of the democratic consent in Northern Ireland provision. It is clear that the motions are in substance the same. However, this matter was decided fewer than 49 hours ago. After more than three hours of debate, the House voted, by 322 to 306, for Sir Oliver Letwin’s amendment, which stated that
“this House has considered the matter but withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed.”
The second matter for me to consider was whether there had been any change of circumstances that would justify asking the House to reconsider on Monday what it had decided on Saturday. On the face of it, unless an event or development external to the House had interceded, it is hard to see a significant change of circumstances that would warrant a reconsideration on the next sitting day—in this case, a reconsideration pre-announced by the Leader of the House just under 21 minutes after the result of the Division was announced. However, the Government might argue—though, to date, they have not put forward any argument or explanation at all—that the change of circumstances is the Prime Minister’s application on Saturday night for an extension of article 50. This is not persuasive. The application is part of a process, rather than a significant event in itself.
In summary, today’s motion is—[Interruption.] I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). If he would bear stoically and with fortitude, I shall complete my statement. In summary, today’s motion is in substance the same as Saturday’s motion, and the House has decided the matter. Today’s circumstances are in substance the same as Saturday’s circumstances. My ruling is therefore that the motion will not be debated today, as it would be repetitive and disorderly to do so. For the benefit of colleagues not closely familiar with the so-called “same Question” convention, which is very strong and dates back to 1604, I will summarise the rationale for it in a sentence: it is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the House’s time and proper respect for the decisions that it takes.
If it is not legitimate for the motion to be taken today, what is it legitimate for the Government to do? The answer is that, as the Prime Minister signalled in his point of order on Saturday, as reported at column 653 of Hansard, and in his letter to Members that evening, the Government can introduce their EU withdrawal and implementation Bill. Indeed, they have done just that, presenting the Bill for its First Reading today. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will offer further details of the intended timetable for the Bill when he makes a business statement later today. Meanwhile, I hope that this ruling and explanation are helpful to the House.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I entirely follow the logic of your argument, but what weight did you give to the fact that when we were debating on Saturday, nobody knew whether the Prime Minister would send a letter, and since that has happened, although you are quite correct, Sir, to say that the motion is the same, an event outside has dramatically changed it? Given that the motion on Saturday was clear that final approval cannot be given until the deal has gone through in legislation, would it not be, as you have always said, for the House to decide on this matter, notwithstanding the fact that the previous motion is clear about what is going to happen? That would give the country the opportunity to know whether the House approves or disapproves of the Prime Minister’s deal.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My response is as follows. I did not consider, in reaching a judgment on this matter, whether a letter would be sent; the letter was sent on Saturday evening. More widely, on whether the question whether a Minister of the Crown would obey the law would be a material consideration for the Chair, the honest answer to the hon. Gentleman is that that consideration had not entered my mind as pertinent to my reflection on the matter.
I note the wider point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I respect the fact that it is a point of view. I intend no discourtesy to him when I say that I think I have made the argument for and explained the rationale behind the judgment that I have made. I am not seeking to rubbish the hon. Gentleman; I am simply making—[Interruption.] No, I am not seeking to rubbish the hon. Gentleman; I am simply making the point that, having reflected on all the considerations and the interests of the House, I have reached the conclusion I have reached. It is important that colleagues hear all parts of it. The hon. Gentleman did not like part of it, as he politely explained in his point of order, but he will also have heard me say what it is open to the Government to do. The Government can introduce their Bill, propose a programme motion for it and proceed with the support of the House, between now and the end of the month, as collectively Parliament prescribes. That seems to me to be entirely proper.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I will come to other colleagues, particularly the illustrious Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will recall, on Saturday afternoon, I was the Member who made the point that the Leader of the House should have been making an emergency business statement at that time, rather than relying on the device of a point of order to try to change the business today. I described it at the time as “low-rent jiggery-pokery”. Is it not time that the Government, instead of playing games with the business of the House, actually subscribed to the usual practices, informed the Opposition of their intentions and, indeed, informed the Speaker of the House of their intensions in advance, so that we can all get on with the important business we have to conduct?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Let us focus on the arguments and the issues. As a long-serving Member of this House who is sadly no longer with us once said, “It’s about policies; it’s not about personalities. It’s not about personalities; it’s about policies.” I do not want to get into the personalities of it. I know that the Leader of the House disapproves of jiggery-pokery, because I have heard him say so in the past—if memory serves me correctly, on 26 March 2015, in the Chamber, he made the very point that he deprecated the use of jiggery-pokery.
I do not want to get into that, but I suppose what I want to say is this: there are precedents for changes in business being announced on points of order—it is not the norm, but there are precedents—and I do not want to ascribe any improper motive to the Leader of the House, whose personal courtesy to me over the years has been and remains unfailing, and I hope that I have reciprocated it. He made the judgment that he made. There was very little notice that he was going to say what he said, but that was really perhaps a product of the circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman might think that the circumstance could have been anticipated and some advance notice would have been helpful, but we were where we were. I do not complain about having to respond to points of order. The Leader of the House did not stay for all the points of order—he stayed for some of them—but I feel certain that he will since have familiarised himself with all of them. We will hear from the Leader of the House later, and I am sure we look forward to that.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. A couple of days ago, on a point of order, I said that the law of the land was set out in section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which quite unequivocally states:
“The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.”
Exit day is on 31 October. The Benn Act 2019 has not yet done anything, other than in respect of the letter, to change the repeal of the 1972 Act. Therefore, I simply put it to you, Mr Speaker, that, as you mentioned in your statement, the question whether there are issues relating to the law being obeyed is not an issue at this stage in proceedings. For that reason, I simply ask you whether it is possible for you to reconsider your decision, because the reality is, I am afraid, that the law of the land remains as it was last Friday.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose experience in these matters and whose prowess as a lawyer I readily acknowledge. I hope that he will not take it amiss—but if he does, it is a regrettable inevitability—when I say that he has put on record his understanding of the legal position, and he has said it, as he has on previous occasions, with crystal clarity. Other people have a different view about the legal position and the significance of the so-called Benn Act. If memory serves me correctly, I did not dwell in my statement on adherence to the law. I touched on that matter only in response to the point of order from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I totally understand what the hon. Member for Stone thinks and why.
Moreover, I made clear in the statement the option open to the Government, and I reiterated it in response to the hon. Member for Wellingborough. The amendment in the name of Sir Oliver Letwin, I remind not just Members but those attending our proceedings, explicitly specified that the legislation should come first. Suddenly to have at the next sitting day a debate on the same matter upon which an explicit conclusion was reached on Saturday would seem very unusual, and I have made the judgment that I have made.
Colleagues, I am stating the obvious, but when you make a judgment on these matters, manifestly some people, if it is controversial, are pleased and other people are displeased. That is in the nature of the responsibility. I have simply sought to discharge my obligations and to do what I believe to be right, and that is what the Speaker has to do.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is about the nature of this power in the Chair to prevent Parliament being asked to vote again and again on the same thing. Surely this is to prevent an over powerful Executive—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
I cannot quite read the lips of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), but I think he is saying, “If only”. The hon. Lady must be heard.
Ms Eagle
It is an attempt to prevent an Executive from browbeating Parliament and making certain that it votes again and again on the same thing until it gets it right. Surely, Mr Speaker, this is an important defence of freedom in our democracy, and do you agree that this is even more important when we have a Government who are attempting to browbeat Parliament and set up a Parliament versus the people false narrative?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is yes. I sought, colleagues, to frame my statement in factual terms, and it was—whether people agree with it or not—closely argued. I did not go in for adjectival excess on this occasion. It is, however, part of the thinking of the Chair that the House should not be continually bombarded with a requirement to consider the same matter over and over and over again. There are people who are concerned about such a prospect—that is, about the possibility of being browbeaten, harassed or intimidated. In the context of the statement I made to the House on 18 March, I was very aware of commentary in the public square along the lines of, “Well, we’ll bring it back—26 times if necessary—until we get the outcome.” That was a factor in my judgment that a ruling from the Chair needed to be given.
Absence of Speaker intervention on this same convention since 1920 or thereabouts is attributable, colleagues, not to the discontinuation of the convention, but rather to general compliance with it, and that is for the protection of the House. We also do not want contradictory and conflicting judgments to be reached in very short order, and what could be shorter order than the next sitting day after the last judgment was made? It may not appeal to everybody, but that is the rationale for the perfectly reasonable judgment that I have made.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am most grateful to you for allowing me to speak. I rather imagine that if you did not enjoy being bombarded, you would not so much enjoy sitting in that Chair. I note that the dilemmas you face mean that, on occasion, you will sometimes have to please some and not others, but it is becoming remarkable how often you please one lot and not the other lot. You have also inveighed against most unusual things happening in this House that you did not like, and I would say that it is most unusual for a Speaker so often to have prevented the Government from debating the matters that the Government wished to put before the House. It has been one of your mantras that the House should be permitted to express its view, even when it comes to changing the meaning of Standing Orders, and yet you have denied the House the opportunity to express its view on this matter. This motion that was never voted on on Saturday—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I understand the strong passions, but I want the hon. Gentleman to be heard, as he must be—fully and without fear or favour—and I know that he will then allow me the courtesy of an uninterrupted response.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
This motion was never voted on, and it ceased to exist as soon as it was amended. I confess, Mr Speaker, that I am surprised that the reason my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) tabled his amendment has failed to enter your head. The reason was that there was an anxiety that the law was not going to be complied with and the letter would not be sent; so the circumstances have changed in that respect. May I just alert you and the House to the fact that my Committee—the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs—will be holding a hearing on the role of the Speaker, somewhat in the light of the experience of recent months?
Mr Speaker
First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his multifaceted point of order—and it was multifaceted; there were several features to it, and that is important.
Secondly, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about his Committee conducting an inquiry into the role of the Speaker, and that is absolutely proper—
Mr Speaker
I think he said something from a sedentary position about tomorrow, with evidence being taken and witnesses being heard, and that is absolutely right. I do not know what he expects me to deduce from that. I would not dream of seeking to comment adversely—still less to trespass, which it would be quite improper to seek to do—upon the legitimate autonomy of any Select Committee of this House. It is perfectly proper for his Committee to undertake such an inquiry. I am entirely untroubled by it, and it is a reflection of his conscientiousness that he should do it.
Thirdly, with regard to how unfortunate it is that one side seems to be disadvantaged by judgments from the Chair, I say to the hon. Gentleman—and there are people in this Chamber who know very well the truth of what I say—that I do not have, off the top of my head, a count of the number of times that I have in the past granted urgent questions, and in some cases, though they were less fashionable at the time, emergency debates, to people of what was then called a Eurosceptic disposition and would now be called a Brexiteer disposition—and he was one of them. When I was granting him and some of his hon. and right hon. Friends the opportunity to challenge, to question, to probe, to scrutinise, and, in some cases, to expose what they thought were the errors of omission or commission of the Government of the day, I do not recall him complaining that I was giving him too many opportunities to make his point and that it was not a fair use of the House’s time—that it was very unfair on his party and a violation of the rights of his Government. Now, it may be that sotto voce he was somehow making this point, but if so, I did not hear it.
I remind the hon. Gentleman additionally, and fourthly, I think, that—yes, I will make this point because it is an important point to make—his hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) tabled an amendment to the Queen’s Speech in 2103 on the case for a referendum on UK membership of the European Union, a most unusual though perfectly proper thing for a Government Back Bencher to do, and I selected that amendment. I did so because I thought that it was well supported and there was a compelling case for it to be considered. So what I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is that when he was getting the decisions in his favour, he was not grumbling. He is grumbling now because he does not like the judgment I have made, but the judgment is an honourable and fair one, and I am afraid that if he does not like it, there is not much I can do about that. I am trying to do the right thing for the House as a whole.
My last point to the hon. Gentleman—and it is very important not just for, or even particularly for, Members of the House, but for those observing our proceedings—is that nothing in what I have said in any way impinges upon the opportunity for the Government to secure approval of their deal and the passage of the appropriate legislation by the end of the month. If the Government have got the numbers, the Government can have their way, and it is not for the Speaker to interfere. The judgment I have made is about the importance of upholding a very long-standing and overwhelmingly observed convention of this House. That is what I have done, and I make absolutely no apology for it whatsoever.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking clarification on the implications of the Benn Act for the proceedings over the next week or so. I am happy to put this in writing if that is helpful, and I am sorry for not having done so already. The Benn Act, as you know, was amended by the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). You may recall that in the debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) why there was no purpose to his Bill, to which the latter Member of Parliament said, “We do not want a purpose to this Bill”, and the implication was to keep it open-ended. Clearly, the amendment that was then passed by this House included the amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, which stated very clearly that there could be no extension beyond 31 October unless it was to secure a deal. So could I have some clarification from you, Mr Speaker, or maybe in writing tomorrow, that when amendments come forward over the next few days or the next few weeks, only those that are pertinent to securing the deal, in relation to the essence of that deal, rather than revoking article 50 or having a second referendum, will be taken, because it is all about securing the deal?
Mr Speaker
My response to the right hon. Lady is twofold. First, it is not for the Chair to interpret the Act. People will make their own assessment of that. That does not fall to me. Secondly, if she wishes to engage with me on that matter in correspondence, I am not promising to come back to her tomorrow but I will study any letter from her and respond in as timely a way as I can, compatible with a substantive response being provided. I shall be delighted to try to oblige her in that regard.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it not be better to save consideration of these matters until the business statement, so that we can hear from the Leader of the House of Commons?
Mr Speaker
That is perfectly possible. For that to be the case, a self-denying ordinance is required on the part of people who otherwise wish to raise points of order with me, but I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and colleagues either will be guided by him or not.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I make a helpful suggestion, which is that you send a photocopy of “Erskine May” to members of the Government? On a more serious note, the Government keep insisting that Members of this House should have the opportunity to change their minds. Is it not time that they extended the same courtesy to the British people?
Mr Speaker
I note what the hon. Lady has said. The second point is a political one, to which I will not respond. In relation to “Erskine May”, it is available free online. In relation to the same question convention, I simply make the point that when I pronounced on the same question convention on 18 March, one of the early responses came from an hon. Member who said:
“may I say how delighted I am that you have decided to follow precedent, which is something I am greatly in favour of?”—[Official Report, 18 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 778.]
He went on to make other supporting points. The person who responded in that way was none other than the current Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). The Leader of the House was very much with me at that time on the same question convention. I take the same view seven months later, and it is for him to explain whether he does.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. However unfashionable it might be, I believe that you are quite right, and by the same token, it is quite wrong to expect the voters to have to answer the same question a second time.
Mr Speaker
I have known the right hon. Gentleman for 22 years. I like him so much that I do not want to ruin a burgeoning political career, as he is only probably a quarter of the way through his, but one of his great merits is that he is a model of consistency, principle and fair-mindedness.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The meaningful vote process is one which Parliament has insisted the Government adhere to. All the Government are trying to do is stick to a process set out by Parliament. The motion was amended on Saturday. Now we can have a clean vote, because I think there is an appetite among the country and this Parliament—these Benches are not exactly empty—to get a view on the Prime Minister’s deal. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne): I think your ruling is probably right. But unlike most of “Erskine May”, we are prone to follow the EU constitution, which means at the moment that we will leave the EU at the end of this month. There is limited time, but we will be treated to the spectacle of empty Benches in this House when we go home, and we may be sitting late or at weekends to try to get Government legislation on the statute book. I am not sure that the British people will understand that.
Mr Speaker
I just say to the hon. Gentleman—I genuinely apologise to him if I have misunderstood any part of his point, but I am reacting on the hoof—that whether or not there were the debate today, the Government require the passage of the requisite legislation. Therefore, in so far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the time required for the legislation, the programme motion for it, the sitting hours entailed by it and the inconvenience that might flow from it, those considerations would apply whether or not we had the debate today. The issue is whether we make a pragmatic judgment and allow for the breach of a long-standing convention or make a principled judgment, and I have made a principled judgment. There is every opportunity for the Government, with the support of the House, not only to have their say, but to get their way by the end of October, and I do not think I need to add anything to that. It is dependent on parliamentary opinion.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Before you reflect on this, I acknowledge that we have known each other for over 30 years—in many ways our personal political lives seem to have gone off in very different directions in the course of that time—and I acknowledge the kind remarks you made to me on another occasion outside this House last week, but I am one of the Members who have formally recorded my anxiety about your partiality in the Chair, and I think the right way to do that is to do it formally.
Having done that, like my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), and having noted the narrow terms in which you gave your ruling today, I think those terms in your coming to your judgment are reasonable. However, would our knowing what the response is to the letter imposed on the Government by this House to request an extension be a sufficient change of circumstances for you to reconsider the conclusions you have come to today?
Mr Speaker
As the hon. Gentleman will know, repetition is not a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons, including when perpetrated by me. I have made the point often—forgive me, but I make it again—that I tend to subscribe to the dictum of the late Lord Whitelaw in these matters. He famously used to say, “Personally, I think it is better to cross bridges only when I come to them”. It is a hypothetical question, and I would have to reflect on it and make a judgment in the circumstances of the time.
I do not want to fall out with the hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate his courteous opening remarks. He will not be surprised to know that, although I absolutely defend his right to his opinion, I do not accept his characterisation of my speakership. I have tried to do the right thing by Parliament. Sometimes people like it when it goes their way and sometimes they do not when it does not, but that is my honest approach. If he disapproves of it, I am sorry about that, because I have known him a long time, but I will live with that. I do not mean that in any discourteous or patronising way, but I will live with that. It is one verdict, and there will be others. However, I have made the judgment I have made, and let us wait and see how events develop.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a genuine point of order. First, my understanding of “Erskine May” is that the repeat question applies to a Session of Parliament, so the fact that we have had a Prorogation since 29 March might mean that the Government could—I am not saying they would want to do this, but they could—bring back the same question as they asked the House on 29 March. Secondly, would they be able to ask a variant of the motion on the Order Paper today that included, for example, paragraphs (1) and (3)?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. It is a genuine point of order, and my response to it is as follows. First, when I referred—I do not mean this impolitely—not to 29 March, but to 18 March, I was referring not to a motion on that day, which was indeed in the last Session, but to the statement or ruling I gave at the time on the same question convention. The ruling on the same question convention has not just survived from one Session to another; it has in fact survived for the last 415 years, so I do not think we need trouble ourselves unduly on that matter.
Secondly, I very specifically was making the point that the matter has been treated of as recently as Saturday, with a very clear decision reached by the House on the amendment to the motion, and therefore it would not be appropriate to consider that matter today.
Thirdly, when the hon. Lady inquires about whether a different formulation of words, or a section or subsection would render such a motion open to a different judgment on the same question and convention, I hope that she will understand when I say that I cannot possibly pronounce on that until I know the circumstances. I would have to see the particulars, and I am grateful for the rather vigorous nodding of the head by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) who, at least on that point, seems to agree with me.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In citing your ruling, you spoke of the importance of precedent and convention, yet earlier this year, when you allowed a motion that was unamendable to be amended, you said:
“I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so…If we were guided only by precedent…nothing…would ever change.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 366-372.]
Can you understand, Sir, in the light of your comments, why some people perceive, perhaps incorrectly, that the only consistency one can find in your rulings is that they always seem to favour one side of the argument, and never the Government, who are trying their best to carry out the mandate given to them by the British people in 2016?
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman—and I mean this very sincerely—for his point of order and, in particular, in the best traditions of his service, for his explicit, direct challenge. I respect that. No whispering behind his hands or muttering into his soup, or anything like that—he is challenging me directly. I do not agree with him. I think the consistent thread is that I try to do what is right by the House of Commons, including by, in many cases, minorities whose voices need to be heard. What I said when I allowed the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) on, if memory serves me correctly, 9 January this year, was that the will of the House should be tested. It may well be that it had not been the norm for such motions to be amended, but I felt that the circumstances were different. Very specifically, I sensed that there was a very strong appetite for that amendment among several parties in the House, and a resistance to it by a very much smaller number of parties, and I thought that the will of the House should be tested.
It is true that we are guided not only by precedent, but I would say to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) that just because we are not guided only by precedent does not mean that we are not guided at all by precedent. What one has to do is make a balanced judgment about what best serves the interests of the House. All I would say to him is that as recently as Saturday, at the insistence of the Government—and I think with the support of the House—the House met to deliberate on this very matter. Simply to allow the matter to be reconsidered two days later, on the very next sitting day, seems to me to be entirely unreasonable. Nothing that I have said by way of conclusion today flies in the face of contrary expert advice that I have received. I have consulted, I have taken advice, I have listened to people expert in these matters, and I have not been counselled that what I have said today is wrong. I have not been counselled that what I have said today is wrong, and I have a very strong sense that there is a pretty wide acceptance that on this matter my judgment, however inconvenient and irksome to some people, has the advantage of being procedurally right.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect your judgment and share your love of precedent, but given what you have said, and given that the House has already voted a number of times on holding a second referendum, and rejected it, will you apply the same precedent on repetitive votes in your deliberations if amendments proposing a second referendum are put forward?
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. The principle that I have enunciated has wider application. The same question convention applies to consideration of the same matter in the same Session. I very gently say to him that we are now in a new Session—a point that is so blindingly obvious that I am sure it will not have escaped the right hon. Gentleman, who is a very clever fellow, for a moment.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Some of my constituents have written to me today to express their concern that the reason the vote is not being allowed is that the result would go in the Government’s favour. I have heard the reasons that you have given for that, but on Saturday the amendment was brought forward by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who has since said that, were the vote to be brought forward now, he would not amend it again, and that he would support the Government’s legislation. Is that not a sign that something has changed since Saturday?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to that is no. I do not recall every single word that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has said, although I am familiar with the thrust of his argumentation on these matters. It is a matter of record that the right hon. Gentleman has voted for the withdrawal agreement three times, and it is a matter of record that he has expressed support for the Government’s latest deal with the European Union, causing him therefore to be inclined to vote for the legislation. He can vote for the legislation if he so wishes—I have every expectation, on the strength of what he has said, that he will do so—but he does not determine what the judgment is about the same question convention. I mean, he could if he were the Speaker of the House. If the hon. Lady is going to make a belated attempt to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to abandon his retirement plans and seek election to the Chair, she might have success with him, or she might not—I do not know; he does not seem to be offering me any encouragement on that matter. I have made the judgment that I have made, and I think that it is the right judgment to make.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Her Majesty the Queen thought that she had five weeks to write her Gracious Speech, but then she was given just a few days, and now she is waiting intently to hear the House’s response to it. However, the Leader of the House has put down a motion that is basically a copycat of Saturday’s motion, in breach of “Erskine May”, and, predictably, you have ruled it out of order. Is this not a discourtesy to Her Majesty, and a further reason why the Leader of the House should consider his position, given his incompetence?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that we should get ahead of ourselves. I certainly am not accusing the Leader of the House of discourtesy—in fact, I have celebrated his unfailing courtesy to me, and I think that he would acknowledge mine to him. We are going to hear from the Leader of the House with the business statement. If the hon. Gentleman wants to question the Leader of the House on the business statement, and to express his indignation, I very much doubt that any force on earth would stop him doing so.
If that exhausts for now the appetite of colleagues to raise points of order—I am grateful to colleagues for what they have said, and for the courtesy with which they have expressed themselves, whether they agree with my ruling or not—we will move on to the first of our urgent questions.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill and Extension Letter
(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
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the publication of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill and his letter of 19 October to the European Council seeking an extension to the period provided under article 50.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
Notice of the withdrawal agreement Bill was given to the House on Saturday. The Bill was handed to the House yesterday, as agreed with the House authorities. It will be introduced for First Reading at the start of the main business today. Publication of the withdrawal agreement Bill is therefore now being delayed by the Leader of the Opposition, because he has tabled this urgent question requesting publication of the withdrawal agreement Bill—genius.
The withdrawal agreement Bill could not be finalised until the European Council on Thursday 17 October, and then there followed an historic meeting of this House on Saturday 19 October. It has been introduced on the following sitting day, and, as you said a moment ago in response to a point of order, Mr Speaker, what could be sooner than the next sitting day? The sooner that this urgent question and the next urgent question are concluded, the sooner it will be available to Members.
In respect of the Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk of 19 October, that was sent in compliance with section 1 of the Benn Act. The President of the European Council has accepted the request as valid and indicated that he is considering it and consulting member states.
Jeremy Corbyn
I do admire the Secretary of State for keeping a straight face while he gave that answer, and I am very grateful to you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.
The Prime Minister has not deigned to grace us with his presence today, but I am reassured that, despite his pledge, he is not to be found anywhere in a ditch. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has sent a letter over the weekend to the EU President Donald Tusk to comply with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. As we have come to expect with this Prime Minister, this has been done with posturing and attempts to distract, but despite having told the British public over and over again that he would never do it, the letter has in fact been sent. Not only is the request legally necessary and prevents us crashing out of the EU with no deal, but the extension allows this House the space to scrutinise the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal. I pay tribute to all those Members who have worked hard to ensure that a no-deal Brexit is ruled out, and I will continue to work across the House to ensure that this continues to be the case.
The European Commission has confirmed today that Brussels is now considering the terms of an extension. Can the Secretary of State tell the House when he expects any extension to be granted? Can he categorically rule out the absolutely ridiculous reports yesterday that Conservative MPs are trying to amend the law to jail Members of Parliament alleged to have colluded with foreign powers? Does he, like me, fear for the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who is telling everyone who will listen that he is trying to collude with the Polish and Hungarian Governments to veto any possibility of article 50 extensions?
This type of nonsense is doing nobody any good at all. If the Prime Minister wants to get his deal through, he should bring forward the withdrawal agreement Bill for scrutiny. Will he also bring forward an economic impact assessment, which has so far not seen the light of day? And will he allow this House ample time to scrutinise what this deal means to the communities that we all represent?
Stephen Barclay
I can tell the House what has been ditched—the right hon. Gentleman’s manifesto, with him moving from the commitment he gave to respect the referendum result to one that is now characterised by dither and delay. The Leader of the Opposition questions the letter from the Prime Minister. What the Prime Minister made clear was that we would abide by the law, and Lord Pannick, among many others, has confirmed that the Prime Minister has done so, so there is no question as to the commitment from him. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition disagrees with the action, but the position of the Prime Minister and his commitment to leaving on 31 October will not surprise any Members either of this House or of the European Council.
The Leader of the Opposition talks about collusion. In this House, we want to collude with the British public to respect the referendum result and to get Brexit done. When he talks about delay, he should answer this question: he wants a second referendum, as we know the shadow Brexit Secretary does, but how long is that going to take? How long will the primary legislation take? How long will the Electoral Commission requirements take? How long will he leave the House in purgatory? He gave a commitment that if we went past 31 October, there would be a general election, and yet on the “Andrew Marr” programme on Sunday, the shadow Brexit Secretary said that he wanted a further delay to have a second referendum. When will the Leader of the Opposition accept the Prime Minister’s challenge? When will he have a general election? Or are we to have, as the shadow Brexit Secretary said, more dither, more delay and more shirking of his responsibilities?
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind)
Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that the Government stop giving this sacred quality to the date of 31 October, which is a really rather silly point that has intruded into the extremely complicated arguments we are having? I would be quite happy if we concluded a withdrawal agreement along the lines the Prime Minister is proposing by 31 October, if we could do it properly, but the date was not selected by the British public or the British Government; it was a compromise in the EU between President Macron and the rest and was plucked out of the air. Will he agree that what matters is that we get the right withdrawal agreement, carried with the tenuous majority the Government may have, through Second Reading and Third Reading so that its form can be settled, and that we then proceed in a way that future generations, if we get it right—or even if we get it wrong—will regard as much more important than whether we made it by a particular day in October 2019?
Stephen Barclay
The date was set by the previous European Council, and it is not a unilateral decision for the UK Parliament whether that date is changed. Previously in the House the Father of the House said that what mattered was avoiding no deal. The Prime Minister has secured a deal that does that. What matters now is that we end the uncertainty for businesses and citizens, deliver on the deal the Prime Minister has negotiated—one agreed by the EU27 as well—and get Brexit done.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on lodging the urgent question, but of course it was a question to the Prime Minister about his behaviour. Where is he? Where is his respect for the House? He was utterly humiliated by his defeat on Saturday, which saw the House reject his unfair and anti-democratic deal and has forced him to send a letter to the EU Council requesting an extension. But what did he do? He sent a letter not on headed paper and unsigned. Is he used to sending unsigned letters in his capacity as Prime Minister? If so, how many such letters has he sent? I want a direct answer, although I think we know the answer.
The Prime Minister’s behaviour lacks dignity and respect and is not becoming of any Prime Minister. Once again, he has shown himself to be unworthy of the office he holds. I have with me a copy of a joint letter sent from the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales to President Tusk, properly addressed, with their official letterheads and duly signed. The Prime Minister should take note: that is a lesson in how to behave. His actions show disrespect not only to the House but to the Court in Scotland and to President Tusk himself. Despite the Prime Minister’s childish game of sending a contrary letter, the SNP is pleased to see that the grown-ups in the room—namely, the European Council—are now considering an extension, which must be secured to protect our interests from the economic oblivion that would follow from a no-deal Brexit.
I join the Leader of the Opposition in expressing the Scottish National party’s outrage that the Prime Minister has instructed his Government to publish the withdrawal Bill without securing adequate time for parliamentary debate and scrutiny. Once again, this Conservative Government are showing disregard for democracy. It is absolutely imperative that representatives here are able to do their jobs and scrutinise this legislation, given the magnitude of its ramifications.
I say this to the Prime Minister, through the Secretary of State who is present: if he is not afraid of democratic debate, let him secure the extension, and let us have the time that we need for full scrutiny of the Bill. Let me also ask him this: if he is so sure that the people are with him, will he confirm today that he will seek support for the Bill from the Scottish Parliament, which must give consent first?
Stephen Barclay
The crux of the issue is that the Prime Minister has complied with the law, but it is right that alongside that, he has set out his well-known views, and that should not come as a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman any more than it should to any other Member. What is unworthy is to hold referendums and then ignore the results, which is the position of the right hon. Gentleman in terms of not just the 2014 referendum but the referendum of 2016.
More than 1,200 days have passed since the referendum, and the one thing that I do not think the House has lacked is opportunity to debate the issues contained in the withdrawal agreement Bill. The Bill will be published—it is with the House—in order for further debate to happen. It is time for the House to begin that debate, back the Bill, get Brexit done and get on to the domestic priorities: the record investment in our health service, the extra 20,000 police officers we are recruiting, and the levelling up of all parts of the United Kingdom as part of strong economic delivery.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am glad that the Government wish to base our future relationship with the EU on comprehensive free trade agreements, but will they get on with tabling one, and show urgency in trying to secure one? The sooner we can secure one, the more reassuring it will be for Northern Ireland; and the public, who are heartily sick of all this, do not want to waste another 15 months.
May I personally thank you, Mr Speaker, for avoiding groundhog day today? I heard all the arguments on Saturday, and I do not think that I need to hear them again.
Stephen Barclay
I agree with my right hon. Friend: we need to get on to the future relationship. The House has been endlessly debating the winding-down provisions, which are contained in the withdrawal agreement Bill. The political declaration sets out a clear framework for a best-in-class free trade agreement, and we need to pass the Bill in order to get on with that.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Prime Minister was withering in his criticism of the first Brexit deal, and yet he voted for it. He said that no Conservative Prime Minister should ever accept a border down the Irish sea, and yet he has done so. He said that he would never ask for an extension of article 50, and yet he sent a letter doing just that. If the Prime Minister is allowed to change his mind, surely the Government should give the public the opportunity to do the same by putting their Brexit deal to a people’s vote.
Stephen Barclay
I think it is somewhat ironic to hear a question about changing minds from a member of the Liberal Democrats, who were the first party to call for an in-out referendum, and who now want a people’s vote on the basis of ignoring the people’s vote that we have had.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The urgent question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, which was somewhat unusual. May I refer my right hon. Friend to a Bill that was introduced in 1997 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, along with that of the right honourable Tony Benn? That Bill stated:
“Sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 are hereby repealed.”
It also stated that the European Court of Justice shall have no effect in the United Kingdom.
Does my right hon. Friend recall the number of times—which, as far as I am concerned, was indefinite—when the Leader of the Opposition went through the Lobby with me on every single instance relating to European matters? Does he accept that this demonstrates not merely a monumental U-turn, but a monumental lack of memory and lack of understanding of what the withdrawal Bill is all about, and of the referendum itself?
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend has always stuck to his principles; the reality is that the Leader of the Opposition cannot even stick to his own manifesto.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Does the Brexit Secretary not agree that the Prime Minister has a problem with veracity? He told us that he would rather be dead in a ditch than sign the letter, and signed the letter. He told us that there would be no border in the Irish sea, and then he negotiated a border in the Irish sea. Why on earth should we ever believe a single thing this Prime Minister says?
Stephen Barclay
The Prime Minister did not sign the letter, so I think the issue of veracity was actually in the question.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does my right hon Friend agree that what the recipients of the letter and other EU member states, and indeed this country, want to know is whether the agreement that they have reached with the Prime Minister commands the majority support of this House, and how does he propose to explain to them that now, on a second day of the House of Commons meeting, we are still unable to discover that?
Stephen Barclay
I very much share my right hon. Friend’s frustration. That exactly is the question that will be posed in capitals; they have reached a deal with the Government and they want to see the UK leave in a smooth and orderly way. That is what their citizens want to see, it is what UK citizens in Europe want to happen, and the sooner we get on and do it the better.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
It is reported that the Secretary of State told the House of Lords European Union Select Committee this morning that under this agreement, goods leaving Northern Ireland for the rest of the United Kingdom will require an exit summary declaration to be submitted. Can he confirm for the House that such declarations have to be made when goods leave the customs territory of the European Union and, if so, how does that square with article 4 of the Northern Ireland protocol, which says that Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom? It is either part of the European Union or the United Kingdom; it cannot be both.
Stephen Barclay
What I was referring to in those remarks was in line with international obligations. Some practical information will need to be provided electronically on the movement of goods from west to east. However, the Government will be considering the process during the implementation period.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
May I just say on the Floor of the House now that I have zero respect—absolutely no respect—for the Benn surrender Act? I have no respect for the means by which it was brought to the House and the Order Paper taken over. I have no respect for the fact that it had four hours’ debate with one day’s notice. I have no respect for the manner in which—Mr Speaker, you were not in the Chair that afternoon—manuscript amendments were being debated before they were available. This was a shambolic Act brought by those who do not want to respect Brexit. The Government should be in control of the Order Paper, and if others do not want that, they can lay a vote of no confidence, but they will not.
I really wonder, Mr Speaker, what this urgent question is for: is it an argument that somehow the Government should have delivered a gold-trimmed letter on a sequinned velvet cushion to the Commission? Can the Secretary of State confirm that the letter has obviously been treated as genuine and is being dealt with in the appropriate way by the Council of Ministers—even though I would have much preferred it had the Government and the Prime Minister had ignored this shambolic Benn Act?
Stephen Barclay
As my hon. Friend knows, the Benn legislation was designed to prevent a no-deal exit. The Prime Minister was told that changing the backstop was impossible; he delivered it. He was told that the withdrawal agreement text could not be changed; he did so. We now have a deal that the House can pass; I hope Members across the House will do so with the withdrawal agreement Bill in order that we can leave on 31 October, as citizens and businesses around the country want us to do, and get on with it.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I hope the Secretary of State realises that I could never get angry with him. He and I have always had a very good relationship, and I trust him a very long way, but I beg him to talk to the Prime Minister about his philosophy of “Get on with it” and “We must get this done”. Does he not agree that it is our sacred duty not just to get on with it but to ensure that the deal and the quality of the deal will actually serve our constituents? They depend on us for their health, their welfare, their future and their prosperity, so we must take this business seriously and slowly. “Get on with it” is a nasty jibe. Stop it!
Stephen Barclay
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the kind words with which he prefaced his question. I have always enjoyed working with him on that basis. He is right to say that we need to get the detail right, but we also need to be clear as to the scope of the withdrawal agreement Bill. It is to implement the deal—the international treaty—that has been reached. It is not to determine the future relationship, which the House, through the withdrawal agreement Bill, will have a lot of opportunity to discuss and get right in the negotiation mandate. We need to implement the treaty through what has been agreed with the EU in the withdrawal agreement Bill, and then get on to the debate, which I look forward to having with the hon. Gentleman, on the terms of the free trade agreement as we move forward with that deal.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend shares my concern that two Front-Bench Members of Opposition parties have now said that it is not good enough simply to police the Prime Minister’s actions through the courts and that they now want to police his thoughts and opinions as well. That is quite a sinister preview of what life might be like under a Labour Government, if that were to happen. Can he confirm my understanding of the process for the following week, and perhaps give my constituents some clarity on the legislation? Will he confirm that if Opposition Members were to bring forward amendments that are incompatible with the agreement we have made with the European Union, they would not achieve their intended outcome and would simply frustrate and prevent us from passing a deal and leaving on time?
Stephen Barclay
On the detail of the next steps, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will make a business statement after the urgent questions, and I would not want to pre-empt that. On the wider point, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Prime Minister has met his legal obligation, and that has been recognised by the President of the European Court and the European Union. What we now need to do is implement the withdrawal agreement Bill, get Brexit done and get on to the free trade agreement that was referred to earlier.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I welcome the fact that, despite all the malarkey, green-ink letters and spin on Saturday night, the European Union has accepted the request for an extension. However, in the court action raised in Scotland—in which I acknowledge the support of Dale Vince—the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the Advocate General have all assured the court that the Prime Minister will obey the Benn Act and asked the court to dismiss the action. Does it concern the Secretary of State that despite all those promises and assurances, the court has seen fit to continue the action to ensure that the Prime Minister keeps his promise?
Stephen Barclay
It is not for a Minister of the Crown to comment on any live court proceedings, but, to follow the lexicon of the hon. and learned Lady, what would be malarkey would be for claimants to send letters before the publication of the correspondence that addressed the issue that was sought in the earlier judgment.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I have recently returned to the House after two weeks’ paternity leave following the birth of my beautiful son—[Interruption.] Even better, I have returned to find that the Prime Minister secured a wonderful Brexit deal, which I look forward to voting for—
Neil O'Brien
Arthur, Mr Speaker.
Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reassure me that he will now crack on and get the legislation through so that we can get Brexit done and not still be talking about this when Arthur is old enough to drive?
Mr Speaker
Let me be the first to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the birth of Arthur. We wish him a long, happy and healthy life. I had noticed the absence of the hon. Gentleman, and it is very good to welcome him back to the Chamber.
Stephen Barclay
There may have been delays in getting Brexit delivered, but I am delighted that Arthur has been delivered, and I am sure I speak for the whole House in offering our congratulations and wishing him every success for the future.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that there is huge frustration up and down the country, not only among our constituents but among the businesses that want an end to the uncertainty. They want to see a deal reached, and they recognise that it is in the country’s interests to leave in a smooth and orderly way. They see that the Prime Minister has agreed a deal that has been brought to the House, and it is now for the House to pass the legislation to enable us to move forward and get on to the other priorities that we want to address.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Since the Prime Minister brought back his deal on Thursday, I have received thousands of emails from constituents who are asking me to tell them what the impact of this deal will be on their jobs, their livelihoods and the future prosperity of their communities. I am unable to do so because the Government are refusing to publish an economic impact assessment. What is the answer for them? Will GDP go down? Will unemployment go up? What is the answer?
Stephen Barclay
The answer is to listen to the Governor of the Bank of England, who says that passing the deal will be a boost to our economy, because a huge amount of investment is ready to be released if we get this deal. Business voices up and down the country want a decision and want the UK to move forward in a smooth and orderly way, and the best way of addressing the hon. Gentleman’s constituents’ concerns is to get Brexit done.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
At the Dover frontline, we have long been ready to leave the European Union in any eventuality—deal or no deal—but we now need certainty, because uncertainty is dragging on and becoming economically damaging. Has the Secretary of State received any representations from the Labour party as to how it will assist with getting on with Brexit, or has he only ever heard, as I have, that it simply wants to cancel Brexit and defy the British people?
Stephen Barclay
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we need certainty, and the Prime Minister’s deal offers exactly that. What we have from those on the Opposition Benches is more dither, more delay, and a desire for a second referendum, but no clarity on how long that second referendum would take.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)
I understand the political reasons for the Minister’s reluctance around the Benn Act, but it is the law of the land. I am worried by what he said, because he seems to give the impression it is only about sending a letter, but it is about more than that. Section 1(4) of the Act requires that the Prime Minister “must seek to obtain” an extension. It is not just a matter of sending a letter; he must seek to obtain that extension, and that involves the Prime Minister using his best endeavours and good faith in trying—[Interruption.]
Stephen Barclay
The reality is that this is Parliament’s letter, and the Prime Minister has sent Parliament’s letter. However, he has been clear that he will comply with the law, and he has complied with the law, which is reflected in the comments of figures such as Lord Pannick, but the Prime Minister is also entitled to express his views, which is exactly what he has done.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Lots of my constituents in east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire think that what happened on Saturday was a Westminster bubble smarty-pants stitch-up to stop us leaving the European Union on 31 October, and—do you know what?—that is exactly what it was. The reason why 31 October is so important is that many people in this country, particularly across the north of England, have figured out what is going on in here. There has been an attempt to play for time—to delay, delay, delay—with one simple aim, which is to overturn the referendum result that people in here never accepted and never had any intention of accepting.
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The House said that it did not believe that the Prime Minister would get a deal, but he did get a deal. The House said that it wanted a meaningful vote, but when the opportunity was presented it was made a meaningless vote. It is time for those games to stop and for us to get a deal through. The opportunity to do that is to support the withdrawal agreement Bill, which legislates for the deal that the Prime Minister has reached.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Chancellor has responded to the Treasury Committee’s request of three months ago for updated economic analysis of the free trade agreement that the Government are pursuing. He acknowledged that the current economic analysis does not correspond with previous Government analysis, but he has not indicated any commitment to provide updated economic analysis. He appears to think it is acceptable for MPs to vote blindly on a potential free trade agreement. He either has something to hide, or he thinks that it is acceptable for MPs to be left in the dark.
Stephen Barclay
The reality is that the House will have opportunities to debate the negotiating mandate and to instruct how those negotiations are taken forward. Any modelling for the future will have to take on board the future direction of the Commission under the new leadership. It will have to consider what actions the UK Government will take in response, and it will have to model what will happen elsewhere in the world, such as in China and the US. The reality is that one cannot forecast these things, but it is right that the House will have an opportunity to negotiate and discuss these things as part of shaping the mandate for the future.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition is slightly wrong to say that the letter takes a no-deal exit off the table. That is impossible, because it is up to the other nations of the European Union whether or not they grant an extension. The only definite way to take a no-deal exit off the table is, as someone once said, to vote for this deal, which is exactly what this House should do. [Interruption.] Does the Secretary of State agree?
Stephen Barclay
I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for supporting the deal. This is Parliament’s letter, but as he says, the reality is that any extension would require the agreement of all 27 member states, which is outside Parliament’s control.
Mr Speaker
I am not quite sure from her expression whether the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) is welcoming the belated support of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) or regretting the fact that it was not on offer at a rather earlier stage.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I believe that one of the reasons why the Government wanted to bounce us on Saturday, and wanted to bounce us again today, is to hide some of the content and some of the revelations that will come out in the Bill, which will be published shortly. There will be great concern not only among Opposition Members but among others who take a very different position on Brexit.
I take the Secretary of State back to the question about customs declarations between Northern Ireland and the UK, which was raised by the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who is no longer in his place. Will the Secretary of State confirm what he said to Lord Wood, that export declaration paperwork will have to be carried out and that firms in Northern Ireland will therefore have to carry out paperwork, whether digital or otherwise, to trade within their own country—within the United Kingdom? Will he also confirm whether that will apply going back in the opposite direction?
Stephen Barclay
As I said in response to the earlier question, I am happy to confirm that, in accordance with international obligations, there will be occasions when electronic information is needed for the movement of goods.
The hon. Gentleman talks about bouncing decision makers, but we have already had two extensions. The House has debated these issues endlessly. The first version of the withdrawal agreement was published as long ago as last November. The reality is that he does not want any Brexit. He wants a second referendum; he wants to remain; and he will do everything he can to frustrate Brexit.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Can we write another letter to the European Union saying that we utterly oppose a second referendum? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a second referendum would be a betrayal of the many thousands of Harlow voters and the millions of working people across the country who voted to leave? We should respect democracy and implement the result of 2016.
Stephen Barclay
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. A second referendum would simply take us back to square one. It would create huge uncertainty and huge delay, and it would prolong the paralysis of this Parliament when we need a general election to let the people decide.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I return to the economic impact assessment, because the effect of all this on manufacturing, particularly in my constituency, is critical. I do not know whether the Government are unwilling or unable to release any information they have on this, but surely the Minister can see how important it is that we have all this information before we make any decisions. After all, he would not buy a house without looking at the deeds, would he?
Stephen Barclay
The point the hon. Gentleman is missing is that the free trade agreement has still to be negotiated, and what is causing damage to businesses in his constituency and elsewhere is reflected in the comments of people such as Lord Rose, a leader of the remain campaign who now recognises that what is damaging to business is the ongoing uncertainty. We need to bring that uncertainty to an end, and the hon. Gentleman’s continued refusal to vote for a deal—while opposing no deal—is prolonging the uncertainty and damaging the interests of businesses in his constituency.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I do not know whether you stayed tuned to “The Andrew Marr Show” after watching “Match of the Day” yesterday morning, but if you did, you would have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) say that Parliament cannot “muzzle” the Prime Minister. If he does not want an extension, he should be at liberty to tell the EU that. Does the Brexit Secretary agree?
Stephen Barclay
I very much agree. I do not think the Prime Minister’s view will come as a surprise to colleagues in Europe, as he has been clear from day one that he wanted a deal, despite many voices in this House suggesting otherwise, and that it is in the country’s interests to leave on 31 October. That remains his commitment, and it is exactly what the Government are committed to doing.
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Gentleman was referring to a show at 9’o’clock on Sunday morning. I do periodically watch that programme—it is not top of my list of priorities, but occasionally I will observe it—but I am bound to say that it was a rather greater priority yesterday morning at 9 o’clock to be playing tennis.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
As well as the unsigned letter that the Prime Minister refused even to grace with his name, he sent another letter, signed in his own name, saying, in effect, “Dear Donald, please ignore the first letter I’ve sent you. I sent it only to comply with an Act of Parliament.” If the purpose of that second letter was not to deliberately attempt to frustrate an Act of this Parliament, what on earth was the second letter for?
Stephen Barclay
As I have said in response to several questions, the Prime Minister is entitled to express his view, and that should not come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister has complied with the law, and leading legal figures such as Lord Pannick accept that he has done so. In addition, he has set out his view, as he is entitled to do.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I had not planned on speaking, but I just wanted to make a clear point that “Match of the Day” trumps anything else as far as I am concerned every time. Will my right hon. Friend explain something to me? It finally appears to be the Opposition’s position, although I am never clear whether that will change next week, that they want to have a second referendum. Will he explain what anybody could say to the British public when they say, “We didn’t trust you last time. Now you have to trust us that we will trust you again on a second referendum.” How could they possibly believe or trust British politicians again?
Mr Speaker
I must tell the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) that he shares that penchant with the late and great Anthony Crosland, who greatly enjoyed watching “Match of the Day”. He would often have colleagues around the dinner table in his home and they would be discussing political matters, but moments before “Match of the Day”, Crosland would make it very clear that all further political discussion must cease as he proposed to watch the programme. He would usually don a bobble hat while doing so.
Stephen Barclay
Perhaps we could have a similar tradition for the remaining duration of the rugby world cup, to which many Members from across the House would enjoy applying that maxim. My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct on the Opposition’s position. I appreciate that they have moved a lot and frequently, but if I take the position set out on Sunday by the shadow Brexit Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), it clearly was for a second referendum. That is odd, given that they do not trust the people with the first referendum. The question that the Leader of the Opposition is not answering and needs to answer is: how long does he expect the primary legislation to take? How long does he expect the question testing from the Electoral Commission to take? How long does he expect the operational preparations to take? How long does he expect the regulated campaign period to be for? If his position is to have a second referendum, we need answers to those questions, because he risks leaving this Parliament in paralysis because he is not answering how long he wants to delay Brexit for.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Just to clarify the Secretary of State’s earlier statement about the Bank of England, the bank was, of course, comparing the current withdrawal agreement with a no-deal Brexit, rather than with the current economy. Will the Secretary of State answer my young constituents and say whether he has ever sent a letter that he has not had the courtesy to sign?
Stephen Barclay
As I think is the case with all MPs, there have been occasions when I have, for example, dictated letters to my parliamentary office, and they have been sent out as dictated and signed on my behalf.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
When you mentioned your activities at 9 o’clock yesterday morning, Mr Speaker, I was rather hoping that you would say that the pressing engagement was a famous Welsh rugby victory in the quarter final of the world cup. It was slightly fortunate, but a famous victory none the less.
When it comes to the more complicated matter of the future trade relations, every single member state of the European Union, including some constituent parts, such as Wallonia in Belgium, will have to endorse the final free trade agreement. The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration make no mention of the British Government’s having to seek the consent of the Senedd in Cardiff or, indeed, of the Scottish Parliament. Why, as things stand, will Wallonia, a constituent part of the Belgian state, have more influence over the future FTA with the EU than Wales and Scotland will have?
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about how we engage with the devolved Assemblies as we take forward the negotiations. It is a fair point and one we are keen to address. I recognise that there have been concerns, particularly in respect of the first phase, about the effectiveness of the Joint Ministerial Committee discussions. One thing that I changed in my own Department was to ask officials to engage at official level much more. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has spoken to the Scottish and Welsh Governments in the past day or so, and the Minister of State in my Department went up to Edinburgh for meetings, but the hon. Gentleman raises a fair point on which I am keen to work with him.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
On Saturday, Parliament voted by acclamation to pass the motion on the withdrawal agreement as amended. Will the Secretary of State confirm that when the withdrawal agreement Bill comes before the House for its various stages, the Government will respect it if the House decides to amend the Bill in certain different ways? We previously saw a Government commitment to respect the indicative votes; if we see a majority emerge in the House for amendments to the Bill, will the Government respect that?
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Gentleman will get an opportunity to see the withdrawal agreement Bill once the two urgent questions are finished. On amendments, he will be aware that the scope of the Bill is quite wide, but what amendments are selected will always be for the Chair—the Speaker or, indeed, the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State pretends that the Government are unable to make economic forecasts on a new Brexit deal, on the basis that things may change in the Commission or in the world economic environment, but of course the Treasury consistently makes forecasts on what the size of the economy would be relative to what it would be if we stayed in the EU versus various scenarios, so what he says is clearly false. The projection is that there would be a reduction in the size of our economy of approximately 5%. When will the Treasury and the Government come forward with a detailed analysis of how much poorer the poorest will be, how much more corporation tax businesses will have to pay when they face a huge burden of red tape, how the public accounts will be affected and what the impact will be? That way, people will be able to judge what is on the plate, having ordered it from the menu, and then vote again in a people’s vote, so that they get what they ordered from the menu rather than the Secretary of State’s garbage.
Stephen Barclay
I was just pointing out an economic reality. One can set out, as the Treasury frequently does, broad landing zones, but forecasts are inherently difficult because there are so many variables that shape what happens. To say with absolute certainty where things will be in 2033, which is where the forecasts would be trying to determine a precise landing zone, is open to a significant challenge. When the Treasury presented the cross-Whitehall analysis last November, we saw such challenge not only from Government Members; it was also there in the sort of questions that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members were asking.
Northern Ireland: Restoring Devolution
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on progress towards restoring devolution in the light of today’s extension of the period in which the legal duty to call an Assembly election is removed under section 2 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Julian Smith)
The period for Executive formation under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 is due to expire at the end of today, Monday 21 October, so I have laid before Parliament a statutory instrument to extend the period for Executive formation to 13 January 2020. That has the effect of ensuring that Northern Ireland Departments can continue to make decisions in accordance with the Act in the absence of Executive Ministers. Colleagues should be clear that the Act only provides guidance to the Northern Ireland civil service and is no substitute for everyday political decision making.
In reflecting on hundreds of interactions I have had with public sector workers, voluntary workers and members of the public, I understand that this continued absence is a huge disappointment. This extension also delays the legal obligation on me to call an Assembly election, but does not prevent me from calling an Assembly election at any time. The political parties have not reached an agreement to get Stormont back up and running, but extending this legal deadline has no bearing on my continuing efforts to restore the Executive.
As a result, from tomorrow, in relation to abortion law in Northern Ireland, sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 are repealed, and there will be, in addition, a moratorium on criminal prosecutions. A new legal framework for lawful access to abortion services in Northern Ireland will be put in place by 31 March 2020 in line with the 2018 UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women report. I will be consulting on the new framework very soon.
On same-sex marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships, regulations are to be made no later than 13 January 2020. There are two key areas on which we will consult: how to allow for religious same-sex marriage ceremonies; and the issue of conversion from civil partnership to marriage and vice versa. So that we can tailor the regulations appropriately, there will be a short consultation on these two issues before we introduce religious same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. This will not detract from the regulations by 13 January 2020, providing for civil same-sex marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. The first civil same-sex marriages will take place in the week of Valentine’s day 2020.
We also intend to launch a public consultation on a scheme for payments to victims of troubles-related incidents in the coming days. I am also determined to ensure that the Government deliver on our commitments to broader legacy issues.
I cannot overstate the responsibilities of the Northern Ireland parties to find an accommodation and to ensure the future of the devolved institutions that form such an essential part of the peace process.
Tony Lloyd
May I begin, Mr Speaker, by thanking you for granting this very important urgent question? Both the number and the importance of the issues that the Secretary of State has already raised with the House indicates how important it is that we have regular dialogue on Northern Ireland, but let me say to Government business managers that that has not been forthcoming at the level that we expect.
May I ask the Secretary of State a number of very specific questions? Brexit, according to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, may still result in our crashing out of Europe. Is the Secretary of State certain that he has, already in preparation, the necessary legislative changes to bring before this House in the event of that no-deal Brexit? Even if we have a Brexit deal, is the Secretary of State satisfied that the Northern Ireland civil service, under the legislation that exists, has the necessary authority to make the very difficult decisions that it, and indeed other agencies, may have to make as we move through that Brexit process?
In particular, can the Secretary of State assure the House that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has the resources that it needs in the event of any form of civic disturbance? I do not want to emphasise what kind of disturbance there could be, but we may face a period of prolonged public unrest. Does the PSNI have the resources and the capacity to play that role? Will he also rule out any idea, as we have had in the past, of recommitting the Army to Northern Ireland?
The Secretary of State mentioned the important issues of abortion and same-sex marriage. If Stormont returns in the period between now and 13 January, will he work with Stormont to ensure that we have an acceptable solution? Given that post 1 April Stormont will have the capacity to alter any such law, will he ensure that Stormont and his Department work together to ensure that there is safe and legal abortion for the women of Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland, and that same-sex marriage can take place in Northern Ireland?
In the event that Stormont does not return, the Secretary of State needs to plan now for what will happen on 13 January. We know how quickly time goes by in the context of Northern Ireland. Just look at how quickly time has already gone by—1,000-plus days since Stormont met. The Secretary of State will face a difficult decision, and direct rule is a very unattractive proposition for many reasons. He may have to look at the election option to renew the mandate of a Stormont Assembly that has not met for so long. In any event, will he guarantee that he will work with the Irish Government in Dublin to ensure that strand two of the Good Friday agreement is respected?
There is unease across the Unionist community about the Prime Minister’s decision to change the terms under which consent is given by Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement was very clear about the need to take both communities together through any decision making around important constitutional issues for Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State accept the unease of the Unionist community? Does he also accept that he now has a duty to work hard to regain that trust—a trust that has frankly been betrayed by the decisions of Conservative MPs who once were Unionists and who have now abandoned their erstwhile friends?
Julian Smith
I have been very clear that no deal is not a good situation for the United Kingdom, particularly for Northern Ireland. Now that the Prime Minister has secured a deal, I hope that we can focus on getting it over the line.
I pay tribute to the Northern Ireland civil service. They have been the most dedicated civil servants, pushing forward across a range of areas without political decision making. They do have some powers and political decision guidance under the Act, but these are inadequate; we need to get Stormont back up and running to ensure that they have the political direction they need.
On the Police Service of Northern Ireland and security, the Government have additionally invested nearly £20 million and stand ready to continue to support the PSNI financially. I am obviously responsible for security, and this is a sensitive period with police officers under threat day in, day out, but I am comforted that the PSNI is well resourced and is doing an exceptional job. I will keep the situation monitored and keep in touch with the shadow Secretary of State in that regard. On the question of the Army, I do not see the need in any circumstance for the British Army to operate in the way in which the hon. Gentleman describes. The PSNI and our security services are fulfilling all the functions in an exceptional manner.
On abortion and same-sex marriage, there is clearly concern about how the Assembly can have an influence now that the law is changing. It can have an influence, but we need to be clear that, from tomorrow, the law will have changed across those two areas. Obviously we will hear the views of and work with the Assembly, but the law will change from tomorrow.
The consequences of Stormont not getting back up and running are too profound to consider; we have to get this institution back up and running. Powers from Westminster would involve working with Dublin and a whole range of issues that we should not be having to address. The men and women who worked so hard for peace in Northern Ireland need us to—and continue to remind us that we have to—get Stormont back up and running. I will be working, as I have been over the summer, with the Irish Government to get this crucial institution running again.
On the issue of consent, this protocol has been subject to huge debate over the past few days. We have to remember that one of the biggest criticisms of the last withdrawal agreement was the fact that it needed more say for Northern Ireland. It will have no impact on the petition of concern or on the day-to-day operation of the Assembly. This is an exceptional matter; it is a reserved matter. Consulting the Assembly, we will be doing everything we can to ensure that we make that clear. I have been speaking to members of the Unionist community across the weekend. We need to ensure that we now get this deal over the line for the United Kingdom and for Northern Ireland.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We will continue with the exchanges on the urgent question in a moment. Nominations closed at 5 o’clock this afternoon for candidates for the post of Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. One nomination has been received. A ballot will therefore not be held. I congratulate, and I hope the House will join me in congratulating, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) on his re-election as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. The assiduity and public-spiritedness of the hon. Gentleman are renowned throughout the House. Thank you.
Four nominations were received for the post of Chair of the Treasury Committee, and a ballot will be held between 10 am and 1.30 pm on 23 October in Committee Room 15.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Simon Hoare.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The people of Northern Ireland clearly want to see Stormont back up and running because they are seeing their health, their education and their welfare suffer. By making this extension, the Secretary of State has provided a window that could possibly see this House overcome the hurdle that seems insurmountable for the parties in Northern Ireland, and that is to legislate for the Irish Language Act, thereby taking it out of the debate between the principal parties in Northern Ireland and removing the hurdle that is the roadblock—I am sorry for mixing my metaphors—to getting Stormont back up and running.
Julian Smith
The Irish Language Act is one of a number of issues that are being discussed in the talks process. I would say again that the most important and the best way to resolve these issues is through the Stormont talks. I will continue to work at pace with the Tánaiste to ensure that we encourage parties to come back together and get back into an Executive.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
There are three statements to follow, so we do need to expedite progress. Gavin Newlands can lead us in that mission.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Stormont and, more importantly, the people of Northern Ireland have now been without a functioning Executive for over 1,000 days. The Government’s report on Executive formation stated:
“The UK Government, working closely with the Irish Government…will now intensify our efforts to put forward compromise solutions to the parties.”
There are no formal talks between the parties at the moment. I fully accept that the Government cannot bind the hands of the parties involved, but if there are no current talks, what exactly did the Government mean by intensifying their efforts, and when will fresh party talks take place?
The Government’s reckless Brexit policy and their agreement with the DUP have severely undermined the delicate balance of relationships that built and sustained the Good Friday agreement. Given the breakdown in the Government’s relationship with the DUP, does the Secretary of State envisage that this will have an impact on efforts to restore the Assembly and the Executive?
The Government have confirmed that the imposition of direct rule is being considered. This is deeply disappointing. It is clear that devolved decisions are best made by the elected politicians of Northern Ireland. I urge them to get back round the table and to get back to work.
Julian Smith
Since taking on this job, I have been meeting the parties almost on a weekly basis, but, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, this is an issue for the five parties. It is ultimately up to those parties to come together, and both the Irish Government and the British Government stand ready with ideas and thoughts in order to make that happen.
On the relationship between the Government and the DUP, my responsibilities are for all parties in Northern Ireland, but I have a good relationship with the DUP. I will continue to support the Union to the best of my ability, along with all Members of this House. On the issue of direct rule, I could not have been clearer that Stormont and local decision making is my priority and the best way, in my view, for Northern Ireland to move forward.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
I totally sympathise with the Secretary of State and his predecessor, who have time and again come to this Chamber to say, “We want to see the institutions up and running,” which we all do. We see today, with the meeting breaking up in disarray in less than an hour, the task that faces him. At the same time, we see outcomes of public services in Northern Ireland falling behind the rest of UK. We in this Chamber have a responsibility to all citizens across the UK. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) rightly said that direct rule is the most unattractive option, but we have a responsibility to see good services delivered. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to prepare to take more power into his own hands, to ensure that the citizens of Northern Ireland get the services they deserve?
Julian Smith
We are prepared for all eventualities. On the issue of the all-party talks, I genuinely believe that, whether it is Sinn Féin or the DUP, we are not too far away. We have to do everything we can to encourage parties to come together, in the best interests of Northern Ireland, to secure an Executive.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Looking at the number of colleagues wanting to participate, I think we should be able to move on by 5.40 pm, if people ask questions rather than give great speeches.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has outlined a number of areas where action will be taken as a result of the Act, but on health, education, crime, policing, investment and all the rest of it, still the Government sit on their hands and allow no government for Northern Ireland. Is he now realising that, with Brexit coming, we must have powers in the hands of Ministers, whether in the Assembly or here? He cannot go on abdicating that decision. Today in Belfast, Assembly Members met, but Sinn Féin boycotted it. Given that the Prime Minister said on Saturday that “a simple majority” should apply in Northern Ireland as well, fully compatible with the Good Friday agreement, can the Secretary of State apply that principle to the formation of the Executive, because four parties out of five would set it up tomorrow?
Julian Smith
Just to be clear on the Assembly, the petition of concern and the arrangements for the Assembly will not change under this scenario. I will say it again: we need Sinn Féin, the DUP and all parties to come together, because powers from here is not the solution to this issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The original author of the handbook on succinct questions, Sir John Redwood.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The DUP is understandably very unhappy about the customs and single market arrangements in the agreement, so will the Government table a free trade agreement and get on with it, because that would help?
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Given that the creation of a new border down the Irish sea will impact on services and businesses in Ireland, north Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, what impact assessment of the outcome of that border has the Secretary of State asked the Executive to produce, to be shared with political parties?
Julian Smith
On the issue of customs and the protocol, we will be doing everything to work with Northern Ireland businesses to ensure that we deliver on unfettered access as we push the Bill through the House of Commons. I spoke to Northern Ireland businesses today and will be engaging with them on an ongoing basis as we move forward with the protocol.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Given the absence of an Assembly and Executive, the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill has to be passed in this place, and it will have its Second Reading in the House of Lords next week. What will happen to that Bill should the Assembly be restored? Will we continue with it, so that the victims get the compensation they need as soon as possible?
Julian Smith
I hope and expect that we will continue with that Bill to deliver for victims who have waited for far too long.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as revealed by the Brexit Secretary in an answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), under the new Brexit dispensation firms in Northern Ireland exporting to the rest of the UK will now be expected to fill in export forms, and could he tell us how that can be squared with the claim that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK customs territory?
Julian Smith
As Northern Ireland Secretary, I will be fighting for the interests of businesses and ensuring that we minimise any disruption to their trade flows. Northern Ireland has a hugely successful business sector, and it will go from strength to strength with this deal.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Following up on the questions from the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) and the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), my understanding is that four of the five parties in Northern Ireland would like the Executive to be reformed and only Sinn Féin is holding out, at least for the reason my hon. Friend set out, if not for others. What does the Secretary of State think is going to change to enable Sinn Féin to be persuaded to restore the Executive? I listened carefully to what he said and I accept he is working incredibly hard, but I am still not clear about what is going to change to enable the Executive to be reformed and for Northern Ireland to be able to enjoy devolved government.
Julian Smith
Sinn Féin, like other parties, has been engaging very positively with me, and I have had good conversations with its senior leaders. As this House makes a positive decision on Brexit in the coming days, I think that is a significant change, and it could be the catalyst for further movement on these talks.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I cannot emphasise enough to the Secretary of State how important the principle of consent is to Unionists. The idea that a decision of the momentous nature of the one we will be expected to take in four years’ time does not reflect adequately the principle of consent, as expressed in the Belfast agreement, has serious implications for our ability to support the restoration of devolution without that safeguard. I say with all seriousness to the Secretary of State that if this issue is not addressed, it goes well beyond this Brexit deal.
Julian Smith
I say again to my colleagues and friends in the DUP and to Unionists across this House and in Northern Ireland that this protocol is for a reserved matter; it is not for the Assembly. The Belfast agreement is extremely clear that there will be matters that are not subject to the consent mechanisms in the Assembly. The Government will continue to work to ensure that this protocol, as the Bill goes through Parliament, is executed in a way that is reassuring to all Members and all parts of the Northern Ireland community. But remember that the issue with the backstop was a lack of consent. This consent mechanism is intended to deal with that, but it has no effect on the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given that service personnel, their families and service veterans are losing out under the terms of the armed forces covenant not being fully applied in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State give consideration to the recommendation made in a recent report by the Defence Committee that the Northern Ireland civil service should appoint someone directly to sit on the veterans board that administers the covenant?
Julian Smith
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for that report and for his Committee’s thinking in this area. I am giving consideration to that report and how we can execute parts of that report in a positive manner to ensure that we deliver for the armed forces who served in Northern Ireland.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The creation of a customs border down the Irish sea and the necessary declarations that we now hear will be necessary as a consequence is something about which Ruth Davidson and the Secretary of State’s right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Scotland warned last year. They said then, and it is true now, that it will undermine the Union. Why is the Secretary of State disregarding his right hon. Friend’s advice?
Julian Smith
I am not disregarding the advice of anybody, but this is a deal that protects the border. This was a key priority for me as Secretary of State. It protects the peace process. I think the economy of Northern Ireland will benefit from this deal. We are delivering on Brexit, but protecting the economy and protecting the peace process. This mechanism, I say again, has no bearing on the Assembly, and I would work over the implementation period with colleagues across Government to minimise any problems for Northern Ireland businesses in exporting and selling into Great Britain.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
We are supposed to live in a democracy, yet seven of the 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland do not have any representation in the House of Commons. As we have heard, the Assembly has not functioned for nearly three years. It is time to end the prospect of one party being able to bring down the whole institution, so will the Secretary of State consider introducing legislation that stops that happening again?
Julian Smith
I have no plans to change the constitution, basis and set-up of the Assembly. However, I think that the lack of representation here—there are seven or eight constituencies unrepresented—is not a good thing. As I have said, we need to get Stormont up and running—1,000 days is far too long.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State should be an expert on the protocol, so may I ask him a simple question? A friend who gardens in Northern Ireland wants to buy 2 lb of organic garlic from a supplier in England. When the supplier sees the Northern Ireland address will they be obligated to add the EU tariff—currently 10%—and how would my friend prove that he is not moving it to the EU, in the Republic, and how would he reclaim the tariff? The agreement says that the default assumption is that it is going to the EU, which is an important point. That is what people are talking about in Northern Ireland today—not restoring devolution.
Julian Smith
As the hon. Lady knows, the Joint Committee in the new protocol will look at all those matters. I expect them to be looked at over the coming months as we go through the implementation period.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my view that if the Act is extended by statutory instrument, that will not be a good outcome for the people of Northern Ireland?
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
As members of the Legislative Assembly at Stormont continue to be unable to fulfil their full responsibilities, what consideration has the Secretary of State given to cutting their salaries yet again? The fact that they receive a salary, albeit reduced, has caused immense annoyance, and continues to do so, across Northern Ireland, and has cost millions of pounds, so does the Secretary of State intend to cut those salaries?
Julian Smith
I plan to review all elements relating to the Assembly if we are unable to move things forward over the coming days.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
Post Brexit, the Northern Ireland Assembly will have to make some incredibly serious and important decisions about Northern Ireland’s future. Do the kind of shambolic scenes that we saw at the Assembly this morning suggest that the institution is up to that task? If not, and if it is not restored, is the Secretary of State happy that he and his Department have all the powers necessary to take Northern Ireland through the transition and into the immediate period after we have left the EU?
Julian Smith
As I said earlier, the parties and individuals who will play a part in the Assembly and the Executive when they are up and running again are of extremely high quality. There is every opportunity for us to get this up and running and for it to go from strength to strength. That is so much more in the interests of Northern Ireland than taking or restoring powers from here.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
It is rare these days that a decision made by the House provokes joy and hope, but it will today among thousands of people in Northern Ireland who love each other, are in a same-sex relationship and will finally be able to marry the person they love. However, they will be concerned to hear that, despite the will of the House to introduce equal marriage in Northern Ireland, not in any segmented form, those who are in a civil partnership may be forced to delay their conversion to full, equal marriage. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that will not be the case and that, as of 13 January, all couples in Northern Ireland who love each other will be able to get married?
Julian Smith
As I said at the start of my statement, we will be consulting on religious same-sex marriage and on the conversion of civil partnerships to marriages, but all other same-sex marriages will be delivered as per the regulations. The first such marriages will take place in the week of Valentine’s Day.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
My right hon. Friend, along with every Member who has spoken today, has expressed concern about the current situation, but after 1,000 days we seem to be in just as bad a situation as ever. What exactly is it that gives him confidence that we are about to find a resolution and that devolution will be restored to Stormont in the near future?
Julian Smith
Having been Government Chief Whip during most of the Brexit period, perhaps 1,000 days does not seem quite as bad to me as it does to others. However, it is an awfully long time and we do need to ensure that we now encourage the parties to get back to the Executive. The Tanaiste and I stand ready and plan to work with the parties over the coming days.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that he will bring forward new legislation on abortion in Northern Ireland promptly, and can he say a little more about the process that he will adopt in doing so?
Julian Smith
We will bring forward a consultation in the coming days. As I have said, decriminalisation and the moratorium on criminal cases will take effect from tomorrow. We will be delivering in the new year on the law that has now changed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As the Secretary of State will know, the Assembly tried to meet today, when some 33-plus Members tried to initiate a debate to stop the abortion legislation going forward. Unfortunately, Government acquiescence to the legislation ensured that it went through this place. Does he not understand the anger that people in Northern Ireland feel about the abortion changes, and will he bring in changes for the Department of Health, which will have a deficit of £20 million this year, to ensure that it can do what it needs to do in the year ahead?
Julian Smith
I understand the huge sensitivities around this issue, but there was a free vote in this House and the law was clear that if the Assembly and the Executive were not up and running by today, the law relating to same-sex marriage and abortion would change. We have now reached that point. With regard to funding for abortions, the Government will continue to pay for travel to England during this period, and we will ensure, as part of the consultation and the changes, that the health service in Northern Ireland has every resource it requires.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
While we urge a speedy resolution to the impasse in Northern Ireland and the restoration of devolution, does the Secretary of State welcome the levelling up of fundamental human rights across all parts of the United Kingdom, and does he agree that the sort of illiberal grandstanding that we have heard today was most unwelcome and counterproductive?
Julian Smith
Again, these are sensitive issues—free vote issues—but the law has changed and the Government will now follow through and deliver on it.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
These responses are calamitous. For the Secretary of State to hold up a copy of the Belfast agreement, yet not to have apprised himself of paragraph 12 of strand two or paragraph 5(b) of strand one, which outline further expansion of north-south arrangements, subject to the Assembly’s consent, and paragraph 5(b), which indicates how that consent is to operate, is an outrage. He told the BBC last Thursday that no party would have a veto, but Sinn Féin operated its veto on the restoration of the institutions today, as it has done for the past 1,000 days, and the EU will have a veto in the Joint Committee. Can he answer the question that he was asked earlier: will Northern Ireland goods require customs declarations for what is supposed to be unfettered access to the rest of their own country?
Julian Smith
On the first point, I say again to my hon. Friend that there is no change to the constitution of the Assembly. This is a reserved matter and we will do everything we can to assuage many of the concerns that have been raised. On the issue of checks and forms, unfettered access is a key part of the protocol, and I will be working to ensure that we deliver on that, in the interests of Northern Ireland business, over the coming weeks.
Business of the House
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Following the decision of the House on Saturday 19 October, I should like to make an announcement regarding the business for the remainder of this week:
Tuesday 22 October—Second reading of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, followed by commencement of Committee of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill.
Wednesday 23 October—Continuation of proceedings on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill.
Thursday 24 October—Conclusion of proceedings on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill.
Friday 25 October—The House will not be sitting.
Mr Speaker
In a moment, I will call the shadow Leader of the House, who doubtless will have a prepared contribution. However, I emphasise to the House that I regard this as a relatively narrow business statement, and I gently discourage colleagues from expatiating on a vast miscellany of matters, which they could happily do on Thursday. Let us keep it narrow, because that is what it should be.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
This is the first opportunity that I have had on behalf of the Opposition to thank the Clerk of the House, as the senior accounting officer responsible for the House, and all the House staff, Doorkeepers and security officers for looking after us and enabling the House to get together on Saturday to do our work. I also thank the police and security services who escorted right hon. and hon. Members and their families on their way home for keeping us safe.
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement. Obviously, I was disappointed that he did not give me notice on Saturday that he was going to make a point of order. He will know that a point of order is not the way to alter business. It is a procedural motion of the House on which Mr Speaker can rule, so it would have been helpful if the Leader of the House could have done so. He will know that on that historic day, 24 points of order were made on his point of order. Why did he leave the Chamber when that meant that he could not hear the rest of the points of order? He will need to know that he is the voice of the House in Government.
The Leader of the House has not mentioned when we will have the important debates on the Queen’s Speech that were scheduled for Monday and Tuesday. I know that the Government do not appear to care about the NHS or the economy, but we Labour Members think that they are very important topics. This could all have been done in an orderly manner, so will the Leader of the House please say when the remainder of the Queen’s Speech debate will be scheduled?
The withdrawal agreement Bill is crucial. It is vital that it receives the proper scrutiny of the House, so will the Leader of the House say when exactly the Bill will be published? It is not right that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union says that it has anything to do with an urgent question. The Bill should be published in a timely manner so that it receives the proper scrutiny of the House. When will the programme motion be put forward? Will the Leader of the House also confirm that the Government have no plans to pull the withdrawal agreement Bill and that it will be voted on, if and as amended?
This whole process could have been conducted in an orderly manner. The Leader of the House will know that there is an appropriate way, through the usual channels, to fix the business of the House. At every stage, the Government have been running scared of this House and democracy, and they are now attempting to force through a flawed Brexit deal that sells out people’s jobs, rights and our communities.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to thank the Clerk and the staff of the House, who were all absolutely magnificent. I reiterate what I said before: every member of my private office volunteered to come in on Saturday, and I think that is simply an example of the commitment to the House of Commons that we see from all our staff. It is really rather wonderful that so many people who work here appreciate and value the Houses of Parliament and have the historic understanding of what a privilege it is to be here.
I join the right hon. Lady in thanking the police for the escorts home they provided, including to me. I have had many kind inquiries about my son. He is a 12-year-old boy. He found nothing more exciting than being escorted home by the police—I am not sure he should have found it so exciting, but he did. On a really serious point, it is very important that right hon. and hon. Members should be able to come and go from the precincts of Parliament feeling safe. We must think about whether we need to do more and whether sessional orders might be helpful in that regard. All right hon. and hon. Members are representing 70,000—sometimes more—constituents and must be able to come and go without feeling under any pressure from any group outside Parliament.
The right hon. Lady refers to my point of order on Saturday. As she will know, there is a long-standing precedent for this, including one example by my late godfather, Norman St John-Stevas, in 1980. More recently, there was one by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and one only in September by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sure she is aware, as are you, Mr Speaker, of page 408 of “Erskine May”, which gives the Speaker the discretion to turn a substantive point of order into a statement if he so wishes. Mr Speaker did not so wish and therefore I made two points of order to help the House to understand what the business would be today, with of course the promise of a full statement today, which is exactly what is happening. There will be occasions when business changes in response to votes. That is a perfectly normal system within the House.
Yes, of course we will come back to the Queen’s Speech, but we do have a deadline of 31 October, which is set in law, for dealing with our departure from the EU, and we need to have the legislation in place by then. The alternative is that we leave without a deal.
The right hon. Lady asked about the Bill. [Interruption.] I am sorry; speak up.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend asked why you left the Chamber.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Oh, the right hon. Lady asked why I left the Chamber. That is extremely straightforward: points of order are for the Chair, not the Leader of the House. It would be an impertinence of me to think I could possibly know more than Mr Speaker about the proceedings of the House, and I would not like to give the impression of having knowledge that I could not pretend to have. It is for Mr Speaker to rule on points of order, not other hon. Members. I had made my point of order and listened to several others, but there were no further opportunities for me to speak, because it was a matter for the Chair.
The Bill will be published very shortly. The presentation of Bill will be the first item of public business when we come to the business of the day. At that point, simultaneously, as if by magic, the Bill will appear in the Vote Office for right hon. and hon. Members to peruse. I am sure they will enjoy that. The programme motion will be down tonight in an orderly way—well, I hope it will be orderly, but Mr Speaker will rule on that if it is not—for debate tomorrow. And of course the Bill will not be pulled.
The right hon. Lady is one of the most charming Members of this House, and has enormous grace and thoughtfulness, but when she said we were running scared of democracy, she must have been trying to pull our collective legs. It is this Government who have offered a general election not just once, but twice. How frightened is that of democracy? We are so terrified of the voters that we want them to have the chance to vote. We are so scared that we think they should be allowed to go to the ballot box. No, if there is any scaredness, any frightenedness, if anybody is frit, it is the Opposition.
Mr Speaker
Let me endorse what the Leader of the House said in all solemnity about the absolute and precious right of Members and staff to go about their business safely and unimpeded. That has to be an absolute and non-negotiable right. Where that right has been threatened, that threat is to be unequivocally condemned. Sometimes I fear that people think that one form of hollering or protest is acceptable and another is not. The truth is that no behaviour that could be intimidating, threatening or worse can be justified in our democracy.
I note what the Leader of the House said more widely about points of order. Points of order are matters for a response by the Chair. Nevertheless, there was no obligation on him to beetle out of the Chamber during the said points of order, given that most of them were proxies for commentaries upon his own. Nevertheless, I note what he said. There was no disinclination on my part for there to be an emergency business statement. I had rather thought that that was what the Leader of the House was going to proffer, and therefore there was just a genuine misunderstanding between us on that point. I ascribe no ulterior motive to the Leader of the House, and I know that he would not ascribe one to me.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
May I press the Leader of the House on when the debate on the Queen’s Speech will conclude? We always knew that 31 October was a date, and we always knew when the Queen’s Speech would be. Presumably, the timing was agreed between the Government and the Palace.
The fact is that Parliament has spent the best part of three years discussing what it does not want, and it is now time for us to move on. I welcome the business statement, but will we have an opportunity to vote directly on what the Prime Minister has brought back to the House, which is not the Prime Minister’s deal but a deal between the European Union and the British Government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend has made an excellent point. We have indeed spent the best part of three years debating these matters at inordinate length, and it is amazing that anyone thinks there is anything to be said on the subject that has not already been said.
Subject to your ruling earlier today, Mr Speaker, the first opportunity for us to vote on the content of the agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the European Union will be on Second Reading of the Bill tomorrow.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for his short business statement.
May I endorse what was said by you, Mr Speaker, by the Leader of the House and by the shadow Leader of the House about the efficient way in which the House was organised on Saturday? It was a credit to everyone who works in this place. Let me also say that I was appalled at the scenes of the Leader of the House and his son being harangued. There is no excuse for that sort of behaviour in and around the House.
It was entirely right, Mr Speaker, that the Leader of the House was refused the right to bring the motion back today. The Government had an opportunity to engage meaningfully with the meaningful vote, but they chose not to do so, and they cannot simply bring it back on terms that they choose and dictate. The House operates on the basis of motions and amendments to motions, and democracy requires that process to be observed. No one messes with “Erskine May”.
What the Leader of the House has proposed in relation to the withdrawal agreement Bill is totally unacceptable. We shall be debating its Second Reading on the same day as the beginning of its Committee stage in the House. I have been in the House for 18 years, and I cannot remember a Bill being presented and debated in such terms, particularly a Bill that will become a full treaty of this country. We shall have three days in which to consider a Bill which, it has been suggested, will contain 100 pages. How on earth will we have a chance to assess it properly? There will be no economic impact assessments. What about the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which requires any treaty to be laid before the House for 21 days before it can be ratified? What about the devolved institutions and Administrations whose legislative consent is required before any Bill can be passed? The arrangements for this Bill are simply not good enough.
At least a change in Government business has been announced by the conventional means of a business statement. I hope that the Leader of the House will never again change significant Government business by way of a point of order. He mentioned leaving the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) was addressing the House when the Leader of the House breezed past him. That is no way for a Leader of the House to behave.
Only last week we asked Her Majesty to put on her best crown, get into the State Coach, and come to Parliament to read out the Conservatives’ next election manifesto. When is the Queen’s Speech debate coming back? Was all that just a supreme waste of time?
The Prime Minister may have died in that ditch as the white flag was raised in the so-called surrender Bill, but we will not give up. We will ensure that this Bill is given the proper scrutiny that it requires.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As always, it was a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman. He made a number of points. First, I would quibble with his claim that Her Majesty came here wearing her best crown. Her best crown is probably the Crown of King Edward the Confessor, which is used only at the Coronation. At the state opening of Parliament, the Imperial State Crown is probably Her Majesty’s second best crown; but far be it from me to be pedantic about such matters.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. That Act will be taken care of in the Bill. The point of it is to ensure that non-legislative treaties can be voted on in the House. Legislative treaties inevitably fall into a different category.
The hon. Gentleman must have a remarkably short memory, because he said that he could not recall any Bill being introduced at such short notice. There have been two such Bills in the last year, one colloquially known as the Benn Act, and the other known as the Cooper-Boles Act. I also remind Members that the abdication was dealt with in 24 hours. A king-emperor left within 24 hours, and we are removing an imperial yoke in over a week.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I intend to move on at quarter past six, so it may well be that not everyone gets in.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
With regard to what happened on Saturday, I simply make the point that, as in the case of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and his son, and that of a Secretary of State as well, I, too, was subjected to an attempt to “take me out”, I suppose we would say. However, there was a remarkable response—not that I was the slightest bit fazed—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not wish to be unkind or discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, but what I am looking for are single-sentence questions. I am very sorry if the hon. Gentleman was unhappily interrupted, but I want a single-sentence question and not an explanation of his experience on Saturday.
Sir William Cash
The police were very brave. In respect of this Bill, however, I entirely endorse what my right hon. Friend has said about the Benn Act, which was pushed through in a completely unacceptable manner involving the tearing up of Standing Order No. 14, whereas this Bill is in accordance with all the proper procedures, and will deal with the constitutional freedom of this country so that we can regain our self-government.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has expressed his views with great force, but I am sorry to say that he is in violation of the convention relating to the business statement in the way that the Leader of the House said was true of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) the other day, as a consequence of which no response to the question is required.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Can the Leader of the House confirm that the withdrawal agreement Bill that is about to be published will disapply the requirement under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act that any treaty must be laid before the House for 21 days before it can be ratified?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Gentleman has done exactly the same, Mr Speaker.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Given that we still have not seen the Bill, may I ask what the deadline is for the tabling of amendments, and until what hour the Government would propose that we sit on these three days?
Mr Rees-Mogg
A motion has been tabled in my name to be dealt with later today, allowing for amendments to be submitted prior to the Second Reading. If that motion is approved by the House, it will be possible to submit them later today, by which time the Bill will have been approved. The programme motion will be set out tonight before the rise of the House.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
It would be churlish of me, in the current context, to ask for additional time for Back-Bench business. I was mindful of, and very much regret, the harassment of the Leader of the House when he departed from the House on Saturday. With that in mind, I understand that the Government may suggest that over the next three days we might sit until any hour, and if that is the case I hope that they will be mindful of the welfare of all Members, including Back Benchers, on all occasions as they arrive at and leave the House.
Mr Speaker
Let me say, by the way, in case the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) thought that I was being churlish—which was certainly not my intention—that as far as I am concerned, and long may it remain so, the hon. Gentleman is indestructible. He is indestructible.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I might add, Mr Speaker, that the Attorney General, who is sitting next to me, pointed out that the treatment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone was particularly unpleasant. That gives me another opportunity to thank the police for their sterling work. They are very brave in doing this, because they are heavily outnumbered.
May I begin my congratulating the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) on being re-elected unanimously to his post on the Backbench Business Committee? It is rare in the House to be so highly esteemed by right hon. and hon. Members that no one dares even enter the contest.
The point that the hon. Gentleman has made is a serious one, and I hope that it will be communicated to the Serjeant at Arms so that appropriate measures can be taken.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
May I thank the Leader of the House for confirming what I suspect the rest of the country has long thought: that the Queen’s Speech does not really matter to this Government and is a sham, which is why it has now been postponed? May I ask him, as he is someone who clearly believes in historical precedent in this case: is he serious that we are going to try and ram through this Bill dealing with an international treaty in three days, when Lisbon was debated for 11 days, I believe, Maastricht for 23, and the treaty of Rome for 22? Is he serious about this?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman’s appetite for debate is touching, but we have been debating these matters for three years. We have had endless debates; we have had endless statements by both this Prime Minister and his predecessor; we have had endless reports from the Brexit Select Committee. It is hard to think of any matter that has been more carefully looked at—and, rather splendidly, not just by this House but by the country at large who have engaged with politics. One of the great virtues of Brexit has been the way it has encouraged our constituents to be interested in our activities.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Having noted the careful crafting of your statement today, Mr Speaker, and your response to my point of order about change of circumstances, will my right hon. Friend tell the House when the Government think there will be a potential case for change of circumstances in order that we can actually get what the country needs: a straightforward vote on the withdrawal agreement?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, earlier you were kind enough to quote what I said on 18 March, but not, I fear, in full. I went on to make another sentence, which was:
“Dare I say that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repented than over the 99 who are not in need of repentance”,
because, I, like my hon. Friend, am greatly in favour of continuing to follow precedents and using them as a guide. And they are a guide, and the guide in this case may be what you yourself, Mr Speaker, said on that day:
“It depends on the particular circumstance. For example, it depends whether one is facilitating the House and allowing the expression of an opinion that might otherwise be denied”.—[Official Report, 18 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 778-79.]
I think this has been a very important guide to the decisions that you have made both recently and historically in your term as Speaker, so no doubt these things will be in your mind as you deliberate and consider further what my hon Friend has said.
Mr Speaker
Yes, and in relation to column 778 of Hansard on 18 March of this year, I do not want to be anything but fully generous to the Leader of the House, but there was a further segment—a very delicious and juicy segment—in his question to me, and that was, if memory serves me correctly, whether there would be an opportunity for decision via the Second Reading of the withdrawal Bill, and I confirmed in my reply to him that his thinking on that matter was correct. So I completely accept the sinner and repenteth bit, and it was only in the name of time that I did not quote that, but I am quoting another part, so we have now got the full smorgasbord of the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman before he became a right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The requirement to lay treaties for 21 days before ratification is contained in section 20 of CRAG 2010. Can the Leader of the House point out to me where in section 20 of that Act the distinction is drawn between treaties that are legislative and non-legislative in their effect?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think the point is extremely obvious. If Parliament is legislating for something it is voting on it; under CRAG there is no need to have a vote on a treaty that is laid in front of this House.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I listened carefully to what the Leader said. He set out in his business statement the Government’s intentions for how long the Bill should take to pass through the House. That will happen only if the House agrees by voting for the programme motion. On Saturday, when the House failed to take a decision in principle following the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) being successfully carried, many who voted for his amendment were clear that they wanted the House to be able to vote on this deal and get it through. I think even the shadow Chancellor suggested that it could get through by 31 October. It is only going to do so if that programme motion is carried. Can my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that if any Member votes against that programme motion, it will be fairly clear that what they were doing on Saturday and what they will be doing tomorrow is not trying to give the House more opportunity to consider this matter, but trying to frustrate the decision being taken?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend’s grasp of detail is so great that it explains why Baroness Hale thought he was the Chief Whip; he is clearly completely on top of the subject, and that was an entirely understandable error to have made. He is of course absolutely right, and there is a very serious point in this: people who do not vote for the programme motion will be voting not to have Brexit on 31 October. They will need to understand that clearly, and they will not be able to persuade one set of people that they voted for Second Reading and therefore were in favour and another set that they voted against the timetable and were against; that won’t work.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
This Government proposal is, frankly, outrageous given the length and complexity of the Bill. I understand the Leader of the House to have indicated that we would have to table amendments for Committee stage before we have even finished Second Reading, and the complexity of the Bill seems to have confused the Prime Minister himself, who on Saturday for example said there would be no tariffs on goods going between Northern Ireland and Great Britain when in actual fact article 5 of the new Northern Ireland protocol shows that goods at risk of entering the EU could indeed face tariffs. Is that not precisely the sort of detail we expect the Government to get right, and does that not provide more evidence that we need the time to scrutinise this Bill properly?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There will not be tariffs on goods that are ending up in Northern Ireland; if they are going into the European Union there may be, but there will not be on goods that are destined for Northern Ireland and not for onward transmission. So what the Prime Minister said was correct. Those who voted for the Benn Act and the Cooper-Boles Act are on pretty thin ice when they complain about rushing Acts through—and, Mr Speaker, goose and gander, sauce.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I accepted your earlier statement, and I agreed entirely with you on substance, but I do not entirely agree with you on circumstances. Because the House passed the amendment put forward by my right hon. and very old Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin)—who put it forward, I am sure, with the very best intentions—that has driven 17.4 million people into a state of utter exasperation. They are convinced—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but people are convinced that this remain Parliament is determined to frustrate them at every turn. So what the Leader of the House has brought forward today is welcome, and my question is simple: when does he think this House may have a chance to debate amendments coming back from the Lords, and when does he see Royal Assent being given, so that we can deliver what the 17.4 million wanted—to leave on the 31st?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Those great words “La Reyne le veult” are what we are all looking forward to in relation to the Bill that will be published shortly. I will set out the timetable for the further stages on Thursday in the normal way, but it is all contingent on the Second Reading tomorrow and indeed on the programme motion. But I absolutely share my right hon. Friend’s concern that this matter has dragged on for too long: the British people want us to crack on, get it delivered and deal with Brexit. And it is not just the 17.4 million people; up and down this country, people voted for parties that said they would deliver on the referendum result, and one party is trying to do that while one party is trying to frustrate it.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
We did not vote for the Benn Act; we want Brexit done, but we want to safeguard Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom. When Unionists in Northern Ireland voted for Brexit, they also voted to sustain the United Kingdom. Therefore, in the absence of the kind of assurances we need from Ministers, I have to say to the Leader of the House quite frankly that what he is proposing for the scrutiny of this Bill does not do justice to what the constituents I represent need.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Let me say quite clearly that there is nothing more important to me than the United Kingdom, and that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. I have said many times, and am more than happy to reiterate at this Dispatch Box, that Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as Somerset, and that as long as the people of Northern Ireland want to remain part of the United Kingdom they should be supported, encouraged and helped in that. It is our country; it is the United Kingdom. I therefore hope that such assurances as our friends in the DUP want, and our other Unionist friends need, can be made to encourage them to believe that this deal will in fact be good for the whole of the United Kingdom, which I genuinely think is the case. I hope that we will come to find that we share that view, rather than being in contradistinction one from another, which is a matter of sadness to me and, I think, to them.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
In my right hon. Friend’s approach to the withdrawal agreement Bill, is he mindful that many of the same Members who insisted on statutory meaningful votes are the same Members who then voted for the surrender Act and the same Members who voted on Saturday to make a meaningful vote meaningless and now seem to be opposed to Brexit altogether?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My successor—and predecessor—as chairman of the European Research Group, as so often, hits the nail on the head. There are many people who do not like Brexit at all and who have opposed it from the beginning. They use this great mantra when they say, “We don’t like this. We don’t want to leave with no deal,” when actually what they mean is they do not like Brexit, they did not like the referendum and they want to stop it. That is not true of them all, and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is a notable exception to this, but many of them use this terminology and use procedure to try to thwart the will of the British people. They will be exposed.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
This House is normally afforded adequate time when Bills of major constitutional significance land on the Floor of the House. The Scotland Act 2016, which enabled the biggest ever transfer of powers from this place to Scotland, was afforded nine full days on the Floor of the main Chamber. Can the Leader of the House tell me how he will ensure that Back Benchers such as myself can represent our constituents adequately when so little time is being given to such a major constitutional Bill?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House say a little bit more about the programme motion? The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has just asked for more time for the debate, so would it not be reasonable to expect that the House should sit until any time on these days? Can the Leader of the House also tell us why we are not sitting on Friday? If the programme motion is defeated, will the Government continue with the Bill?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The answer on Friday is very straightforward. If we have finished on Thursday, the Bill will pass to their lordships in the other place on Friday. The question whether we should sit through the night is always a balanced one about the desire for debate and the enthusiasm that people have for this. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) mentioned the pressure on Back Benchers, who needed to be treated in a reasonable way. Is it reasonable to ask right hon. and hon. Members to sit through the night for three nights? Is it a reasonable thing to ask of the staff of the House? I—like you, Mr Speaker—quite like the sound of my own voice, and therefore I am always happy for this Chamber to be sitting, because it gives us the opportunity to do what we both so enjoy, but it may be unreasonable on others, so it is purely a question of balance.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Can the Leader of the House let us know if an economic impact assessment of the deal has been carried out yet? If it has, will it be published tomorrow, in time for us to look at it before the Second Reading debate?
Mr Rees-Mogg
If you ask an economist anything, you get the answer you want.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind)
Further to the very valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I do not usually like to dwell on my status as a veteran of long standing in this House, but the fact is that I was here for the Maastricht treaty Bill and for the European Communities Bill when we first joined the European Economic Community. They were both debated for weeks on end, with many all-night sittings. On the Maastricht Bill, we had 20-odd days of sittings to satisfy the Eurosceptic Conservative Members who wanted a full discussion on it. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the Government are not simply trying to confine debate by narrowing the time and that they will be content, if the House wishes, to facilitate as much time as we need to consider this matter carefully? I see no reason at all why we should all rise in the evening just so that everybody can go to dinner and not sit on Friday for the convenience of the House of Lords. If the Government are for some reason insistent on dashing for this completely silly and irrelevant date on which they keep staking their fate, they should give us some proper time for debate. Two and a bit days of ordinary parliamentary hours are plainly quite insufficient.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. and learned Friend is somebody who has always wanted us to remain in the European Union and who disapproves of referendums. He has always made that absolutely clear—[Interruption.] No, that is relevant because that position deserves admiration because he has not tried to use procedural methods to hide his view. His view has been clear to the House and the country throughout, and I happen to think that that is extraordinarily impressive and straightforward. I bow to his position as the Father of the House, which is one of great distinction and gives him a sense of history for what goes on in this place. I would say to him that using accelerated procedures has come about because of the deadline that we have of 31 October, and here I disagree with him: this is not a phoney deadline. That deadline was set because of the workings of article 50. The point is that this should have ended in March. We have already had one extension and there is other business that this country needs to move on to. The second deadline is 31 October, and we have managed to get a new agreement with the European Union, which everybody said was impossible. That is a significant achievement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but because of that we now have this deadline to meet. Yes, of course I would be happy to sit overnight if that is what the House wishes. I am not entirely convinced that it is what the House wishes, but we need to get this legislation through, to deliver on what 17.4 million people voted for.
Mr Speaker
For the benefit of those observing our proceedings who are uninitiated on this matter, I should emphasise that it is now 49 years, four months and three days since the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) was elected to this House, and he has remained a Member of this House throughout that period. It is a quite remarkable state of affairs.
Mr Clarke
Mr Speaker, are you prepared to indulge me with a second question—a follow-up question—to the Leader of the House? My long-standing preference for Britain to be a member of the European Union has nothing to do with my question. I propose to vote for the Bill on Second Reading, and I will vote for Third Reading when we get there. The question is why are the accelerated procedures so accelerated? To have just two and a half days and not sitting on Friday is not a way to accelerate the procedures; it is a way to abbreviate them. Unless we are prepared to contemplate a more expansive debate, there is not the slightest possibility of considering the deal that has been obtained within the time available.
Mr Speaker
I think that is what is called the privilege of being the Father of the House; it is otherwise utterly disorderly!
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I said that you and I both enjoyed the sound of our own voice, but we are mere amateurs compared with my right hon. and learned Friend.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (LD)
The Leader of the House did not want to answer the important question asked by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), but when the Brexit Secretary was asked on television over the weekend whether economic impact analyses of the deal had been done, he did not deny the premise of the question. He said that they had not yet been done, not that they would not be done. So will the Leader of the House tell us when we should expect to receive these very important analyses?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have a low opinion of these analyses. You can get any economist to say what you have asked them to say in the first place. I spent my professional career looking at these analyses, and not one of them was ever right.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Does the Leader of the House not think it would be a little strange if some of those Members and parties who had dismissed this deal before it had even been published were now to complain that there was insufficient time to scrutinise it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend wins the prize for the best question of the day. There is nothing more I can add to that.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Leader of the House confirm today that if the Bill is successfully amended at various stages—perhaps involving a customs union provision or passing the deal subject to a public confirmatory referendum—the Government will respect those decisions by Members of this House and that we will see the Bill through to its conclusion, as amended?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As with the European Communities Act 1972, the withdrawal agreement Bill will have to ratify the treaty to be an effective ratification and for it to come into effect.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
Does the Leader of the House agree that it is a bit rich for Members of this House who voted for the emergency procedure to be used for the surrender Bill to pass it in a day to now say, “Oh, but we need more time to discuss this deal.”? They like it when it suits them, and they do not like it when it does not. They are trying to subvert democracy and the democratic will of the British people.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend asks, “Is it a bit rich?” It is as rich as Jersey cream.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On 3 September, the Leader of the House suggested that Opposition MPs were risking subverting Parliament’s scrutiny role. Exactly how many minutes of scrutiny will we be getting for each page of this Bill?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We have had three years, so the right hon. Gentleman can do the calculation. Three times 365 times 24 will give him the answer.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The Leader of the House will know that the Prime Minister’s new Brexit deal has far-reaching consequences for the people of Northern Ireland. I would very much like the Prime Minister or, indeed, the Leader of the House to come to Northern Ireland to explain in detail to the people why the major changes in this Bill that will affect their futures deserve only three days of consideration. It would be the decent and honourable thing to do.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank the hon. Lady for all that she does to be a voice for the people of Northern Ireland in this House. It is of fundamental importance to remember always that we are United Kingdom, and the effects on Northern Ireland are important within this proposed legislation. In principle, I would be delighted to accept her invitation, but I am unsure whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would want me to, because it is his bailiwick. However, I would be absolutely honoured to visit Northern Ireland, and it would be a pleasure to return there.
Mr Speaker
Bailiwick is an excellent word. The Leader of the House and I share an affection for it.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I am glad that the Leader of the House has been able to contain himself on the Front Bench right the way through all these questions. Unlike the Father of the House, I fully intend to vote against the Bill on Second Reading and, for that matter, on Third Reading. Having not had the courtesy of sight of a draft programme motion through the usual channels, I wonder whether the Leader of the House can tell us whether the Third Reading debate will have protected time, so that those of us who do want to make every effort to stop Brexit on behalf of our constituents who voted against it will have that opportunity?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Time will be made for Third Reading in the normal way according to the programme motion, which the House will have a chance to vote on tomorrow.
Preparations for Leaving the European Union
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Michael Gove)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a further statement on our preparations to leave the European Union on 31 October. Before I do, however, I want to underline the gratitude of Members on both sides of the House to the efforts on Saturday not just of the House authorities, but of the police, as you pointed out earlier. I particularly want to thank the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and other Opposition Members for the kind words they uttered on the behalf of all Members.
The Government are determined to do everything they can to leave the EU with a deal. The agreement that the Prime Minister concluded at last week’s European Council gives this House the opportunity to honour the votes of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU by doing so on time and in an orderly fashion. Parliament had the opportunity on Saturday to support a meaningful vote that would have allowed us to proceed smoothly to ratification of our deal and exit on 31 October, but the House instead voted in such a way as to put an orderly exit on that date in doubt.
I appreciate and understand the honest intentions and genuinely sincere motives of many of those who voted for the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). Let me place on the record once more the high personal regard in which I hold him. I know that he always acts in what he believes to be the national interest, and I deeply deprecate the personal criticism directed towards him. However, the House’s decision to request that a letter seeking an extension to article 50 be sent creates no certainty about our exit in an orderly fashion on 31 October.
Before Saturday’s proceedings in the House, European leaders, including the President of the European Commission, the President of France and the Taoiseach, deliberately and explicitly explained that Members should not cast their vote on the assumption that the EU Council will offer an extension. There is no certainty in this matter. Furthermore, no formal response from the EU has yet been received to the two letters sent by the Prime Minister on the evening of Saturday 19 October: the first requesting an extension to the 31 October deadline as required under the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, and the second setting out the Government’s position that a delay to Brexit would be corrosive, a view shared by the leaders of the EU27.
With no clear agreement yet in this House to ratify our withdrawal agreement and no certainty that an extension will be granted by 31 October, I must take the appropriate steps now to prepare for the increased possibility that the legal default position will follow and that we will leave on 31 October without a deal. The clear advice to me from officials is that we must now intensify contingency arrangements. That is why the Cabinet’s XO Committee met yesterday to agree that Government Brexit preparations now move into their final, most intensive phase, and that Operation Yellowhammer should be triggered.
Let me be clear that no one would be happier than me to turn off those preparations and stand down planning for no deal. I do not think anyone in this House can doubt my desire to see a deal concluded. However, if we are to be certain to avoid a no-deal outcome on 31 October, we must vote for the Prime Minister’s deal, we must ensure that the vessel that brings certainty passes expeditiously through this Parliament and we must avoid attempts to delay, capsize or hole it below the waterline.
In that spirit, I thank the many parliamentarians across the House who have indicated they will be backing the Prime Minister’s deal, which, until he brought it home, many people thought would be impossible to negotiate. The deal ensures that we can leave the EU, and it is entirely consistent with the Belfast agreement and all our other domestic and international obligations. I can also underline that, once a withdrawal agreement has been ratified, the whole House will be involved in agreeing the mandate for negotiations on our future partnership arrangements with the EU, and we will work particularly closely with all parties to ensure that vital protections for workers and the environment are secure.
In underlining the vital role that all MPs will play in securing a strong future partnership, I emphasise that we want business, trade unions and civil society to help shape a bright future outside the EU. It is striking how organisations such as the Chemicals Industries Association, UK Finance, the Country Land and Business Association and the Federation of Small Businesses have welcomed progress on the deal and have asked parliamentarians to end the uncertainty by supporting an agreement. However, as I have explained, in the absence of that certainty, preparations for the risk of no deal must be intensified.
We will now accelerate our efforts to help businesses and individuals mitigate any dislocation and disruption that may ensue. From today, the XO Committee will meet seven days a week to provide strong ministerial focus across the Government. Hundreds of public servants across the UK will have to be redeployed. They will transfer to work in operations centres, ready to identify challenges, work together to resolve problems swiftly and implement contingency plans as required. Government, local resilience bodies and operational partners will be working together, ready to respond 24 hours a day according to need. We are also finalising the latest update of our reasonable worst-case planning assumptions and will share them with the House shortly.
Of course, we must maintain our public information campaign, which, from tomorrow, will reflect the renewed urgency of preparation. The advice will help businesses and individuals appreciate what they must do to prepare, given the uncertainty that still unfortunately prevails. I again urge everyone to check the information relevant to their situation on gov.uk and also the comprehensive summary of actions to take contained in the Government’s “No-Deal Readiness Report” published on 8 October.
We are complementing the information campaign with hands-on advice and assistance. The Department for Transport is continuing to give personal advice to hauliers at sites across the UK and the European Union and working with local resilience forums to finalise traffic management plans, ensuring the smooth flow of people and goods across the short straits. In addition, it was announced on 11 October that four operators— Brittany Ferries, DFDS, P&O Ferries and Stena Line—had been successful in their bids to deliver freight capacity for a six-month period from 31 October to 30 April 2020. They will operate over 13 routes and from eight ports in England: Teesport, Hull, Killingholme, Felixstowe, Harwich, Tilbury, Poole, and Portsmouth. I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for the smooth, effective way in which that extra freight capacity has been secured.
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is stepping up work to deliver its export webinar programme to thousands of firms. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is distributing a farming Brexit advice guide to agriculture businesses. And the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is reaching hundreds of companies at readiness roadshows.
We have help desk capacity in place at all key Departments, with advisers ready to give the direct support required. This will build on the estimated 850 recorded engagements with business by the Department for Exiting the European Union and other Government Departments.
We are taking note of all the comments and feedback left on gov.uk by people who seek advice, and we are passing on details of specific issues of concern to the relevant Government Departments. We are also accelerating our programmes of key policy and legislative decisions to ensure full readiness, including making and tabling secondary legislation. We will be tabling the final statutory instruments to ensure that all critical Brexit-related legislation necessary for day one is in force by 31 October. This includes legislation for the new temporary tariff regime for customs and the legislation for avoiding a hard border in Ireland.
It remains the case that Northern Ireland would face unique challenges in a no-deal Brexit, and we will need to take steps to ensure effective governance and to give direction to the Northern Ireland civil service. In the absence of devolved government—today’s sitting of the Northern Ireland Assembly being a rare exception in the past two years—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made alternative arrangements for governance. Legislation and guidance have been introduced to empower Northern Ireland’s superb civil servants to continue taking decisions that are in the public interest. Once again, I record my gratitude to the Northern Ireland civil service, to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and to all those who work in public service in Northern Ireland for their unstinting commitment to safeguarding the welfare of all our citizens.
The arrangement in Northern Ireland has been sustainable to date, but leaving without a deal would represent a formidable challenge to the current position. In that case, we would have to start formal engagement with the Irish Government on further arrangements for providing strengthened decision making, which would include the real possibility of restoring a form of direct rule. We would, of course, do everything to ensure that the interests of all communities across Ireland are safeguarded in any arrangements, but we must all recognise that this would be a grave step from which experience shows us it would be hard to return, particularly in the context of leaving without a deal.
Even as we prepare for the challenges of a no deal, we will make the case at every forum we can for leaving with a good deal. Parliament has previously shown determination and a focused resolve to pass laws expeditiously when the occasion warrants. The deal we have secured honours the referendum mandate this House pledged to uphold and allows the UK to leave the EU whole and entire, and it puts in place the pathway to a new partnership with the EU based on free trade and friendly co-operation.
That is why I, again, urge my colleagues in this House—all of us democrats, first and foremost—now to support the Prime Minister’s deal. I commend this statement to the House.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his courtesy in providing me with a copy of his statement 30 minutes ago. I join him in thanking everyone who serves the House for the arrangements on Saturday, and I pay particular tribute to the civil servants who are working under huge stress to prepare for this remarkable event at midnight a week on Thursday. The House hardly needs reminding, but we are right on the edge of a potential precipice.
The Minister has told us that the Cabinet XO Committee will be meeting daily, and I hope he will be able to keep the House fully informed of its further decisions, as and when appropriate. When the Prime Minister appointed him as Minister for a no-deal Brexit, I think the idea was that he would try to avoid such a situation rather than try to make it possible. His statement fills me with foreboding for the country, because it appears as if the Government really do think that 31 October is a date this House will tolerate. I have to tell him that I do not believe that will be the case. In any event, the Prime Minister himself sent a letter to the European Union—he forgot to sign it, apparently—saying that he will pursue a delay, so 31 October seems to be an artificial date.
I will be brief, as there is still much to do this evening. The Government’s own assessment shows that a no-deal Brexit would be a disaster for jobs, for industry and for living standards. Their own assessment says there will be a 10% loss of GDP over the next 15 years, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that a no-deal outcome would result in Government borrowing rising by up to £100 billion, debt escalating to 90% of national income and growth flatlining. None of those is just a number on a spreadsheet, as I am sure he understands. These are real people’s jobs, livelihoods, communities and even family businesses, often built up over generations—all of them are now at risk.
This is not “Project Fear.” It is already happening here and now. Is the Minister aware that the manufacturing trade body, Make UK, has warned that even the prospect of a no-deal Brexit has meant that exporters are already suffering losses? The most deprived regions of the country would be hit hardest by a no deal, and the Government’s own figures show that people on the lowest incomes will suffer the most. [Interruption.] Many people are shouting from a sedentary position, "Vote for the deal." The Prime Minister’s free trade Brexit deal will result in every person in our country being £2,250 worse off, which is why we will not support the deal.
Instead of taking a no deal off the table, the Government are continuing to spend billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on Operation Yellowhammer, and they are probably diverting thousands of civil servants. How much money does the Minister estimate will be spent on this futile project? Surely the money would be better spent on rebuilding our country. Can he confirm that Operation Yellowhammer would not even come close to managing the economic disaster the whole country will face if we crash out with a no deal? That is not to mention the problems facing Ireland.
Operation Yellowhammer shows the disastrous impact of no deal on medical, food and energy supplies, which is why Members on both sides—this is a very important point—have repeatedly shown there is no will in this House to turn for a no deal. It will not happen.
Some have argued that a no deal was really just a negotiating tactic, a ruse to force concessions from the EU, but the Government have now finished their negotiations with the EU. Why, then, have they continued to place this sword of Damocles over the whole country?
The Minister claimed this weekend that the risk of leaving without a deal has increased, but how can that be? The opposite is the case, because the House has voted repeatedly to stop the Government crashing us out with no deal. The truth is that the Prime Minister thinks the only way to get legislation for this sell-out deal through this House of Commons is to bully and blackmail MPs with the threat of a no deal, but he has lost the consent of the House. He double-crossed the DUP, and he has taken a bulldozer to most of our procedures. His behaviour has thrown away the good will of hon. and right hon. Members. More than anything else, he has disposed of the good will of the House in the manner of the Godfather casting confetti at a mafia family wedding.
Even at this late stage, I press the Government to change course. A no deal would damage our country, injure our economy and inflict lasting damage on the nation. Abandoning a no deal might have the inadvertent and, some might say, lamentable consequence of placing the Minister for no deal on the Back Benches. Regrettable as that might be, some of us might think it a price worth paying.
Michael Gove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and, in particular, I am grateful for his kind words about the civil service. One of the many things we have in common, as well as representing constituencies that voted leave and being opposed to a second referendum, is that both of us are huge fans of the civil service and appreciate the great work done by civil servants every day for all of us in this country.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to keep the House informed even as the XO Committee sits every day, and I will do my best to do so. I am certain there will be an opportunity for at least one more statement, and I will be happy to respond to any urgent questions in his or any other Member’s name that relate to our Brexit preparations.
The hon. Gentleman asked about 31 October and suggested that the date is artificial. I fear it is not, as the date is fixed in legislation as a result of the article 50 process and has been agreed with the European Union. One of the important things that all of us in this House need to bear in mind is that EU leaders have made it crystal clear that they want the deal done, and they want it done by 31 October. The reason why the risk of no deal has increased materially is that EU leaders have said we cannot be certain that an extension will be granted. In those circumstances, there is one way to bring certainty, and I know that the hon. Gentleman knows this in his heart. The way in which we can bring certainty is by voting for the Prime Minister’s deal.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the cost of preparation. One thing the Prime Minister has stressed, and which is absolutely true, is that once we leave with a deal, we will be outside the customs union and the single market, and much of the preparation that will have been done in advance of 31 October will enable businesses to benefit from the free trade agreement that we hope to conclude with the EU and the new trade agreements we will conclude with other nations. There is a bright future ahead but it requires all of us to listen to the voice of this country and get Brexit done.
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and his colleagues and officials, for all the work they have done to help minimise any potential disruption in Kent. Can he also reassure the House that the security agreement with the EU that will be needed to help protect us against any further vulnerability to terrorism or organised crime will be put in place as soon as possible? Can he say what that timetable might be?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It is the case that we co-operate with EU nations in a variety of forums, not just through the EU; that the security of all benefits as a result; and that many of the shared tools for law enforcement and national security that we have allow EU citizens to benefit from intelligence gathered by our agencies. We hope to conclude a new arrangement as quickly as possible, as part of our future partnership with the EU. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to Frans Timmermans, the Commissioner responsible for security, to say that in the event of no deal we continue to share access to tools such as ECRIS—the European Criminal Records Information System—SIS II and Prüm. So far, Frans Timmermans has not indicated that he would collaborate, but we believe it is in everyone’s interests to ensure that we would.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of the statement. It leads me to my first question, which is: what is he not telling us? What does he know that we do not know about this entire process? He must know something, otherwise I do not understand why he continues to commit hundreds of extremely highly qualified civil servants and to waste hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in the service of an objective that we have consistently ruled out. He himself said as recently as March that no deal is something that must be avoided, the Benn Act has made no deal illegal unless this House agrees to it and now the Prime Minister has sought an extension to the process from the EU in order that no deal can be avoided. I admit that the Prime Minister has acted with the maximum bad faith and with all the enthusiasm of a petulant schoolboy, but none the less he has written the letter, and the letter has been received and accepted. That means that the only way the scenario that he is planning for can unfold is if this House fails to pass the Government’s withdrawal Bill, which I hope it will, and the EU then declines to extend beyond 31 October. Is Government policy therefore now based on the assumption that the EU will refuse to extend the article 50 deadline beyond 31 October? If it is not, why does he continue with this wasteful exercise?
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke): how come this date of 31 October has become elevated to the extent it has? The Government have this Halloween fetish now. The only reason 31 October matters—rather than, say, a week, month or year later—is to save face for this Prime Minister. It is a rum day indeed when the Government of the day are more concerned about the vanity of the Prime Minister than they are about making good legislation and doing what is good for the country. Is the truth not that all this talk of Yellowhammer and no-deal preparations is a propaganda exercise, trying to whip up fear and anxiety to drive people into the welcoming arms of the Prime Minister’s deal, in relief and thankfulness? It won’t work, Chancellor.
Michael Gove
One of the many reasons I had hoped the hon. Gentleman would have become deputy leader of the Scottish National party was shown in the way in which he delivered his questions without notes, with great fluency and authority. All of us in this House recognise what a great speaker he is. What a pity, however, that a very well delivered speech got one or two fundamental aspects of the position in which this House finds itself wrong. He asked about the money that is being spent. As I pointed out in response to my opposite number, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), this money will be wisely spent come what may, because we needed to make sure that businesses across the country, including in Scotland, are prepared for life outside the single market and the customs union. That money, which the Scottish Government have asked for, has been given to the Scottish Government and they have spent it. If they and the SNP believe there was no point in spending that money, I imagine they would have returned the cheque to the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying “Not required here.” That was not the case, so they clearly do feel, as we all feel, that it is important to make preparations.
The hon. Gentleman made two other points. He asked why fetishise the date of 31 October. That is the date in law that has been passed in this House and by the EU as the date by which we must leave, following the extension of article 50. It is not a date that was chosen by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and it was certainly not one chosen by me. It was a date that this House accepted, following negotiation with the EU, and that is the law. It is also the case that, in law, any extension has to be granted by all EU27 member states. We are sometimes accused in this House of being insular, but the President of the Commission, the Taoiseach and the French President have all made it clear that there is no guarantee that any extension will be issued. All those of us who value relationships with our friends and neighbours in Europe should take heed of what they say; no extension is guaranteed, and no certainty exists. That is why we must back this deal, and I hope that SNP Members, who have done so much to say why no deal is unwelcome, will, at this late stage, repent and recognise that the interests of our United Kingdom are served by their presence in the Lobby supporting this deal.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
There is no such thing as a no-deal exit; if we leave without the withdrawal agreement, there would be all sorts of agreements and arrangements in place. So will the Government do more to tell the country about the 2017 facilitation of trade agreement between all World Trade Organisation members to ensure smooth borders, the government international procurement agreement to allow Governments to transact business, and the customs, haulage and aviation arrangements and agreements, which are all in place. People should stop scaremongering.
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very fair point. If we leave without the withdrawal agreement being ratified, we will leave without that deal. “No deal” is sometimes used to cover that specific outcome, and it is with respect to that widely accepted description that I use the term. He is right to say there are other agreements, and there will continue to be agreements, that we have concluded, both with individual EU member states and with the EU overall, which will govern our relationship. However, I am strongly of the view that a withdrawal agreement which has been ratified in this place will be the best possible way in which we can ensure both that we recognise the Brexit referendum vote and that we continue to have free trade and friendly co-operation.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
One of the main concerns that has been expressed about the consequences of leaving without an agreement is the potential for delay for lorries moving across the channel, an issue on which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has given evidence to the Brexit Select Committee. Will he tell the House what the Government’s latest assessment is of the percentage of lorries leaving the United Kingdom that would have the correct paperwork on 1 November if this eventuality, which none of us wants to see happen, comes to pass, and therefore what kind of delay we might be looking at in those circumstances?
Michael Gove
I will share with the House the revised planning assumptions in Yellowhammer very shortly. It is the case that the level of business readiness has increased, and we expect that a significantly increased number of vehicles will be ready. That obviously has an effect on flow at the border, but we are being deliberately cautious. We are copper-fastening those assumptions and I hope to share them with the House very, very shortly.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
Following on from the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), I entirely agree that there is no such thing as no deal; there is not leaving with a formal withdrawal agreement and with a whole lot of side deals. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster make a point of publicising those deals to educate the Opposition? Will he inform the House of what further meetings he has planned with the French authorities? They have been bullish that traffic at Calais/Boulogne will flow and that they have made the necessary preparations. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said in his question, the lorries do not need paperwork; it is all done electronically.
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a number of good points. The first is that in the no-deal preparation document, which was shared with the House on 8 October and runs to some 150 pages, we ran through many of the arrangements that have been put in place—some agreed and some the unilateral decision of the EU—to make sure that if we leave without an agreement, we can mitigate the risks in all our interests. It was interesting that on that occasion the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) did not ask any questions about that document; he asked about other process questions. I am always available to answer questions about those provisions.
My right hon. Friend is right that significant investment has been made by the French Government to ensure that, exactly as he says, electronic information can be exchanged before trucks arrive in Calais, to allow them to move smoothly through the green lane and, if they are carrying fish or shellfish, to move smoothly to the border inspection post at Boulogne-sur-Mer.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
On a recent trip to a pharmacy in Birstall, the staff and I had a conversation about their anxiety about generic drugs becoming more expensive because of delays and tariffs, and also because pharmaceutical companies might not want to launch their drugs in the UK because they are now more expensive. With 81% of pharmacists saying in a recent survey that they are worried that drugs are going to be delayed because of a no-deal Brexit, I asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster directly a couple of weeks ago whether he believed that anyone would die because of a no-deal Brexit. He was robust in his answer and said no unequivocally; is that still the case?
Michael Gove
First, I thank the hon. Lady for her question, because it gives me the opportunity to echo her in saying how much we value the work of local pharmacists and how critical they are to the effective operation of our NHS in providing all our constituents with the treatments that they need in an effective and timely way. Talking of the effective and timely delivery of medicine, it is the case that the freight transport that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has secured is enough for more than 120% of our category 1 priority medical goods needs. It is also the case that the steps we have taken to ensure business readiness and to improve flow over the short straits should ensure that there will not be the shortages or delays about which the hon. Lady is concerned.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Does my right hon Friend agree that uncertainty has a price, and that price is growing not only in the United Kingdom but, importantly, in the European Union? It is absolutely in the EU’s interests to bring this uncertainty to a close by declining our formal request for an extension and forcing the House to a decision. It was as true on 29 March as it is for 31 October: the only way the House is going to vote for a deal negotiated by the Government with the membership of this House as it is constructed today is if there is a straight choice between deal and no deal. The rhetoric from the Opposition about the unacceptability of no deal will then be called out, we will get the deal, we will have the certainty of a transition period and a proper place to negotiate our future relationship, and 14 months in which to do it. If the EU delays, we are pitched into further uncertainty and further cost.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is 100% spot on and I am completely in agreement with him.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)
Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), I want to be clear that the Brexit Secretary revealed today that article 271 of the deal would institute exit summary declarations for goods being sent from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. Just to be absolutely clear, that is goods being transferred within the United Kingdom. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm that those plans are being put in place, potentially for 1 November? Is he content with those declarations being put in place, or is there a chance that they will not happen? What has he estimated the cost of administering those declarations will be? How many does he anticipate that there would be?
Michael Gove
If we leave without a deal and that is the situation that prevails on 1 November, no such checks would be required at all.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I wholeheartedly congratulate my right hon. Friend and officials right across Government for the magnificent public information campaign that he is running. I hope he will not mind my saying that it is the campaign I would have dreamed of securing from the autumn of 2017 when I first started asking for one. Will he confirm that he has had adequate discussions with business groups to ensure that businesses are properly prepared?
Michael Gove
That gives me the opportunity to say a profound thank you to my hon. Friend who, as a Minister in the Department for Exiting the European Union, undertook heroic efforts to ensure that we were as well prepared as possible. In so far as we were not well prepared, it was because of other factors, because his own efforts in that regard were focused, public spirited and highly effective.
It is the case that we have had conversations with lots of business organisations to ensure that they are as well prepared as possible. As I have said before, the impacts of leaving without a deal will depend on different economic sectors reacting in different ways.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Whether we leave with a deal or without one, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that children’s best interests must always be protected. Will he say whether the Government will either continue or replicate the arrangements under Dublin III that ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children can come to this country and be reunited with their family members?
Michael Gove
I am absolutely convinced that we will maintain those arrangements.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Secretary of State for Transport, their teams and officials, and particularly the hard-working civil servants and officials in Kent who have worked tirelessly on this important project to make sure that we are ready. I have had blood-curdling warnings of chaos at Dover and the channel ports and of gridlock on Kent’s roads in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that if the deal goes through, there will not be problems on Kent roads or at the channel ports?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have an opportunity. There have been various different projections—reasonable worst-case scenarios and other projections—in respect of what might happen in the event of no deal. I absolutely assure him that if the House takes the opportunity it now has to vote for the deal, none of those scenarios will materialise and we will be able to move to the next stage of our relationship with the EU, based on free trade and friendly partnership.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)
Although I find it difficult to believe, I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is not familiar, as apparently many Cabinet Ministers are not familiar, with the deal that they have negotiated with the EU, but others have looked at it in detail. I refer back to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). Article 271 of the deal specifically says that goods leaving Northern Ireland and coming into Great Britain must provide an exiting summary declaration. Is the right hon. Gentleman familiar with that? Will he confirm that that is the case? In that event, are the procedures in place and have businesses in Northern Ireland been fully apprised of the impact that will have on them and on those receiving the goods? This is the deal—his deal.
Michael Gove
The right hon. Lady’s parliamentary colleague, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), asked about arrangements on 1 November. We would only need to have different arrangements on 1 November—
Michael Gove
I am answering the question. We can have a nice conversation outside, but I will take this opportunity to answer the question before the right hon. Lady comes back. The hon. Gentleman’s question related to events and provisions on 1 November. I note that the right hon. Lady is referring to the deal and yes, it is the case that those provisions would come into effect if we had the deal, but of course we will make sure that they are seamless.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Progress is very slow and needs to speed up, otherwise people will not get in. It is as simple as that.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Local businesses in my constituency overwhelmingly tell me that it is not the future form of Brexit that we are arguing about in here that is causing them the most concern; it is the constant and endless delay and confusion—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is not a question. I want one sentence. I do not want a speech about the hon. Lady’s opinions about all of this. What I want is a short question—end of.
Rachel Maclean
Of course, Mr Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to avoid no deal is to vote for a deal?
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Operation Yellowhammer documents previously revealed that a no-deal Brexit would affect food provision, and that those on low incomes in the UK would be most affected. Food banks are increasingly concerned about the impact of a no-deal Brexit on their food supplies, so have the Government issued any guidance or undertaken any preparation with food bank providers to ensure that their operations are not severely affected by no deal?
Michael Gove
As it happens, the hon. Gentleman’s question gives me an opportunity to pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who came to see me with a representative selection of organisations that run food banks. We had a good conversation about making sure that we can continue to support them in the future come what may. I am absolutely confident that the successful operation of food banks and all the wonderful people who work in them will not be affected by Brexit, whether it is deal or no deal.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
With or without a deal, my right hon. Friend is aware of the fact that I believe there is woefully inadequate provision for the healthcare and pensions of expat UK citizens. I would like to be able to support the withdrawal Bill. Can he give me an assurance that this matter is under active and positive consideration?
Michael Gove
It absolutely is. If we secure the withdrawal agreement Bill, there will be absolutely no need for us to worry about those particular circumstances, but for the reasons that I outlined earlier, we are negotiating hard with individual EU member states. I particularly commend Spain, where we have the largest number of UK expats, for making sure that there will be fully reciprocal arrangements on healthcare.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Minister confirm that, in a no-deal scenario, no patient will have their treatment delayed or cancelled if they are dependent on radioisotopes?
Michael Gove
Yes, and there is a specific arrangement to ensure that radioisotopes can be flown into East Midlands airport.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
May I offer my sympathy to my right hon. Friend and other colleagues who were subjected to the thuggish behaviour on Saturday? Does he agree that the sooner this deal is done, the better, and that there should be no more delay?
Michael Gove
I completely agree, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for everything that he says. He is a model of civility inside and outside this House, and I do hope that the standard of debate across the country can match the standard of debate that he always indulges in.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
In one response, the right hon. Gentleman confirmed that there is, as yet, no agreement on reciprocal security arrangements for the data that we need to make sure that we can keep our borders safe. What is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that we will still be safe on 1 November?
Michael Gove
The first thing, of course, is promoting a deal. The second thing to say is that there are tried and tested alternatives that we can use to make sure that we keep people in this country safe. The third thing is that, once we leave the European Union, there are a number of things that we can do, which the Home Secretary has outlined, that will allow us to be even safer. There are steps that the Border Force can take, steps that we can take on the border to no longer recognise ID cards, and steps that we can take to increase the criminality threshold for entry.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Hampshire’s local resilience forum is playing a key role in preparations for Brexit. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that it has the right resources and support to make a success of those preparations?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is right. Hampshire LRF attended a meeting of the EU Exit Operations Committee last week, and I was incredibly impressed with the work that it is doing. We will continue to work closely with it.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
If this House passes the Government’s withdrawal Bill with amendments, will the Government take those amendments back to the EU and seek its agreement to them, or in that situation will they simply try to pursue a no-deal Brexit?
Michael Gove
I think the EU has been very clear that we need to ratify the treaty as agreed. To be fair to the other 27 EU member states, they have laboured long and hard to come to an agreement. If this House were now to say that it did not like the agreement, I think that their patience would be sorely tested.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the discussions that he has had with European leaders and what their view is as to another extension?
Michael Gove
Earlier today, I was talking to Ministers in the Irish Government, and I have been talking to representatives of other EU member states over the course of the past week or so. They are clear: they do not want an extension. They want this done by 31 October. There are many people in the House who admire other European nations, but, on this occasion, they seem curiously deaf to the plea, which is a unified plea across the EU, to get this deal done.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has been a long-term supporter of the Union and of Northern Ireland. He must know in his heart of hearts that this is actually driving a wedge between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The issue of unfettered access to goods for small businesses is going to absolutely destroy that relationship. Can he really say that this is actually good for Northern Ireland?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. Having worked in Northern Ireland and having so many friends in Northern Ireland, I can absolutely say that its position in the Union is very dear to me, and therefore it is of concern to me that there are people in Northern Ireland, particularly within the Unionist community, who feel heartsore about what they perceive to be the consequences of this deal. In every hour of every day ahead I will be doing everything that I can to provide reassurance and to ensure that we can put provisions in place that will make sure that people in Northern Ireland appreciate that we love them and want them to stay.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The shadow Minister cites Make UK, but it is clear that endless extensions are hugely damaging to its members’ interests. Is my right hon. Friend aware of any major business or organisation that is calling for yet more delays?
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (LD)
Very serious concerns have been raised by shellfisheries about no-deal preparations for their sector. The Secretary of State will know that they have to have an aquatic animal health certificate alongside a raft of other red tape for each consignment. Mussel fishermen in my constituency are very concerned about that, because they have been told that they will need to give five days’ notice, but their customers do not order with five days’ notice. Will he ensure that officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will meet me and my constituents to ensure that the problems that are arising will be addressed?
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Government’s Yellowhammer papers, as we have already heard, state that low-income groups will be disproportionately affected by any price rises in food and fuel. What does the Minister suggest I say to the families on low incomes in my constituency of Newport West to reassure them that their plight has been recognised, and what will the Government do to mitigate this disproportionate impact on poorer families across the UK?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. Across this House, we are concerned, obviously, about the welfare of the most vulnerable in our own constituencies and across the country. I respectfully say to her that, when people say that they are worried about the consequences of no deal, as indeed I am, the thing to do is to support the deal, and I hope that she will.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak. If the United Kingdom were to leave the European Union on 31 October, and on that date we still had no functioning Assembly at Stormont, what are the Government planning for the good governance of Northern Ireland? Will it, or will it not, be direct rule? It is a straightforward question, and I would very much appreciate a straight answer.
Michael Gove
We want the Assembly to be up and running. We recognise that time is short. In those circumstances, we will talk to the Government of Ireland, but direct rule, which I know is a step that no one should take lightly, will be required in order to ensure that the Northern Ireland civil service gets the political and ministerial direction that it needs.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
At 5 o’clock this evening, in the Public Accounts Committee, Jim Harra of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs informed the Committee, when asked about the transfer of goods from Northern Ireland to GB under the agreement the Chancellor is proposing, that
“an export declaration is required for all movement of all goods from Northern Ireland to GB”
in order to ensure that the EU’s obligations are properly discharged. The Chancellor says that he holds the Union very dear. These arrangements make the Union very expensive.
Michael Gove
We will be doing everything we can to ensure that there is unfettered access for goods from Northern Ireland into the rest of the United Kingdom. Deal or no deal, we will also be bringing forward additional steps to ensure that businesses in Northern Ireland are supported and protected come what may.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have been contacted by Northern Ireland’s fishing sector, which does not want this Government deal, so can the Minister confirm that Northern Ireland’s fishing sector will have the same opportunities and freedom to fish as the fishing sectors of England, Scotland and Wales in the event of no deal?
Michael Gove
Yes, absolutely. One of the benefits of leaving the European Union is being outside the common fisheries policy, and I know that the fishing interests that the hon. Gentleman represents were and are looking forward to our leaving the European Union. Let me say again that it is the Government’s absolute intention to ensure that we provide all the financial and administrative support required by all of Northern Ireland’s businesses as we leave—whatever the circumstances. The whole enterprise of leaving the European Union is one that we took as one United Kingdom, and it is very important that we pay particular attention to representatives of Northern Ireland as we try to secure the best possible outcome for all our citizens.
Harry Dunn
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I want to update the House on the tragic case of the death of 19-year-old Harry Dunn in a car accident in Northamptonshire, and on what we in the Foreign Office and Her Majesty’s Government are doing to support his family in their search for justice.
As the father of two young boys, I can only begin to imagine the grief and suffering of losing a child. It is every family’s worst nightmare, and I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our deepest sympathies to Harry’s family for their unbearable loss.
Let me start with the facts of this case and the steps that the Government have taken in recent weeks to support the police investigation. On 27 August, Harry Dunn was killed in a road traffic collision while riding his motorbike in Croughton, Northamptonshire. The suspect in the police investigation is an American woman. As has been widely reported, at the time of the accident, the American involved had diplomatic immunity.
The UK Government had been notified of the American family’s arrival in the UK in July 2019, and this diplomatic immunity was the result of the arrangements agreed between the UK Government and the US Government back in 1995. Under those arrangements, US staff at RAF Croughton and their families were accepted as part of the US embassy in the UK. Pursuant to these arrangements, staff and their families were entitled to immunity under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. Under the exchange of notes in relation to the Croughton annexe, these arrangements waived immunity for employees, but the waiver did not cover spouses.
Let me return to the specific case of Harry Dunn. On 28 August this year, the US embassy notified us that the spouse of a member of staff at RAF Croughton had been involved in an accident. On 30 August, the US asserted that the spouse was covered by immunity, so a waiver was needed. To enable the police investigation to follow its proper course, on 5 September the Foreign and Commonwealth Office formally requested the US embassy to waive immunity. Given the seriousness of the incident, our view was—and remains—that justice needs to be done.
If the suspect’s immunity had been waived, Northamptonshire police would then have been able to compel her to co-operate fully with their investigation. However, on 13 September the FCO was informed by the US embassy that it would not waive immunity and that the individual would be leaving the country imminently, unless the UK had strong objections. We duly and immediately objected in clear and strong terms, and we have done so ever since. Nevertheless, under the Vienna convention UK police could not lawfully have prevented the individual from leaving the UK. When the FCO followed up with the US embassy on 16 September, it informed us that the individual had departed the day before. We immediately informed Northants police.
When the FCO’s views were sought on timing, officials asked the police to delay telling Harry’s family by a day or two, so that they could inform me and other Ministers and agree the next course of action. I am aware that the police did not tell the family until 26 September, which was 11 days after the individual in question had left. As the primary point of family liaison, the decision as to when to tell the family was properly a matter for the police, and I know that they considered it very carefully.
I turn to the issue of a waiver. I reassure the House that representations have been made to the US Government at every level of the Administration. The head of the diplomatic service summoned the US deputy ambassador. I have raised the case twice with the US ambassador in order to express my disappointment with the US embassy’s decision not to waive immunity, and to request that that decision be reversed. I spoke to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the same terms on 7 October, and the Prime Minister raised the case with President Trump on 9 October.
The scope of immunity is a complex area of law, because in some circumstances there may be residual immunity that can continue once an individual returns home, depending on their status and the particular facts of the case. Our position in this case is that immunity clearly ended when the individual concerned left the UK. The US Government in turn stated on 8 October that since the individual had returned to the US, in their view immunity was “no longer pertinent”. We took time and care to resolve this point, because of its relevance to the case. We also wanted to be fully confident in the legal position before we communicated it to the family, given their anguish and frustration with the obstacles to the investigation. Once the position was clear, I conveyed it directly to them by letter on 12 October. We continue to urge the US authorities and the individual in question to fully co-operate with the investigation. The case is now with Northamptonshire police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and it is for them to consider the next steps as part of their criminal investigation.
At every stage in this process, we have sought to clear away any obstacles to justice being done. At the same time, I have been mindful of the need to avoid anything that could be construed as political interference, in case that might later be argued to prejudice the proper and fair course of the investigation, and thereby prevent justice from being done.
Let me turn to our next steps. First, we will continue to do all that we can to support the police and the Crown Prosecution Service during this process, and I can reassure the House, as I assured Harry’s family when I met them on 9 October, that we will continue to fight for justice for them. Secondly, I have already commissioned a review of the immunity arrangements for US personnel and their families at the Croughton annexe holding privileges and immunities under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. As this case has demonstrated, I do not believe that the current arrangements are right, and the review will look at how we can ensure that the arrangements at Croughton cannot be used in this way again.
In one night, a tragic accident took the life of a young man with his whole future ahead of him. That loss has devastated his family, as it would any of ours. I reassure the House that this Government will do everything we can to give them the solace of justice being done. Our hearts go out to them. I commend this statement to the House.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.
First and foremost, our hearts go out to the family and friends of Harry Dunn, especially to his parents, Charlotte and Tim, and their partners, Bruce and Tracey. As the mother of a 20-year-old boy myself, I can only imagine the devastation they feel at Harry’s loss. But in their case, that loss is compounded by the complete lack of justice for their son, the complete lack of respect they were shown in their meetings not only with Donald Trump but, I am afraid, with the Foreign Secretary—with the family describing one meeting as a photo opportunity, and the meeting with the President as an attempted ambush—and, finally, by the complete lack of answers that they have had to even the most basic questions about why their son’s case was handled in the way it was and why Mrs Sacoolas has received the treatment that she has.
The Foreign Secretary’s statement today is welcome, in so far as it is a first attempt by the Government to set out a chain of events before Parliament, but it still leaves so many questions unanswered and so many facts unestablished. In the time I have today, I would like to work through those questions with the Foreign Secretary in chronological order.
Let me start by pressing the Foreign Secretary on the issue of immunity. He can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that spouses and dependants enjoy diplomatic immunity by virtue of the protection enjoyed by the employee. But if, as he has just said, it was agreed between the UK and the US with respect to Croughton that the diplomatic immunity of employees was waived, can he explain the legal basis by which it still applies to spouses? He has talked today about it being an “exchange of notes”. Was it an exchange of notes or was it a memorandum of understanding, and could he please explain the difference? Why is there this anomaly? Was it done deliberately, and if so, what is the justification for that?
A second, related question is whether, if the United States has agreed to waive the full diplomatic immunity of Croughton employees under the Vienna convention, those employees are still entitled to the limited immunity provided under the Visiting Forces Act 1952. If so, surely the legal position should be that the spouse is entitled only to the same protection as the employee. In that case, based on Crown Prosecution Service guidance and previous precedent, the immunity would have applied only if Mrs Sacoolas had been driving from RAF Croughton to her home address, which is an impossibility given that her home address was RAF Croughton. The Foreign Secretary has been talking particularly about the Croughton annexe. Is that the same as RAF Croughton, does it apply to RAF Croughton as a whole, or is it a different area?
Finally on the question of immunity, if the protection enjoyed by spouses of Croughton employees is so clear-cut, why did it take the UK embassy three days to assert it in respect of Mrs Sacoolas? If she and other Croughton spouses do, as the Foreign Secretary said, enjoy full diplomatic immunity under the Vienna convention, why was Mrs Sacoolas’s name never placed on the diplomatic list? When the Foreign Secretary states that the US embassy notified us that the spouse of a member of RAF Croughton was involved in an accident, who is “us”? Is it the police, the Foreign Secretary and his private office, or some other part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
Moving on to the aftermath of this tragedy, will the Foreign Secretary agree, in the interests of transparency, to publish all correspondence and records of all other communications and meetings between his Department, Northamptonshire police and the CPS, and between his Department and US officials, about the handling of this case subsequent to 27 August? It is particularly important to look in detail at what happened between 30 August, when the US asserted diplomatic immunity, and 15 September, when Mrs Sacoolas left, because, as I understand it, the FCO was told that she would leave the country imminently unless the UK raised strong objections. What strong objections did the UK raise, at what level, and by whom? Were assurances requested that she would not leave the country until the issue of immunity had been clarified, particularly given the memo of understanding—or the exchange of documents—as this seems to be extremely murky? What liaison was there between the FCO and Northants police prior to Mrs Sacoolas leaving, and did either the police or the FCO know that she would be leaving before she did so?
All these questions need to be answered. Did Mrs Sacoolas leave on a scheduled flight? Did she leave from Mildenhall? Had the ports been alerted pending resolution of her status? Will the Foreign Secretary explain why his Department asked Northamptonshire police to delay informing Harry Dunn’s family of the departure of Mrs Sacoolas for, to quote him, “a day or two”? Why did they not have the right to be told immediately? What possible legal, let alone ethical, basis was there for the Foreign Secretary to be interfering in operational police matters? Surely this family had the right to be informed straight away. Why, indeed, did it then take the Northamptonshire police 10 days to tell the family?
Given that the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that the supposed diplomatic immunity status granted to Mrs Sacoolas has ceased to apply since her return to the United States, while I am not asking him to intrude on the independent decisions of prosecuting authorities, can he say whether he has he been advised on whether there are any barriers to the CPS commencing extradition proceedings to return Mrs Sacoolas to the UK?
As the Foreign Secretary will know, tomorrow Harry Dunn’s family are due to meet the chief constable of Northamptonshire police. As I mentioned earlier, this brave family have already had one disappointing meeting in his office—and another in the Oval Office. In fact, may I ask a question in relation to that? Was the Foreign Office aware that the White House had summoned the family to the White House, let alone that the President was intending to ambush them with a meeting with Mrs Sacoolas? If so, did the Foreign Office think it appropriate not to give this vulnerable family some assistance? They have many legitimate questions, and they are not getting answers. Unfortunately, they have been led to believe that they will not get any answers from the chief constable of Northamptonshire tomorrow either, as it is his intention merely to offer them his personal condolences. That is not good enough. The time for condolences and sympathy is over. What Harry’s family need now are answers, the truth and some justice.
Dominic Raab
May I thank the right hon. Lady for the tenor of her opening remarks? I join her in expressing my deepest condolences to the family. I also agree with her that the natural grief that any parent would suffer as a result of losing their child has certainly been compounded by having to go through these legal and what will feel like bureaucratic obstacles. Equally, on our side, we have to ensure that justice is being done by adhering to the legal route; otherwise we impair the very objective that I think we are all seeking to achieve.
The right hon. Lady raises a number of issues. On the suggestion that there was an attempt at a photo opportunity, it had actually been requested by the representative of the family to bring media to the meeting that I hosted, and I declined because I thought it was inappropriate. I expressed my deepest condolences and sympathies to the family and made it clear when I met them that I would do anything that I could and that they should feel free to come back to me directly if there was any support that they felt they needed.
The right hon. Lady asks about the difference between an exchange of notes and a memorandum of understanding. The exchange of notes and exchange of letters under international law is not decisive; what matters is the tenor of the language. However, they effectively implement administrative arrangements under the Vienna convention of diplomatic relations, so they would be of similar status to an MOU.
The right hon. Lady asks about the anomaly that spouses were not covered by the waiver arrangements. I agree that that is an anomaly. That is why I have instituted a review. Since 1995, we have not seen—certainly, having looked very carefully at this, I am not aware of—any case that has tested them. Therefore, this is probably the first time that the anomaly has come to light, certainly to me, but also, given that they have not really been implemented or tested in this way, more generally to the Foreign Office. The exchange of notes covered the technical and administrative employees at the Croughton annexe—which was the subject of another of her questions—whereas the diplomatic list that she refers to applies to members of the US embassy.
The right hon. Lady asks what we knew at the point at which the individual left this country to go back home to the US. We were made aware, I think, a day or two before—I can check—and we registered our strong objections. The right hon. Lady suggested—this is very important—that there should have been checks at ports or that we should immediately have tipped off the police. It would have been unlawful to arrest the individual under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, so that would not have been, I think we can all agree, a responsible or productive thing to have done. Indeed, it would have been an illegal thing to do.
The right hon. Lady asks about the family’s visit to the US. We were aware of that visit. I was not aware of who Mrs Dunn would meet, but I did make it clear during our meeting that I would help with anything and gave her the direct line to my office. Indeed, we have contacts with the representative of the family, and no request was made to us for support when they went to the US, nor were we aware of the details of that trip.
The right hon. Lady asks about the delay in informing Harry Dunn’s family once Ms Sacoolas had left the country. As I said before, it was one or two days. The reason that we asked for a little bit of time—this request was not made by me, and I was not aware of it, but by my officials—was to make sure that we could be very clear on what the next course of action would be, and, indeed, precisely so that they could inform Ministers before the family were aware, because we were aware that there would immediately be questions coming back about what we would do next. There was a further delay from the police. I know that they have been very mindful of the sensitivities of the family at every stage, but ultimately that is, I am afraid, a question for them.
The right hon. Lady asks about barriers to justice being done. Ultimately, that must be for the CPS and the police to decide, and we are obviously in close contact with them, but I am currently aware of no barriers to justice in this case. At every stage during this process, I have been keen to ensure, as have my officials, that we can remove any obstacles to justice being done.
The right hon. Lady talked about the need for transparency, which I know she has made some remarks about in the media. In the same spirit, I point out that, while we have never had a case that has tested these arrangements since 1995—at least, as far as I am aware, and I have checked very carefully—the arrangements were reviewed in 2001. That review was an opportunity to address this issue. It was left unresolved, but the number of staff at the Croughton annexe was substantially increased. In fact, it doubled in size.
That is the full background to not only this case but the arrangements made for the Croughton annexe. I think that the whole House will join me in not only expressing our condolences but trying to ensure that, independently and in the correct way, the police and the CPS are free from political interference and any bureaucratic obstacles to see justice done. Having talked to the parents of Harry Dunn, I know that ultimately, that is the solace that they are looking for right now.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
This awful loss has created a huge shock across Northamptonshire, but especially in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), and I commend her for the work she has done over this. All that sadness is nothing compared with that of the family. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made comments about avoiding political interference, given the judicial proceedings that we seek. Does he agree that all of us must be mindful of the need to be extremely careful, given the desired objective?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right. It is particularly incumbent upon me as the Foreign Secretary to ensure that, while remaining in touch with the family, which I have been at pains to do, and clearing the obstacles, there is nothing inadvertently that I do, or that the FCO does, which could later allow a particularly innovative defence lawyer to claim that the proceedings had been prejudiced in advance. I have taken that duty very seriously.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I would like to express my condolences to Harry Dunn’s family. For a family to lose a child and a loved brother is appalling, but these are particularly appalling circumstances, and it is particularly appalling that a grieving family is having to endure this, as the Foreign Secretary acknowledged. He also acknowledged that this is a police matter, but there are concerns. Will he reassure me that every pressure will be brought to bear on the US authorities, to see that justice is done? Special relationship or none, these things have to go both ways. That means that the US authorities must co-operate fully, which means that if the Crown Prosecution Service seeks extradition—I know he cannot comment on this—it must be given.
What can the Foreign Secretary tell us about the advice that was given to Northamptonshire police and the immigration service about immunity? I am glad that he is undertaking a review, and I was concerned when he said that the current arrangements are not right. When can we expect him to come back to the House with the findings of that review? To echo what the shadow Foreign Secretary said, he must publish the documentation that has been asked for. I would like him to set out the timescale for the review and give us some reassurances about the US Administration. This is a deeply sad and tragic case, and justice must be done.
Dominic Raab
I echo the hon. Gentleman’s condolences and thank him for the remarks he made at the outset. He asked about pressure on the United States. We have made very clear our disappointment with the refusal to waive, and we have requested a reversal of that decision at every level in the Administration, from the ambassador here through to the representations that the Prime Minister made to the US President.
The hon. Gentleman asked about requests for extradition. They would, of course, be made by the CPS under the UK-US extradition treaty. I am not aware of any obstacle, but I want to be very mindful of the responsibility I have not to say anything prejudicial. He also asked about the review of the arrangements at the Croughton annexe. I am keen for that to be conducted as soon as possible, and certainly before the end of year.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Although the Foreign Secretary has given a very full account of the representations made to the American authorities, he has not given any narrative of what the American authorities said in return, in justification of their behaviour. Can he throw any light on what their attitude and excuses are, and can he at least confirm that it had nothing to do with the nature of this lady’s husband’s job?
Dominic Raab
Nothing that was communicated to us touched on the point that my right hon. Friend made. There was not a particularly clear reason other than, as a matter of practice, the US made it clear that it would not waive immunity in a case like this. I appreciate that, from the point of view of the family and, indeed, the Foreign Office, that is unsatisfactory.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Tonight a family are grieving and going through something that we find incomprehensible, and yet they know that there is a lady over the Atlantic who has all the answers. Does the Secretary of State think it is outrageous that the family were taken to America to face an ambush in the White House by Mrs Sacoolas, who has not returned to the UK to face justice?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The first thing I should say is that I think the fact that the US President was willing to meet the family directly was a positive. I certainly think that the sensitivities of handling the introduction with Mrs Sacoolas could have been done better, although I know from the family and their representative that they want to not only see the individual concerned co-operating with the police but also understand a bit more about what happened from her. I think that it was done with the best of intentions, but I agree that the handling of it left something to be desired.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
No one can fail to be moved by the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Harry Dunn. The Foreign Secretary has carefully set out what steps he has undertaken and plans to undertake. He said that the Foreign Office has formally requested the US embassy to waive immunity. Can he confirm that, however much any of us wishes it were otherwise, it is simply not lawful or possible for him unilaterally to remove immunity?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In addition to that, it clearly would not be possible or responsible for the police to try to do so. They are there to uphold the law, and however unfortunate the circumstances are, we cannot ask them to do the reverse.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
This is truly a dreadful business, and it is quite clear to me and my party that the Government take this most sorry episode very seriously indeed. The events of 15 October come over to me and, I am sure, many people in this country as being some sort of hideous play on comic opera, with Harry’s parents taken to the Oval Office, where, almost by sleight of hand, Mrs Sacoolas, was in the next room. Surely that cannot be within the rules of diplomatic engagement, and surely we should make representations to say that it is not acceptable for our citizens to be treated in this fashion.
Dominic Raab
As I said in my opening statement, we had made it clear that we were willing to support the family directly, and they have a representative who acts on their behalf. We were not asked for any support in relation to the US visit, and those arrangements were therefore made, I assume, between the representative and the US Government. Ultimately, at all these points, it is impossible to overstate the anguish and frustration that the family feel at every new bureaucratic hurdle that is placed in their way. I understand that, and that is why we have been so mindful about removing those obstacles, because the thing that this family want above all is to see justice done.
Bill Presented
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Stephen Barclay, supported by the Prime Minister, Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Julian Smith and the Attorney General, presented a Bill to implement, and make other provision in connection with, the agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 7) with explanatory notes (Bill 7-EN).
Mr Speaker
Item one of the scheduled business is voided, in the light of the statement and ruling that I gave shortly after 3.30 pm, so that business does not take place today.
Business of the House
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I can see that the hon. Gentleman wishes to contribute to the exchanges on this matter. He does not have to do a salute.
Mr Leslie
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was clearing my throat at that particular moment. I am grateful to have caught your eye.
This may look like an innocuous motion from the Government, essentially suggesting that hon. Members, prior to Second Reading, should be allowed to table amendments for the Committee stage, but these are highly unusual circumstances and this motion relates to probably one of the most momentous pieces of legislation that has happened certainly in the last 50 years. It is of course preferable to give hon. Members as much time as possible to table amendments for the Committee stage and potentially for the Report stage, although there is normally an intervening period between the Committee stage and the Report stage.
For the benefit of the House, I want to highlight that, as far as I know, the programme motion for this Bill has not yet been published, although I have heard some quite frightening rumours about what the programme motion is likely to look like. One suggestion I have heard—I invite the Leader of the House to disabuse me of this—is that, as well as seeking Second Reading tomorrow, the Government also intend to commence the Committee stage and have a number of hours in Committee tomorrow.
Mr Speaker
Order. I very gently interrupt the hon. Gentleman to say that that information was divulged, and therefore this prospect was foreshadowed, in the business statement that the Leader of the House delivered earlier, so it is not something on which we need to dilate further.
Mr Leslie
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I may not have been in the Chamber at that moment in time, but I am still quite shocked at the idea of having the Second Reading take place and then moving straight on to the Committee stage on Tuesday—tomorrow. The reason this is relevant to this motion today is that the House is expecting Members to frame and draft amendments to a Bill that we have not yet had the opportunity to see. It has just this preceding moment received its First Reading. The time is now 7.41 pm, and we are expected to table amendments for a Committee stage that will take place tomorrow—I think on clauses 1 to 4 of the proposed Bill.
While this motion is, I think, absolutely the minimum required, it is worth reflecting on the appalling notion that this Bill is going to be rammed through in this way and in this particular fashion. I say this for a very good reason. Many hon. Members will remember—the Leader of the House is too young, possibly, to remember many of these things—that the practice when considering legislation that amends aspects of European treaties has quite a long pedigree. The House of Commons Library has rather helpfully produced a briefing paper about the parliamentary process of Bills in respect of EU treaties. We know that the Commons Committee stage on the treaty of Rome was not three days or two days, but 22 days; for the Maastricht treaty, 23 days; for the treaty of Lisbon, 11 days; for the treaty of Amsterdam, five days; for the Single European Act, four days; and for the smallest of them all, the treaty of Nice, three days. In total, there were five days of Commons consideration for the treaty of Nice reform.
This is an unprecedentedly short period of time to dedicate to a massive and momentous piece of legislation. Personally, I am very worried that the motion we are now debating is the first in a series of attempts by the Government to presage what is essentially the ramming through of a piece of legislation in what I regard as a disorderly way. Order in this place is a matter for you, Mr Speaker, but from my perspective, in terms of good law making, this has all the hallmarks of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and all those other bad pieces of legislation. We know that legislation that has not had a chance to be properly scrutinised tends to end up with ill effects or unforeseen consequences for our constituents.
At a quarter to eight in the evening, what are hon. Members really supposed to do? Presumably, by now, the Bill has been published and is hot off the press and available for us to scurry to the Vote Office and look at. Perhaps the Leader of the House—I have not had the opportunity to see it—can tell me how many pages there are in that legislation. He is asking in this motion for us to go and write amendments to that piece of legislation and table those this evening for them to be in order for a Committee stage that is taking place tomorrow. I do not know whether the Leader of the House can say on how many occasions a Bill of such magnitude and importance has had a Second Reading and Committee stage on the same day. Perhaps he can give me some examples, but I do not see that that was the case in any preceding piece of European Union legislation going back to the early 1970s, before I was even born. I am really worried about this motion being the first of many such motions. I think it is necessary as an absolute minimum, but everybody needs to be alert to the fact that it is not just an unfair way to treat the House of Commons, but quite a dangerous approach to take.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, but the Bill has just arrived at the Speaker’s Chair, and it is not as chubby as he might have feared.
Mr Leslie
I do not know what the hon. Gentleman’s definition of “chubby” is, but this is 110 pages of legislation, with at least six complex schedules to it. Let me see what the tally of clauses is within it: there are 40 clauses in this particular piece of legislation.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can cite to me what he understands clause 38 to be or perhaps the Leader of the House can tell me what he thinks clause 39 is, but I doubt that they can. The point I am rather facetiously making is that it is impossible for them to have digested it in that time. I am quite sure that they and other hon. Members—I can see hon. Members beyond the Bar doing so—are saying, “Oh, this is just remainers making these points. Of course they’re going to say that. That is just what they do. They should just shut up, take it on trust and ram the Bill through or nod it through. Everybody’s impatient, everybody’s frustrated. We are really tired. Let’s just do it.” But that is not good enough. Our constituents’ livelihoods and their jobs are at stake in what happens with this very significant piece of legislation.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
First, the hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point. Our constituents will be profoundly affected by this significant Bill, and to try to ram it through for political purposes is something that I know my constituents will not accept. Secondly—and I notice the remarks on the Benn Act—we rely on the Government usually having control of the Order Paper, but we were able to get control of the Order Paper for one day. Does he therefore agree with me that perhaps the opposition parties should get some more days to consider issues that we think we should be debating?
Mr Leslie
I really do not want to be either greedy or unreasonable. I just think we need to be fair and give due diligence to this piece of legislation. I am not saying we should have—what was it?—the 23 days in Committee on the Maastricht treaty. By the way, when I was very young, I watched its passage from the Gallery in this place many moons ago. I know many Conservative Members, some of whom are still in the House, who fought that Maastricht legislation tooth and nail, and they tabled amendment after amendment during the 23 days in Committee. However, I bet hon. Members anything that if they were told at nearly 8 pm on a Monday night that they had to table amendments for a Committee stage that would take place some time on the Tuesday, the next day, they would be absolutely up in arms—and quite right too.
There are a number of consequences that follow, and they are relevant to the motion we are discussing now. For example, will Clerks be available this evening, and to what hour, for hon. Members to ask advice about drafting amendments that have to be taken tomorrow? Will those amendments tabled tonight be starred, which essentially means that there is no guarantee of their relevance on the amendment paper? What is the procedure in respect of tabling amendments this evening and their being regarded as legitimate? If they are tabled tomorrow morning, even at 8 am, will those amendments be valid, and equally valid by the time we get to the afternoon? People watching these proceedings may say, “Oh well, this is all very technical—this is the wiring of the House.” These things matter, because important amendments may need to be tabled.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful case. Certain Government Members have suggested that the impasse that we seem to be in brings Parliament into disrepute and that public confidence in Parliament has been eroded. Constituents of mine who are watching this will say to me, “Jamie, you are kidding. You are putting this huge piece of legislation—something that could endanger our livelihoods—through in three days flat.” I would suggest that that damages the reputation of this Parliament. [Interruption.]
Mr Leslie
The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, and I can hear the impatience of Ministers of the Crown bubbling over—not perhaps the Leader of the House, who does not often bubble over in that way. We are all fed up with this process, but we should not sweep under the carpet concerns about the legislation simply because Ministers of the Crown are impatient. This is our job. We are employed to do it, and we were elected by our constituents in 2017, long after the referendum in 2016, to scrutinise this legislation. [Interruption.]
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a lot of noise. The hon. Gentleman is making some strong points, but does he agree that there are many people in the House, on different sides, who want a deal to go through, or do not want a deal to go through, or want to amend things in different ways. There are varied views on Brexit, and they want to be able to table amendments, including to early parts of the Bill, in a proper way. I imagine that some members of the European Research Group might be unhappy with the first few clauses, which continue to assert the supremacy of EU law over UK law for the transition period. Other Members, including Opposition Members, who would like to see a deal voted through, would want to propose sensible amendments to improve the Bill so that they feel able to vote for it. I do not understand why the process is being rushed in this way.
Mr Leslie
The hon. Gentleman is correct. I am surprised that a Minister of the Crown did not propose the motion at the Dispatch Box—it was going to be nodded through had I not cleared my throat to let the Speaker know that I was worried about it when the Question was put. Perhaps the Leader of the House will reply to the debate. [Interruption.] I am glad he says that he will.
The hon. Gentleman was correct, because those first few clauses, which I understand will be debated tomorrow afternoon, if the programme motion succeeds, have many ramifications about which hon. Members are concerned. I point generally in the direction of where ERG members normally sit or lounge in various forms on the Government Benches. They are not here, and I gently suggest to the Leader of the House that in such exceptional circumstances—[Interruption.] Certainly not the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)—I would not say that he would ever be a member of the ERG; absolutely not, I know his views well. I wonder whether the Leader of the House, given the circumstances surrounding the motion, has taken exceptional steps to alert all hon. Members, perhaps with an email this evening saying that the clauses are likely to be debated and they will need to table amendments tonight if they are not to be starred amendments. Has he gone to any lengths to alert hon. Members to these unusual and, in my view, dangerous circumstances?
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)
As I understand it, the hon. Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) obtained assurances from the Government that there would be a procedure whereby the House could consider properly, during the implementation period, the future trading relationship between us and the European Union. I do not know, but I have been told that it looks like that is not in the Bill. Have the two hon. Ladies been informed, because given the hour it is difficult to see how they could table amendments to deliver the promise that was made to them by the Government?
Mr Leslie
It is indeed very serious. In this modern era, people think, “Oh well, politicians make promises across the Chamber, and if they are ignored or not honoured, that is just the nature of political to-ing and fro-ing.” That is not good enough, and I know that in his heart, if the Leader of the House makes a commitment at the Dispatch Box to hon. Members that certain amendments will be considered and given credence by the Government, he will allow time for amendments to be tabled. I am not sure that the timetable proposed in the motion is fair for those hon. Members. All it will do is annoy them further and offend them, and it will not necessarily win their support for the legislation. I suspect that he is making a rod for his own back with the timetable.
Stephen Doughty
To give a practical illustration—it is important that Members in the Commons and the Lords understand what has happened this evening—I became aware of the situation only 20 or 30 minutes ago. I went to the Vote Office and asked to see the programme motion if it had been published. The Vote Office told me that it did not have a copy and that I could not see anything. It told me that I might be able to find one in the Table Office. Members have not even had a look at the timetable. The vast majority have no idea whether or not they can table amendments, but they need to do so in relation to these parts of the Bill.
Mr Leslie
That is an incredibly important point, and I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will want to reflect, in what appears to be not just an emergency procedure that the Government have invoked but a quite unprecedented one, on whether the programme motion details are available in the Vote Office. I am not sure whether that is the case.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I was almost going to make a point of order—in fact I realise that I am making a point that, I think, is a point of order. It might help hon. Members to know—and this is perfectly normal procedure every day— that until tomorrow’s Order Paper is published, it is available for any Member to see in the Table Office. If anyone wants to see what is on tomorrow’s Order Paper, they can go to the Table Office and discover that. Once it is published it will be available in the Vote Office. The hon. Gentleman is correct, technically, but the information is there if Members wish to see it.
Mr Leslie
I have been in the House for very many years, Madam Deputy Speaker—more, perhaps, than hon. Members and I care to remember, but I did not know that I would not be able to obtain from the Vote Office details of a programming arrangement tomorrow for the Committee stage of a Bill that has not yet had its Second Reading. Now that this has been aired, we are all supposed to toddle along to the Table Office to obtain them—that is another innovation of which I was not aware—and I shall certainly do so.
Stephen Gethins
There is concern among Opposition Members—this will not surprise the hon. Gentleman or others—that the Conservative party never quite got to grips with devolution. Does he agree that, given the short timescale, there is inadequate time for the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament to consider this in a proper fashion, as we should do through the devolution settlement?
Mr Leslie
I do not always agree with what happens in the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, but they certainly have a right to be consulted, and certainly when a Bill of this magnitude is being railroaded through. If it were a one or two-page Bill with a couple of clauses, the Leader of the House would have a case to make: it would be a simple issue, and hon. Members could be fully aware of its contents.
There was no reason why the Government had to wait until this evening to publish the Bill. I do not understand the notion that it had to be withheld. I went to the Vote Office earlier this evening and asked to see a copy of the Bill. I was told, “Oh no, not until First Reading.” The Government have published draft legislation online for many years, so there was an attempt to withhold details—deliberately, I suspect—from hon. Members until after 7.30 pm, to make it as difficult as possible for me and other hon. Members to take the time to look at the Bill, find its flaws, draft amendments, consult the Clerks and ask for their assistance with the legal framing of such amendments, perhaps consult colleagues to obtain signatures for the amendments—there are only a number of hours to do that—then table the amendments in time for the Committee stage tomorrow of a Bill that has not even had a Second Reading. It really is a ridiculous state of affairs.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I will point out, just before he moves on to his next point, that there has been an innovation, and he has probably been instrumental in bringing it about. I am happy to tell the House that, as of a few moments ago, tomorrow’s Order Paper is now available in the Vote Office. It is not quite ready to be published, but it is on paper and it contains a lot of information. Any Member can find it in the Vote Office. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the matter to the attention of the House.
Mr Leslie
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ordinarily, I would be humbled to have had a hand in such an innovation, but I am actually a little annoyed that we have reached this state of affairs. In the past I have tabled the occasional amendment to such pieces of legislation, but in this case it will be quite a challenge. I am now more determined to table my amendments this evening, in the hope that they will reach the Order Paper. I would therefore like to apologise to the Clerks in advance, because I am afraid that I will be pestering them later tonight, possibly at quite a late hour, because what other choice do we have in our democracy?
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I know how concerned the hon. Gentleman is about pestering the Clerks at a late hour, but he could make that hour somewhat less late if he wrapped up his contribution now and got on with drafting his amendments.
Mr Leslie
Well, the hon. Gentleman’s intervention has just added a minute to that process. That is always the way with Government Members; it is a case of, “Just shut up; sign on the dotted line; don’t criticise; everybody’s tired; don’t bother looking at this; take it all on trust.” That we have reached such a situation is perhaps a consequence of having opened the Brexit box in 2016. It need not be this way. There is false cause for the 31 October deadline that the Government are rushing towards, which is all about the promises that the Prime Minister has made in various political circumstances. We know that an extension request has been made, and we know that it is entirely feasible. There is no real reason to truncate proper scrutiny of this legislation.
I, for one, learned only today that article 271 of the deal that the Prime Minister has struck with the European Council contains proposals that will mean that goods being shipped across from Northern Ireland to Holyhead or Liverpool will need an exit summary declaration form to be shown in order for them to cross the Irish sea within the United Kingdom. I am staggered that we are seeing that level of fettering of the transmission of goods within the United Kingdom. I would like to table an amendment on the impact that will have on constituents in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Last Friday one of the supermarket giants told the agrifoods sector in Northern Ireland that it could no longer source all of its chicken product in Northern Ireland, because that was simply becoming too expensive as a result of the matters that the hon. Gentleman refers to. That means that the agrifoods sector in Northern Ireland will lose 80% of the chicken business with that supermarket giant. That is an example of what is happening, yet the Government are telling us that it will make no difference and that we will be okay. Well, we are not going to be okay.
Mr Leslie
The hon. Gentleman is completely correct. What makes it worse is that he and I might want to table an amendment—it would be to the early clauses of the Bill—seeking to mitigate the impact of that proposal, or indeed to remove it altogether, but potentially we will have to table it tonight for consideration tomorrow. How on earth are we legitimately supposed to do that? I know that we will have another debate on the programme motion tomorrow—I might seek to catch your eye on that occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker—but tonight we are debating a motion on whether the House should allow hon. Members to table amendments this evening, with the good grace of the Government, so that they can be considered tomorrow. I think that is the absolute minimum requirement, but this is a very bad business indeed.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for not being here for the start of his remarks—I was getting a copy of these two documents. How on earth am I supposed to digest 110 pages of a Bill and 122 pages of accompanying explanatory notes, before determining what my amendments might be and how to attach them to the right part of the Bill?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon, but I do not think that the hon. Lady was here for the start of these proceedings. Was she? Perhaps she had been here but then went out. That is fine, but we have to be a little careful about sticking to the normal rules. We are in an unsual situation, but we will observe the normal rules. If she was here, that is quite all right, but I thought that she was making a point that had already been made—of course, it would not be unusual for a point to me made more than once.
Mr Leslie
Of course my hon. Friend did explain her circumstances; she saw that we were debating an issue that she is concerned about. She quite rightly questions how on earth, logistically, she is supposed to read the Bill, draft her amendments, consult the Clerks, discuss the amendments with hon. Members who might want to sign them, and then table them before the close of business this evening. Other hon. Members watching these proceedings from their offices will also be thinking that this is the most important piece of legislation for decades, affecting their constituents, the manufacturing sectors and the service sectors, and with public services expecting revenues that will now not come in because the economy will be adversely affected. It affects so many people and all aspects of their lives. That includes businesses in Northern Ireland that did not realise that they would have to get an export summary declaration just to ship their goods across the Irish sea. Yet we are all supposed to table amendments for consideration in Committee tomorrow, on the same day as Second Reading. I am absolutely staggered that the Government have the brass neck to come to the House with that proposal.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had more time to debate these issues, it might be possible to clarify the cost to business of the forms that he has just mentioned, so that we get a better understanding? It could be a phenomenally large figure. We know that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has costed some of the changes under a no-deal exit at £15 billion, in relation to the customs forms that might need to be completed.
Mr Leslie
It is sometimes said from the Government Benches—perhaps not necessarily by the Leader of the House—that with a billion here and a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to quite a lot of money. The issue of an impact assessment has already been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and I have already tried to see whether there is a chance of having some level of analysis, which of course was disparaged by the Leader of the House. He said that in his entire career he has never seen a piece of analysis that he agreed with—I really think he treats the whole profession of researchers and analysts with great disdain.
It really is not on for the Government to expect hon. Members, under the terms of this motion, to have a fair and decent opportunity to frame amendments for consideration in Committee tomorrow. I appeal not just to the Leader of the House to reconsider, but to the Chair—to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—to protect the interests of Back Benchers on the practicalities of how we are supposed to frame amendments tonight and then seek the advice of the Table Office, the Clerks and others, because this is a totally unacceptable state of affairs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to respond to your helpful comments about the programme motion and the information now available in the Vote Office and the Table Office—thank you for that. In the past the Clerks have been incredibly helpful to me and to other Back Benchers who want to table amendments to such complex pieces of legislation. They have often emailed the programme motion to all Members of the House, along with the Bill and other documents. Given the late hour and the rush in which this is being done, it would be very helpful if the programme motion and the Bill could be emailed to all Members, and made available on the House of Commons apps, along with information on the availability of Clerks to help with amendments if this motion passes, so that we have fair play on a level playing field and everyone knows where they stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point, and I shall endeavour to find out what can be done to help hon. Members. I assure him and the House that whatever can be done will be done to expedite these processes and to make it easier for hon. Members to become conversant with exactly what will happen tomorrow and on subsequent days.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I rise to make a couple of observations on the debate so far on the business of the House raised by the Leader of the House. I am afraid that I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), with whom I have had many friendly exchanges over the past 10 years, because the vast majority of what will be discussed until midnight tomorrow, midnight on Wednesday and for as long as it takes on Thursday has been discussed in this House for three and a half years in huge detail. The idea that at this stage there is not enough time to come up with a reasoned amendment could be true only in one small and particular way, which I will come to. However, the bulk of the issues that we will discuss on Second Reading—money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland—have been discussed and laid out in vast detail for a very long time. To suggest otherwise is frankly disingenuous and close to showing disrespect for our constituents, who feel that this has been going on for a large slice of their lives.
There is one way in which the Bill that will be presented tomorrow has changed relatively recently, and that is therefore relevant. I daresay that my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will have similar views on this. The provisions of the Northern Ireland protocol have been significantly revised. There are some 100 pages to the Northern Ireland protocol in the original agreement and the changes that have been made affect only a relatively small number of pages. None the less, they have a considerable impact on those in the United Kingdom who either live in Northern Ireland or have significant business across the Irish sea.
I therefore seek the thoughts of the Leader of the House on how the House, and particularly those of us who represent the Conservative and Unionist party, can best be reassured about the impact of business trading arrangements between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, because I am quite sure that just as the Government’s clear intention is to ensure minimal change to the existing arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, they surely also intend to ensure that there is minimum change in the arrangements between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. If the Leader of the House can reassure us on those points and on how the Government will be able to provide further information for us all before tomorrow evening’s debate, that would be extremely welcome.
In other respects, much of what is in the documents that have been laid in the Vote Office will be extremely familiar to Members, and I am sure that we will cover them in more detail tomorrow evening.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)
I gently say to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) that his last remarks really are palpable nonsense, because the Prime Minister has told this House—in fact, he and all the other members and supporters of the Government have been very proud to tell us all this in no uncertain terms—that he has negotiated a new deal. It is not a little variation here or a change there, but a new deal. Sadly, I now find myself in a position where, even though in recent times, I do not agree with pretty much anything that our Prime Minister says, I absolutely agree with him on this: he has indeed negotiated a new deal. It is not good enough for Government Members to blithely trot out what are now becoming really offensive comments and lies, saying that anybody who has—[Interruption.] Let me finish. They say that anybody who has almost the audacity to say that we should look at things in the normal manner, especially something of such magnitude that will impact on our country, our children and grandchildren for generations to come, is trying to thwart the will of the people and do something profoundly wrong and undemocratic. It is simply not good enough.
I respectfully suggest that the simple truths are as follows. It is undoubtedly the case that the majority of people in this place share exactly the same views as all the people we represent. We are all fed up to the back teeth with Brexit. Some of us have been saying that for quite a while, but just because it has been three and a half long years—not helped by such things as calling a general election, which did not solve the impasse in this place but merely added to it—does not mean that we should all become frightfully impatient and rush towards the final post, especially given the huge change that has been made to our future relations with the European Union.
I read the Irish protocol not just once, but twice, and the second time that I read it I was even more disturbed than the first. Right hon. and hon. Members might remember that I stood up in this place last Thursday—days go into a blur, as you will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker—and said that on first reading, it represented two very important changes. One is that it removes the backstop not just for Northern Ireland, but for England, Wales and Scotland, so for England, Wales and Scotland that backstop, which was the bare-bones customs union, has now gone completely. In effect, in the absence of the free trade agreement, which will not be negotiated in the 10 months that, in reality, will be available to negotiate it, we will leave at the end of the so-called implementation/transition period without any deal. We will fall back on World Trade Organisation rules. I believe that the hon. Member for Gloucester does not want that—I have always believed that—but I say respectfully to him that he has to understand what has happened to the party that I used to be a member of. It has now swung over to the hard Brexiteers, and the European Research Group, with its determination to get that very hard, no-deal Brexit, is now running the show, so we absolutely face that very real prospect.
Richard Graham
As I am sure the right hon. Lady will agree—she has been the victim of this herself over the past few years—keeping a close control on language is really important. She says that I have been speaking “palpable nonsense”. I ask her gently to withdraw that, because the point that I made was that the only bit of the withdrawal agreement that has been renegotiated is the Northern Ireland protocol. That is fundamentally at the heart of what is being presented to us tomorrow and that is exactly what she defined herself.
As for the right hon. Lady’s comments about what I do or do not think about future trade arrangements and so on, I am very grateful to her for speaking on my behalf, but I can do the job myself—it is okay. As for our fellow colleagues on the ERG, what they think and what they are feeling, that is, again, entirely up to them and I am not acting as a spokesman for them either. What is under discussion this evening is simply the business of the House and how long we will have to debate the changes that have been made and the legislation that we are being asked to approve. I am in support of that and she is not; that is perfectly understandable.
Anna Soubry
Even I do not do interventions as long as that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just explained to the hon. Gentleman that this is not simply a change to the Northern Ireland protocol. [Interruption.] I will say it more gently: with respect, that is not the case. Yes, there is a change to the Northern Ireland protocol, but there are two other big changes. First, England, Scotland and Wales now find themselves without any customs union backstop. Secondly, in relation to our future relationship with the European Union, there were provisions in the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement that would have ensured as close a relationship with the EU in the future as possible, but those have been taken out. That is precisely the sort of amendment that hon. Members may want to make to the Bill, to put those things back into the agreement.
I will conclude by turning again to Northern Ireland. Nobody, especially a Conservative and Unionist, should be under any doubt about the profound changes that this deals makes to our United Kingdom. It does not just set up a border in the Irish sea; we have heard one example of the sort of regulatory changes and consequences it will have for businesses in Northern Ireland and those in the rest of the United Kingdom taking in their goods, and from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) we heard of the real-life consequences for businesses and people in Northern Ireland.
Over the past three and a half years, I have had some connection with various people in Northern Ireland. Some of us have done radio and television programmes in that time—I did one such programme today—and I have had other experiences and people contacting me. There is real anger in Northern Ireland, and not just from the Unionist community; it is found right across Northern Ireland from people who now see that they are to be treated entirely differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. That cannot be right, and not only is it not right for Northern Ireland; the consequences in Scotland—here I fall out with my friends in the Scottish National party—will undoubtedly be profound, because their cause, which they champion so ably if not always successfully, will be enhanced. It is important therefore that amendments to the Bill, which has profound consequences for our Union, be made properly.
Stephen Gethins
Come the next independence referendum, the right hon. Lady, who I respect, and I will be on different sides, but I want to make it clear that throughout this process the SNP has worked constructively with colleagues across the House. I do not want to see our friends and neighbours south of the border subjected to the disastrous jobs-destroying kind of Brexit we both oppose. I want to reassure her that we will continue to work with her even if the end points for us both might be slightly different.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Far be it from me to try to do your job, but I thought we were debating the business of the House motion. We seem to be rehearsing a debate that we are likely to have all over again tomorrow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He makes a very reasonable point. I have been listening very carefully to the right hon. Lady. She is straying towards being out of order, but as yet she is not out of order. I take the position that she is addressing the need for the Bill to be done unusually quickly and so I have allowed her to deal with those issues. That said, I am quite sure that she will not stray further than she ought to.
Anna Soubry
North East Fife—very pleasant place. He made exactly the point. He and his party may well want to table amendments to this important Bill, but we know what is happening and the constraints that have been placed on the tabling of those amendments and on the debate.
Jamie Stone
I would like to make two points. First, as Members have heard me say before, my wife is from Northern Ireland, and I completely endorse the point about the concern in the Six Counties about the speed with which the Bill is to proceed. Secondly, as the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) said, the consultation with Holyrood and the Welsh Assembly has not been at all in the spirit of devolution, which is most regrettable, to say the least. That is because the Bill is being rammed through at an unholy gallop.
Anna Soubry
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman and endorse everything he says.
Finally, I must put this on the record yet again. I am sick and tired of people in this place claiming that people who share my views about the need for a people’s vote never vote for anything. It is a fact—history will record it—that there was a time before the general election in June 2017 when a consensus existed in this place to deliver on the referendum in the least harmful way to trade and prosperity. The SNP, Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru and several Independent Members would have voted for the single market and the customs union—and on many occasions we did. It may not be some hon. Members’ version of Brexit, but the consensus was there. We could have done it years ago, but unfortunately a Conservative Government wrongly took a different view by setting down red lines and did not form a consensus. If we have the time to consider and amend the Bill properly, who knows—we could yet find that consensus.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I am conscious of what you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, about sticking to the terms of the debate and the motion in my name.
I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) for his characteristically civilised approach to the debate—he always ensures that the temper of the House is kept relatively cool—and for the important points he made, but the motion is very narrow and is merely a facilitation for the House. It is not really about what happens tomorrow, when there will be an opportunity on Second Reading, as is now customary, to debate the programme motion, if that is what people want. It merely relates to amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill.
As I said in my business statement earlier, the public expect us to do what is necessary to pass the Bill so that we can leave with a deal on 31 October. That is the reason for the urgency.
Stephen Gethins
Perhaps the Leader of the House can reassure me on the point we raised about the devolved Administrations. I do not think this Conservative Government take the devolved Administrations into account. How will they be involved, will the legislative consent motion be granted, and what did he make of the joint letter from the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales that was delivered to the Prime Minister today?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government always take the concerns of the devolved Administrations very seriously. Leaving the European Union is primarily a reserved matter—it is a matter for the United Kingdom Government —but that is no reason not to have constructive and continuous engagement with the devolved Administrations.
The Government tabled a programme motion today. You said that it was available in the Vote Office, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I wonder whether it might be useful to Members who have not had a chance to go to the Table Office if I were to run through the timetable briefly, for the sake of Hansard. You nod most elegantly, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I take that as an encouragement to carry on.
The Second Reading debate will be a normal Second Reading debate, and will continue until 7 pm tomorrow. The programme motion proposes three hours of debate after its commencement in the first stage of the Committee procedure. On the second day, there will be 12 hours of sitting divided into four sections of three hours, with a three-hour section specifically reserved—the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) may be pleased about this—for motions relating to a second referendum. Members who are concerned about that issue will therefore have an opportunity to debate it. On Thursday, there will be eight hours for proceedings on consideration up to and including Third Reading: six hours on the Report stage, and two hours on Third Reading.
Mr Leslie
I am not entirely sure how a programme motion could necessarily relate to amendments that have not yet been tabled, but will the Leader of the House please clarify which parts of the Bill he intends to be covered in the Committee stage tomorrow?
While I have the Floor, may I ask another question? The position of Leader of the House covers some of the role of safeguarding the interests of Members, although I know that that is primarily the role of the Chair. May I ask what facilities will be available this evening to assist Members with the drafting of amendments for a Committee stage that will begin tomorrow?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Tomorrow’s proceedings in Committee will be on clauses 1 to 4, new clauses relating to part 1, and new schedules relating to part 1. Further details are, of course, available on the printed paper.
Luciana Berger
I am grateful to the Leader of the House. I ask this question for the record and for the benefit of people outside this place, and also, in fact, so that I myself can fully understand the position. If Members wish to submit amendments to part 1, what will be the last moment at which they are able to do so?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The last moment for submitting amendments will be the point of Second Reading. It will, of course, be at the discretion of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I should be very surprised if manuscript amendments were refused tomorrow. There will be time for amendments to be submitted right up until the completion of the Second Reading debate.
It is in the nature of the House not to assume anything, and the tabling of amendments is therefore always possible at a late stage if proceedings are taken in close proximity. That will be the position tomorrow, although obviously it is the Chairman of Ways and Means who determines what amendments are taken in Committee. It would be wrong for me to give an authoritative answer, but I hope that that is helpful general guidance on how things tend to work.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Tomorrow there will be a full service. The tabling of amendments tomorrow will prove acceptable, inevitably. Tonight a Clerk is sitting here working hard, as always. Clerks do work very long hours, and are very assiduous—we mentioned that earlier today, when we thanked the staff of the House for the work that they had done on Saturday—and I think I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that they will not work any less hard tonight.
This motion has one very simple purpose: to suspend the normal rule that amendments may be tabled by Members only once Second Reading has been achieved. We have tabled it simply for the convenience of Members, to make it easier for them to consider and then table any amendments. My intention today is purely to assist those who wish to table amendments, and I therefore encourage all Members to support the motion.
I apologise to those who have raised specific points in relation to the debate tomorrow. I will not respond to those points tonight, because that is not what this debate is about. I am sure that if they raise them on Second Reading they will receive full answers from those who participate in that debate, but if they feel that they have not received such answers, I will write to the Ministers concerned to ensure that they do receive them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, in respect of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
Business without Debate
Further Education: St Austell
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a joy for me to be able to bring this debate before the House this evening. I want to raise an issue that is very important to residents of St Austell: the future of further education provision in the town.
St Austell is the town where I was born and grew up. It is where I have lived and worked my whole life; I have raised my own family there and indeed was educated there. It is a town of contrasts, and it is a town with much potential.
It has an illustrious history, having been a bit of a boomtown, particularly as the heart of the Cornish china clay industry at its peak, when it was the beating powerhouse of industry in mid-Cornwall. It was an international exporter; it exported Cornish wares and, indeed, Cornish men and women around the world.
Nowadays the china clay, although still very important, does not perhaps have the impact it used to have, but we are still famous for the international attraction of the Eden Project and also as a bit of a film set. For those who watch “Poldark”, the port scenes are shot in Charlestown, the port nearest St Austell. We are quite used to seeing Ross Poldark around our area.
As well as exporting Cornish goods, St Austell and its hinterland now import hundreds of thousands of tourists every year—people who come to see our stunning bay and our beaches and our picturesque ports, and also to sample some of the amazing food and drink we now produce. We have lots to be proud of, and I am sure there is a bright future for St Austell and for Cornwall as a whole, thanks to the historic levels of investment that the Government are putting in. But along with the positives there are also a number of challenges. There are several wards in St Austell that are among the most deprived in the UK.
St Austell is a populous town for Cornwall; it has the biggest population of any town in Cornwall, and one thing that it has had throughout its history is a rich education provision. It has two very good secondary schools, and I think I am right in saying that one of them is the only state comprehensive school that currently has two former pupils as sitting Members of this House: Poltair school in St Austell is where I and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) were educated, and we are very proud of that.
Previously St Austell also had two colleges. It had a sixth-form college that served both the secondary schools and also the Mid Cornwall College of Further Education, where I studied for a diploma in business studies way back in the 1980s. Throughout that time it had further education provision that was easily accessible and on the doorstep for those who lived there and wanted to further their education in either of those colleges. Many people, like me, remember those days very fondly.
However, in recent years the two colleges—the sixth-form college and the FE college—merged into one college under the oversight of Cornwall College, having its campus in St Austell, fittingly in the building that was formerly the headquarters of English China Clays; that is one of many Cornwall College campuses across Cornwall.
It is true to say that Cornwall College has faced a number of fairly substantial challenges in recent years, largely through poor leadership and financial mismanagement. Its 2017 post-16 area review report highlighted the fact that it was not financially viable or resilient and that it had weak solvency, but recommended that it should remain a stand-alone college. I am grateful that, as a result of that review, the Government invested £30 million of Government funding in the college to restructure its finances and put it on a more secure footing. In return for receiving that funding, Cornwall College has committed to significantly changing its operating model, a process known as Fresh Start. A modern and secure IT system infrastructure will also be implemented, and there will be investment in exceptional training and learning experiences for students and for businesses.
I am afraid that some of Cornwall College’s challenges still persist, however, and some are the result of a new college, Callywith College, opening in Bodmin just a few years ago. That college is run by the Truro and Penwith College Group, and its opening has led to Cornwall College in St Austell haemorrhaging A-level students to the Bodmin campus. We were told that the reason for Callywith opening was that it would expand the choice of provision across Cornwall. At the time, I had grave reservations about the impact that the new college would have on the Cornwall College campus in St Austell and, sadly, my concerns have proved to be well founded.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I spoke to him beforehand in relation to this. Does he recall the 2012 report of the Commission for Rural Communities, which showed the existence of a rural dimension to barriers to training, careers advice and youth services? As the representative of a market town constituency like my own, does he agree that it is essential that these barriers are broken down?
Steve Double
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening—I would have been disappointed if he had not intervened on me in the Adjournment debate this evening—and he makes a good point. I must admit I am not familiar with the report that he refers to, but I agree that there are a number of barriers to young people in many of our rural market towns getting the training opportunities, education opportunities and further education opportunities that they need in order to fulfil their potential. That is precisely the point I am making tonight. I am seeking to ensure that we protect the opportunities that we currently have in the town of St Austell and, hopefully, improve them.
As I was saying, the opening of the new Callywith college campus has had a detrimental impact on Cornwall College in St Austell. We will not improve choice for students if the opening of a new college results in the college in their own town stopping the provision of A-level courses, which is precisely what happened earlier this year. In August, the day before the GCSE results were released, Cornwall College in St Austell announced that it would no longer be providing A-level courses for new starters. This was due to the falling numbers of students enrolling on the courses.
Apart from the way in which the communication of that decision was handled—being announced at a time when students were anxious enough about getting their GCSE results without having this issue dropped in their lap—the decision has left in doubt the future of long-term provision of A-level courses in St Austell. It cannot be acceptable that the town with the largest population in Cornwall does not have A-level provision locally. At a time when we are encouraging our young people to stay in further education until they are 18, this decision is unhelpful in trying to achieve that end. Moreover, many of the most deprived wards that I referred to earlier are within easy walking distance of the St Austell campus, and those students and their families will now face the challenge of having to pay hundreds of pounds a term, in some cases, for transport to get to either Bodmin or Truro. Additionally, many potential students may be put off doing A-levels if they face a commute of perhaps an hour at the beginning and end of each day. The loss of the A-level courses will be detrimental to social mobility for the young people of St Austell.
I joined colleagues across the House to welcome the Government’s recent announcement of an additional £14 billion for the education system. Many schools across Cornwall will benefit from that additional funding, which will go some way to closing the historical funding gap that schools in Cornwall have faced. I particularly noted the £400 million that will enhance and protect further education provision. It is clear that St Austell’s current and future young people need A-level provision locally in order to fulfil their potential. It is crucial for social mobility that our young people are able to achieve their aspirations and have access to A-level courses.
The provision of further education across Cornwall needs to be reviewed and looked at strategically. Part of that review needs to include a determination to maintain as wide a provision as possible in the town of St Austell. Truro and Penwith College is seeking to expand its provision in Bodmin and to change the status of Callywith College into a free school to enable that expansion. That would mean more than £30 million of DFE free-school investment being handed over to the further education sector. Will the Minister look carefully at the proposals before agreeing to anything and consider the wider impact of any further expansion of Callywith College in Bodmin on the provision of further education by Cornwall College? Having invested tens of millions of pounds in both Cornwall College and Truro and Penwith College, we must carefully consider the best way forward to ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money from that investment.
John Evans is the new principal of Cornwall College. He took up post at the start of last month, and I have spoken to him at length. He needs to be given the opportunity to improve Cornwall College’s performance without the threat of aggressive expansion by another college some 12 miles up the road. If the Minister shares my concerns, we must maintain as broad a further education provision as possible in the town for the sake of social mobility and the future aspirations of St Austell’s young people. Before any decisions are made that will change Callywith College’s status and allow it to expand, will she ensure that the wider impact on further education in mid-Cornwall is carefully considered?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Michelle Donelan)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing today’s debate. He is an excellent champion for his constituency and never misses an opportunity to stand up for his constituents.
I begin by emphasising and reassuring the House that further education provision is at the heart of the Government’s plans. We have heard much today about how Cornwall College has removed A-level provision from the St Austell campus, how learners have been affected, and how students in the area need access to good-quality post-16 provision, and we take such matters seriously. The Government have a duty to protect the interests of students, which we always prioritise. However, it must be noted that decisions about the provision that a college delivers are for the college to make. Unfortunately, I may disappoint my hon. Friend a little this evening, but I will try to be as honest and frank with him as possible to help his constituents.
I appreciate that the decision will have been of concern to students who had already applied to the college. We cannot escape the clear fact, though, that A-level provision had been diminishing over time at the campus to around 100 learners over the two years of study. When we consider that the generally accepted minimum is that 200 learners are needed to ensure financial viability and quality within a school sixth form, the difference is stark. Quality must always be prioritised, as learners must continue to come first. It is also worth noting that the college had been offering around 13 A-levels, so with most providers offering in excess of 20 and the best providers offering up to 40, the choice being offered was somewhat limited. I am sure my hon. Friend wants his young constituents to have the choice they deserve in order to broaden their opportunities.
In addition, work at Cornwall College had shown that its A-level provision was making a loss, and a stocktake by the Further Education Commissioner questioned the quality of the learner experience with such low numbers. When the college took the decision to stop its A-level provision, it worked with other providers in the area to ensure that all applicants had a suitable destination to study. To be clear, no current student will suffer. The college will remain committed to ensuring that current learners can complete their second year of A-levels.
With the closure of A-levels at St Austell, potential learners will be faced with two options: alternative courses at St Austell, or A-levels at an alternative college or school. I appreciate that this will disappoint my hon. Friend, who is passionate about St Austell and the need for it to have its own A-level provision. Having looked into the local provision, I can see there is a wealth of post-16 provision in the area.
One example is Callywith College. Although the college has not yet been inspected, it has been open since 2017 and is supported by Truro and Penwith College, which has a long track record of being outstanding. Callywith College is now in scope for inspection, and results to date suggest strong outcomes compared with national benchmarks, which is extremely encouraging.
Callywith College, a 16-to-19 free school, is 15.6 miles from St Austell and offers 29 A-levels, substantially more than the current provision. The college is a 25-minute drive away, and a bus service from St Austell and surrounding areas has been arranged, with the journey taking about 35 minutes.
Another option is Bodmin College, an 11-to-18 academy that is 13 miles and about a 20-minute drive from the St Austell campus. It offers 20 A-levels, and the journey on public transport will take a little over an hour.
The Truro campus is 25.5 miles and a 45-minute drive away, and it delivers more than 39 different A-levels. It is rated outstanding, so students already travel considerable distances to go there, although I appreciate that the journey on public transport would be over an hour.
I have heard my hon. Friend’s concern about transport costs, but the Cornwall post-16 transport policy confirms support for all students with a journey in excess of three miles, so all those affected will qualify. The transport is subsidised at around 75%, with the individual paying the first £500, although providers have access to bursary funding that can offset all of that £500.
We must consider provision other than A-levels, and Cornwall College continues to provide a broad offer across its two general sites, with 40 courses available from foundation learning right up to level 3. Those courses cover a broad range from bricklaying to media, engineering and hospitality, giving students a broad choice.
The outcome of a Further Education Commissioner review of FE provision in Cornwall last summer was that Cornwall College had to work with Truro and Penwith College to consider how they would work together for the mutual interests of Cornwall learners.
I reiterate that choice and quality must always be at the core of our decision making, and they must remain our priorities because learners must always be at the heart of all decisions and provision. Although the college’s decision was disappointing for the college and for learners in the area, it needs to be considered against a backdrop that it had been struggling financially for some time and was unable to rectify the situation. Since May 2017, it has been operating through a Fresh Start process, following the assessment of its financial health as inadequate in April 2016 and the recommendations from the area-based review in April 2017. Since July 2017, the Further Education Commissioner has engaged in formal intervention, with an initial stocktake completed in October 2017. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the college has applied for support through the Department’s restructuring facility, and successfully secured in excess of £30 million. That cannot be used to support unviable provision; it is there to support the college to restructure and maintain sustainable provision.
The college has also been inspected by Ofsted, with the last inspection having taken place in May 2019, when the outcome was “requires improvement”. That is not the type of provision that students in my hon. Friend’s constituency will be getting at the other options. The self-analysis undertaken through Fresh Start, the Further Education Commissioner stocktake and the Ofsted review has required the college to undertake a fundamental review of its provision and estates, and make some difficult decisions in order to achieve long-term stability. Unfortunately, the decision before us today is one of those. The college’s progress to sustainability has proved long and complex, and will take significant time to achieve. I can assure my hon. Friend and his constituents that we are carefully monitoring the situation. The Further Education Commissioner’s team is present at the monthly Fresh Start meetings and has undertaken two stocktakes over a period of five months, making 14 recommendations.
Nobody wants to see a college fail or struggle financially. It is in everyone’s interest that the FE sector is on a stable footing and able to offer high-quality provision that delivers on our transformational policies such as T-levels, apprenticeships and better basic skills. Further education is at the heart of this Government’s plans to improve productivity, fill the skills gaps and equip people with the skills that both they and the country need. So I know my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that we are now actively considering the efficiency and resilience of the FE sector, and will be assessing how well current funding and regulatory structures support world-class provision. That is part of the Dame Mary Ney independent review.
It is also important to note that we are committed to ensuring that post-16 providers, including FE colleges, can deliver high-quality training. To that end, last month we announced significant increases in funding: overall 16-to-19 funding will receive an increase of £400 million in 2020-21 alone, which is an increase of 7% and the biggest year-on-year increase since 2010, with funding increasing faster for 16-to-19 than in five-to-16 schooling. That is on top of the additional £500 million per year we are making available for T-levels, and this additional funding will ensure that we are building the skills that our country needs for us to thrive in the future.
I have noted my hon. Friend’s concerns in relation to free school status and the potential change. My colleague Lord Agnew, the Minister responsible for the school estate, will be looking at that, and I am happy to facilitate a meeting between them and also a further meeting with me if that is of use.
In conclusion, I wish to thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the House. I know that the removal of A-level provision from the St Austell campus will be disappointing to students who wanted to go there and to those who have studied there before and have a personal reminiscence of that. However, we can be reassured that we always prioritise quality and choice, so that all learners in the St Austell and surrounding areas will continue to have a wide range of high-quality post-16 options from which to choose. Those, taken together with our skills and technical education polices, will ensure that people of all ages in St Austell have the opportunity to get the education, training and skills they need and deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Gas Tariffs Code (Amendment) (EU Exit) regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Gas Tariffs Code (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 10 July this year. As Members will know, a significant part of the legislation that governs our energy markets is derived from EU law. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will have the effect of making such legislation retained EU law, and as we approach EU exit my Department is determined to ensure that that energy legislation continues to be operable in the event of a no-deal exit.
The extension of the article 50 period to 31 October means that additional EU law that is now applicable will be retained EU law on exit day, and the draft regulations deal with precisely that issue. Chapters II, III and IV of the network code on harmonised transmission tariff structures for gas, known as TAR, applied across the UK and the EU from 31 May 2019. The tariffs regime therefore needs to be amended to correct deficiencies in what will be retained EU law, such as where there are functions in relation to EU entities that will no longer have a role in our affairs, and EU references that are no longer appropriate. A clear example of that is replacing references to member states with reference specifically to the UK. We are amending the Gas (Security of Supply and Network Codes) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to address that very issue. That supports our aim to retain regulatory functions and frameworks if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, by keeping Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s gas markets working effectively and providing continuity for UK industry and consumers.
The TAR network code covers the ways in which transmission system operators collect revenues associated with the provision of services at entry and exit points via capacity and commodity-based transmission tariffs and non-transmission tariffs. By retaining those technical specifications we will maximise business continuity for market participants and cross-border gas trading. The modifications are straightforward and ensure that on exit day TAR will operate effectively, maintaining regulatory certainty in its entirety.
The draft regulations are an appropriate use of the powers set out in the 2018 Act. They will maximise continuity in our energy regulation and, crucially, ensure business continuity for operators in the UK market. They will facilitate continued international trade in gas and protect the security of affordable cheap gas supply for UK consumers as we leave the EU. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. As the Minister set out, the changes being made regarding the applicability of the TAR regulations to the UK are very straightforward: they bring the nomenclature in the regulations into line with UK purposes, rather than the intent of the regulations, which was to include the UK within a wider EU context. The suggested changes are therefore straightforward and pretty uncontroversial. However, I will put one or two points to the Minister for clarification, which I hope will help our deliberations.
I start by asking about the relationship of this statutory instrument to one made earlier this year, the Gas (Security of Supply and Network Codes) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which set out what at that point was thought to be the entirety of the elements of the TAR regulations that it was necessary to incorporate into UK law, instead of retained EU law, at the original time of exit from the EU. That SI incorporated into UK law chapters VI and VIII of the TAR regulations, which had come into force in October 2017 following the passing of the regulation. It was not thought necessary to incorporate chapters II, III and IV into UK legislation, because they were not, at that time, coming into force until after the EU exit date. Because EU exit day has been pushed on somewhat, it becomes necessary to incorporate those chapters into UK law. That is essentially what this SI does.
When the original SI was introduced, we were told that it was the intention of the Government to pass legislation to deal with what would have been the effect of chapters II, III and IV on a separate occasion after EU exit. I therefore assume that what we see before us is what the Government would have done had Brexit taken place when it was originally going to take place, and that no more legislation relating to the TAR regulations will forthcoming after the SI before us today. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case? If it is, we potentially have a landscape for the applicability of the TAR regulations overall to the future arrangements for UK gas supply.
Assuming that that is the case, what appears to happen concerning the applicability of chapters II, III and IV is quite interesting. Not everything in the TAR regulations is identical. The first SI dealt mainly with the solidarity—the extent to which EU member states would be obliged to supply each other with gas during conditions of difficulty affecting one or more member states. It was indicated at that point that those solidarity conditions would not apply post Brexit. However, chapters II, III and IV do not deal with that; instead, among other things, they deal with the alignment of tariff regulations and the permanent agreements on reserve prices and tariffs between those who trade with each other within the EU and, in this case, an external state and the EU. As the Minister will of course be aware, that is done mainly, but not exclusively, through interconnectors, which implies that we will now have a permanent arrangement of tariff solidarity between the UK and the EU. Personally, I think that is a good idea, but I am not sure that that sits entirely squarely with what has been said previously about the future regime for tariffs. In principle, it appears that, by accepting the TAR regime now in its entirety, that is what we have done. Is that the Minister’s understanding, or does he think there is a different interpretation possible of the acceptance of those TAR regulations?
My final point is about a rather odd addendum to the draft SI, which is the statements that are required to be made relating to an instrument’s compliance with the EU withdrawal Act—in particular, its compliance with admissibility, the assurance that the legislation does not go beyond what is appropriate, and equalities legislation. Those statements are all signed by the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), presumably in his role as the stand-in Minister for the then Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), when she was taking a leave of absence from her duties. Of course, the right hon. Member for Kingswood is no longer the Minister, stand-in or otherwise, for Energy and Clean Growth. Indeed, the Minister here today occupies that post.
What is stated in the EU withdrawal Act 2018 is that all such statements have to be signed and signed off by “the relevant Minister”. It may be the case that there is covering legislation that states that whenever a Minister signs these documents or statements, the assurance is good for any subsequent Minister, but I would have thought that the right thing to have done on this occasion and for this SI would have been for the present Minister to sign off those statements, so that we would be completely clear that the relevant Minister had signed them, in accordance with the EU withdrawal Act. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that.
Kwasi Kwarteng
On the first question, I think the hon. Member for Southampton, Test was trying to get me to say that we will somehow be locked in forever, but the point of this legislation is to ensure that retained EU law is not affected in the event of no deal. I know about this sort of thing, because I an Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Exiting the European Union in charge of the withdrawal Bill. The principle behind that was that we did not want any discontinuity, or as little as possible, between 31 October—or 29 March as was—and the following day. That principle, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, is enshrined in this SI. He is quite right to say that the reason chapters II, III and IV were not covered by the original SI is that they have only been in operation since 31 May, so that is quite in order.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, it is a principle of the UK Government that if a Minister signs in his capacity as Minister, which is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood did, and he is the relevant Minister at the time of the signing, it does not invalidate that if he is then moved on. In fact, he has not really been moved on; he is still a Minister in the Department. At the time of signing, he was technically not the relevant Minister anyway because, as the hon. Gentleman says, the relevant Minister was taking a leave of absence, but he was standing in for her and signed the requisite documents. As I understand it, that does not make any difference.
Dr Whitehead
I would be grateful for an indication that the Government do not intend to introduce any further legislation relating to the TAR regulations as they now stand, as was implied in the original statutory instrument, which I think has been superseded by the present one.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The Government have no intention to review or change the tariff regime. Obviously, once we have left the EU, future Governments may decide to review that, but the present Government have no intention to change anything in regard to gas tariffs.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and congratulate you on becoming a grandad for the first time? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
The regulations, which were laid before the House on 11 July, will disapply directly effective rights of establishment and the provision of services derived from article 49, on freedom of establishment, article 56, on free movement of services, and article 57, the definition of “services”, of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—TFEU—if the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement. Certain directly effective rights, derived from article 18 of the TFEU, prohibit discrimination on grounds of nationality within the scope of application of the EU treaties. For completeness, the regulations therefore also disapply article 18 of the TFEU in so far as it relates to the disapplication of rights of establishment and provision of services.
The regulations also disapply equivalent or similar articles derived from the European Economic Area agreement between the EEA countries, the free movement of persons agreement with Switzerland, and the Ankara agreement and the additional protocol with Turkey. Henceforth those will be referred to as countries with associated agreements.
Directly effective rights of establishment and free movement of services ensure that nationals from EU member state territories can be self-employed, own and manage a company and provide services on a temporary basis in another member state under the same conditions as that state’s own nationals, and that they can receive services without facing certain restrictions in the EU single market. Rights derived from the TFEU are based on reciprocal relationships between EU member state territories; and rights derived from EU bilateral and multilateral agreements are based on reciprocal relationships between EU member state territories and certain non-EU territories.
The rights are retained in UK domestic law on exit day by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Government have decided to disapply the rights as part of their preparations for Brexit on 31 October. The decision was taken for three primary reasons. First, the rights will no longer be reciprocated. The rights apply only to nationals of one EU member state or country with an associated agreement operating in the territory of any other EU member state or country with an associated agreement. As a result, once the UK ceases to be a member state of the EU, the rights will automatically no longer be reciprocated.
The second reason is sovereignty. Given that the rights will no longer be reciprocated, failing to disapply the rights in UK law would leave a lack of clarity as to whether EU nationals and nationals of countries with associated agreements had additional rights, compared with nationals of other countries, to challenge the laws and decisions of UK authorities after Brexit. In turn, that could restrict the Government’s future ability to regulate, particularly when UK nationals will no longer have the benefit of these rights in the EU.
The third reason is compliance with international law. Disapplying the rights will facilitate the UK’s compliance with international trade law and specifically the World Trade Organisation’s general agreement on trade in services—GATS—ensuring that the UK is not in violation of the most favoured nation principle.
I want to move on to impact. The Government were keen to ensure that the regulations received proper scrutiny before being brought before the House. I can confirm that the Government sought and received the consent of the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales to legislate on this matter, as the treaty rights being disapplied could, in a domestic context, impact on both reserved and devolved policy. This included agreement from the Scottish Parliament’s Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee. The Government also notified the Northern Ireland civil service of our intention to legislate.
In addition, the Government engaged fully with the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Committee considered the regulations at its meeting on 4 September and chose not to report them to either House. The instrument was also considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 23 July, and it drew the instrument to the special attention of the House on the grounds that it gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate that I have not been selected as a member of the Committee, but I understand that I have the right to speak and ask questions on behalf of my constituents. The Minister is obviously getting his defence of this highly controversial measure in early. Does he not accept that it has caused great alarm to many self-employed EU citizens who have been operating legitimate and important businesses in our communities up and down the country? I was contacted by a constituent today who was simply unaware of this and is deeply alarmed.
Nadhim Zahawi
That is precisely why I am going into some detail on why the regulations will have no impact at all on the work or services provided by EU nationals or nationals of Turkey or Switzerland.
Let me make some more headway on the reasoning given by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. For example, the Committee noted that the instrument seeks to ensure that the UK is compliant with WTO law and that it will make it an offence to dishonestly use illicit satellite decoder cards from the EU. I will attempt to address both of those points momentarily. However, I want to reassure the House on a number of aspects of the regulations: the practical impact that we expect from the disapplication of these rights; the interaction between these rights and EU citizens’ rights, which I think was essentially the thrust of the concern of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth on behalf of his constituents; and the impact of the disapplication of these rights on the immigration regime.
First, with respect to the practical impact of the regulations, they do not impose any additional restrictions on EU nationals or EU-based businesses, or on the nationals and businesses of the countries with associated agreements, at the point at which we exit the EU. This is because existing UK legislation is expected to be compliant with these rights. The Government have prepared as thoroughly as possible to identify policy areas that are reliant on the establishment and free movement of services treaty rights, and therefore have a good understanding of where direct policy impacts can be expected as a result of disapplying these rights today. With the exception of an impact on the use of satellite decoder devices, no direct policy impacts were identified during that preparation. The regulations will impact on the use in the UK of satellite decoder devices intended for EU audiences in order to dishonestly receive a programme with the intent of avoiding a charge. This is as a result of aligning the law with that already applied for satellite decoder devices intended for non-EU audiences.
Secondly, on citizens’ rights, the rights disapplied by the regulations should not be confused with the citizens’ rights of EU citizens currently resident in the UK, which are being protected separately. The UK’s guarantee to EU citizens is that those who are resident in the UK by exit day will still be able to work, study and access benefits and services, whatever the scenario. This is separate to, unrelated to and unaffected by these regulations.
Thirdly, with regard to immigration, these regulations will not in themselves have any impact on the immigration regime applying to EEA, Turkish and Swiss nationals in the UK. The Government have announced that free movement as it stands under EU law will end on 31 October if we leave the EU without a deal. A new points-based immigration system will be introduced from January 2021. Until then, much of the free movement migration framework will remain until the UK Parliament passes legislation to repeal the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.
The regulations that we are considering today carve out the rights in so far as they fall within the scope of the immigration regime applied to Swiss nationals and Turkish nationals. This is to ensure that changes to the immigration regime applied to Swiss nationals and Turkish nationals come into force via primary immigration legislation. These regulations are an important part of the Government’s preparation for Brexit. They facilitate the UK’s compliance with international trade law and they preserve the UK’s freedom to regulate, should this Government or a future Government choose to do so—after we have left the EU, of course.
I commend the regulations to the House.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is an even greater pleasure than usual, Mr Hanson, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate you on becoming a grandad for the first time and I hope we will not detain you for too long from visiting your new grandchild, which I know you are keen to do—but I apologise that I will detain you for a little while.
Before we consider these regulations, we should consider the comments of the3million, the organisation representing the more than 3 million EU and EEA citizens resident in the United Kingdom. The organisation has described this measure as not being what was promised by the Government and says that it undermines promises made by the Government, which, of course, is something that the Democratic Unionist party has been only too familiar with in recent days.
What is it that we are considering today? We are considering the removal of the rights of EU, EEA, Swiss and Turkish nationals who are self-employed or business owners or operators in the United Kingdom. Who are these people and how will they be affected? They are thousands—potentially hundreds of thousands —of people who are working in professional services, entrepreneurs, people who operate start-up businesses, people who operate in IT and in professional and financial services, architects, or self-employed workers in the gig economy. There are serious potential consequences not just for them but for their staff, their customers and their suppliers—both for businesses and the self-employed—as well as for their families and the local economies in which they operate.
The Minister talked about the impact of the regulations; in fact, at one stage, he said that he was keen to move on to the impact. But there is no impact assessment, so how can we possibly know? This is a perennial discussion—it seems that we have been dealing with the issue long enough for it to be perennial and not just something of a repeated nature. Every time we have a set of these regulations, the impact assessment is lacking. Because this measure affects so many people, it is impossible for the Minister to say that it will not have a significant impact on the economy. He simply has no way of knowing that, because that investigation—that impact assessment—has not been carried out.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making strong points, with which I completely concur. He will note that the Minister used very careful words: he said “no further restrictions at the point of exit”. The fact that this matter is being considered in this way, rather than through the immigration Bill, will raise significant concerns about these rights changing in due course. We on the Select Committee on Home Affairs have looked at the subject many times. This issue did not come up, and we have discovered all sorts of problems with the existing EU settlement scheme, let alone with this provision, which many people were unaware of.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks, which I will address in some detail later.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a disturbing lack of assessment and evidence-based policy making on these important matters? The Government are ignoring the demands of many, including the official Opposition, for a full assessment of their new deal. Surely there should be some proper assessment of these important matters.
Bill Esterson
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend is right to mention the lack of impact assessment or analysis of the proposed deal, which we are being asked to consider without being able to judge the line-by-line detail of what is in it. Somebody will have to remind me how many pages the new document is.
Bill Esterson
I will accept the hon. Gentleman’s comment from a sedentary position; does anybody want to go higher? The reality is that we do not have the information we need in order to make judgments, whether on the new deal or the consequences of no deal, and on these regulations. In the explanatory memorandum, the Government use the phrase, “It is anticipated”. What they are saying is that they do not know what the impact will be, and I am afraid that is a real problem. These regulations were drawn to the attention of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman may be familiar with the document we were given access to, which was held in the Treasury since November 2018. That contained an impact assessment of all kinds of different scenarios, and said that in all of them, the economy is expected to continue to grow. Does that give the hon. Gentleman some confidence that there is life beyond the European Union?
Bill Esterson
That is a slightly different point to the one we are discussing. We need to look at the detail. I am not sure whether that intervention was part of the hon. Gentleman’s pitch to be Chair of the Treasury Committee—others must judge—but I will touch on his point. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee speaks of the removal of treaty rights, and the fact that this is a policy change. That goes to the heart of the concern about what is being proposed, because when the withdrawal Act was passed, the Government promised that they would not use the Henry VIII powers in section 8 of that Act as a vehicle for policy change. They also said that it “almost goes without saying” that no change should be made to rights through delegated legislation, yet that is exactly what is being proposed.
The disapplication of the rights of EU, EEA, Swiss and Turkish nationals is clearly at odds with what was promised regarding section 8 of the withdrawal Act. That Act was not intended to address how, whether, and how quickly we should meet our obligations under the WTO, which is the reason the Government are giving for putting these regulations through. The purpose of section 8 of the withdrawal Act was to fix deficiencies in retained EU law—an explanation that, to be fair to Ministers, they have used to justify previous regulations in Committees in which I have responded on behalf of the Opposition. Why is that not the case on this occasion? Why is this not being addressed through primary legislation? Why is it not being done through an immigration Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth asked, and why is that Bill stuck in Committee?
If free movement of people is to end via primary legislation, as the Home Secretary said on 5 September, why is the same principle not being applied to the freedom of establishment and free movement of services, and what are the consequences for those individuals who are self-employed, or who own or manage businesses in this country? A large cohort of the people delivering services or running businesses depend for their lawful residence qualification on being regarded as economically active. They have the right to that definition and to qualify. Their rights are derived under the 2016 immigration regulations, which the Minister mentioned, but that is because they are in accordance with article 49 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. These regulations disapply article 49, and therefore the 2016 immigration regulations.
It makes no sense to decide immigration rights for those who are self-employed or are running a business separately from determining the immigration rights of other people, but that is what these regulations do, despite the assurances that were given when the withdrawal Act was passed. If there is nothing to worry about, where is the legal analysis? Where were the Minister’s comments about the legal opinion that the Government have obtained? Where is the analysis that these regulations will not adversely affect the immigration rights of EU or EEA nationals? Thousands of self-employed, business-owning or business-managing providers of services need the assurance that they will not be disadvantaged and that their right to stay will not be questioned or removed. Where is the legal protection? It is not referred to in the explanatory notes, and the Minister did not refer to it.
I note from previous regulations passed in these Committees that on other occasions it has suited the Government to apply a principle of reciprocity. For example, I was responding for the Opposition on the matter of intellectual property regulations when the Government chose to allow EU and EEA firms the right to continue to have full access to our intellectual property regulations, and there was no guarantee that our firms would have those rights in return. Reciprocity was not a barrier on that occasion, but it seems that it is here, when the Government want to remove the rights of self-employed or business-owning or managing EU or EEA nationals.
Matt Rodda
This is a particularly worrying point, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s analysis of the situation. The Government seem to have one rule for big business and a very different one for small businesses, which are the lifeblood of our economy. Surely they should be equally fair to both types of business.
Bill Esterson
That is right. As my hon. Friend points out, these regulations relate to the self-employed or those running small firms, who do not have legal protections. That relates to the point about where the legal assurance is. He is right that large firms are able to ensure protection, give assurance and make applications to enable individuals to live and work in this country.
On the question of whether the regulations are about delivering WTO most favoured nation compliance, the Government do not have to act so quickly: as with IP rights, they could wait and see whether the EU and EEA grant reciprocal arrangements. After all, Government Members who support no deal—I cannot remember whether anybody in the Committee is in that category—have often argued that, in the event of no deal, the EU would continue with the existing arrangements and reciprocate because it would be in its interest to do so. I wonder whether the Minister goes along with those Members, who almost certainly all belong to the European Research Group. Whether he does or not, why are not the Government waiting to see the response of the EU and the EEA on the matter of reciprocal rights?
I come back to the central point: that EU, EEA, Turkish and Swiss nationals were promised under section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 that it would not be used for policy changes—especially those affecting rights. I remind the Minister that section 8 was designed to rectify deficiencies from minor changes—what we are concerned with is not minor, but is a policy change—and where there would be a failure of retained EU law to operate effectively. Compliance or otherwise with WTO provisions is not a matter of retained EU law and should not be addressed in that way. It was never intended that it would be done in that way.
Let us remind ourselves of the impact. More than 3 million EU nationals live in the UK and so do tens of thousands of Turkish and Swiss citizens. Among their number countless thousands will be affected by the regulations. That will affect their confidence about doing business, and it could affect the confidence of those who trade with them. That may mean contractors having to stop working in the UK, which will affect customers and suppliers. There could be legal proceedings against contractors for breach of contract, or sudden retendering because of the loss of non-UK contract holders’ rights. It did not seem to me from the Minister’s remarks as if the Government had considered those potential economic and business consequences.
There are questions about legal remedy and compensation through bilateral investment treaties. Before a number of east European countries came into the EU, we were party to bilateral investment treaties with them. Once we leave the EU those treaties will come back into force, and once those agreements are back in force they will enable companies in those countries to take legal action against the UK Government. Have the Government considered that potential challenge to the legislation? What steps are being taken to ensure that it is not a problem or threat for the UK?
I turn back to the question of the economic benefits of having in this country the relevant businesses and their owners, and self-employed workers. In the event of no deal and the regulations being enacted, what steps will the Government take to protect the investment that those companies bring and make sure they are not undermined by the regulations? At the moment, the response to the regulations of the3million and the businesses that my hon. Friends have referred to is concern about whether it is desirable for businesses and self-employed people from the EU or EEA to stay in this country. If that protection is not in place and that assurance is not guaranteed, those people will be hit, and there will be a knock-on effect on UK jobs and our economy—to return to the earlier comments of the candidate for the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns and the3million says that the provisions are not what was promised, and undermine promises made by the Government:
“We were repeatedly promised that we would be treated no less favourably and nothing would change to our rights. These regulations do the opposite and remove our right to bring nationality discrimination claims. The proper place to consider the issues of immigration is in the immigration Bill. Not here.”
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson; I, too, pass on my congratulations. The SNP agrees with Labour: we oppose the regulations and the way in which they are being brought about, which is completely inappropriate. It is inappropriate to lump satellite decoder cards in with people. This is about people’s lives and people’s businesses.
The Government are making it more and more difficult for people to continue their lives in the UK. Those two things should not be lumped together in the same Committee, hidden away on a first-floor corridor. The measure should be part of the immigration Bill, which would allow us to debate it, move amendments and have some degree of control over the process. The Government are taking control away from the House in this hidden Committee, and that is despicable. EU nationals, Turkish nationals and other EEA nationals are finding out about the measure through the grapevine and the work of the3million and others, and they are, frankly, appalled that the Government would add insult to injury by doing it in this particularly heavy-handed way.
The best way to guarantee that rights are reciprocated is to take the first step, because the UK Government are making the change and going about Brexit. It would be an act of good faith to make sure that we did our best to protect rights, rather than remove them. No one is going to reciprocate if we start to remove rights in this country.
The regulations will further erode the rights of EU citizens by removing their right to be self-employed, to own and manage companies and to provide services in the UK on the same basis as UK nationals. It is odd that the Conservative party, which is supposed to be the party of small businesses and entrepreneurs, is taking action today to undermine them. It keeps claiming that it supports them, but it is not there for them at their time of greatest need, when they need their rights to be protected.
The regulations remove the rights of EU citizens to bring nationality discrimination claims in relation to those rights. It is sinister that people cannot even fight when there is discrimination against them, and it certainly does not bode well for the future Brexit—certainly not for the people I know. It also does not chime with the promises made by the right hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), for Witham (Priti Patel) and for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). They all promised that EU citizens would be automatically granted the right to remain and that they would be treated no less favourably than at present. The regulations do quite the opposite.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central mentioned a lot of the things in the3million’s briefing, which I will not reiterate, but the Public Law Project also provided a comprehensive briefing that mentions its four key concerns with the regulations. First, it is concerned that secondary rather than primary legislation is being used to make significant policy changes and to disapply important rights. Again, this Committee is not the proper place to do that.
Secondly, the Public Law Project is concerned that the changes may have an impact on immigration rights and should be included in the immigration Bill, which is stuck—logjammed. We do not know whether it will ever conclude, because this Parliament is so uncertain. The Government probably do not have the numbers for that either, so it is in their interest to stick it in Committee rather than make any progress. Thirdly, the Public Law Project is concerned that the regulations go beyond the powers conferred on Ministers by the Henry VIII powers in section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and, fourthly, that no impact assessment was done before laying them, despite the obvious impact on businesses and individuals.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the Lords picked up on that issue, and noted that:
“removing the treaty rights will mean that the people and businesses affected will not be able to use the rights to challenge possible new policies or regulations in the UK which place restrictions on their access to the UK Internal Market after exit.”
All the things that the Government have done on the hostile environment until now have had a deliberately chilling effect—they do not want people to come here. That is the message being sent to EU nationals by the regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) had an email from constituents in that vein this evening, and he asked me to pass it on. They are a couple who have businesses, who say:
“Apart of the fact that this is highly discriminating, my husband and me will be personally affected by this as we are both running businesses in West Lothian as full time occupation. Both of us have already been granted Settled Status and I was of the impression that this would keep our rights intact. Apparently now, the government is seeking ways to frustrate those rights through the backdoor, which will ruin the livelihood of so many…We love Scotland. This is our home and would like to stay here, however, if we are stripped of our rights and our livelihood, it would be impossible for us to stay.”
That is how EU nationals feel about the issue, Mr Hanson. They feel as though their rights are being undermined in a sneaky, sleekit, underhand way up in this Committee Room this evening.
Stuart Gregory, managing director of Lentune Mortgage Consultancy, emailed every member of the Committee, I think, to express his concerns. He and his wife started a business together in 2008 after the financial downturn caused him to be made redundant from his job. He said:
“This issue even being put forward by Government is appalling, and to threaten the removal of rights to run a company in the UK is making me feel quite sick—it’s literally treating EU Nationals as 2nd class citizens—which I’m sure would excite many leave voters.
If this comes to pass, I’m disgusted by how my country has fallen into the gutter.”
That brings me to the heart of the issue, because it is appalling and inappropriate that the regulations are being brought forward in this way. It is a sad state of affairs that the rights of EU nationals are being debated in this way and that the rug is being pulled out from under people in this cruel and underhand way. It is no wonder that EU nationals, EEA nationals and Turkish nationals have a lack of faith in the Government and in due process, because they see this underhand thing happening time and time again: people are promised, “Nothing will change—everything will be fine. Don’t worry. Fill out this form. Do that.” That is not how it feels to them.
Perhaps the Minister thinks I am talking nonsense; perhaps, in his heart of hearts, he knows I am right. He should withdraw the regulations and do things properly. The Government should not be sneaky about it. Yes, we need to look at the issue of satellite decoder cards—perhaps that is quite important. But it is not as important as people’s lives and livelihoods and their feeling that they want to live in a country where they feel welcome. Many of the EU nationals who I speak to on the doorsteps of Glasgow Central voted no in 2014 because they wanted to retain their EU membership. That is very much what they were told in 2014. They voted to remain in 2017. They have seen how EU nationals have been treated over this five-year period and the rhetoric that comes from the Government. The EU nationals who I spoke to on the doorsteps of Glasgow Central over the weekend are going to vote yes when they get their chance, because they see how the UK is going, and they want none of it. I completely reject the regulations and will vote against them.
Matt Rodda
It is a pleasure to be able to speak briefly to the Committee. I should declare an interest, as I have a relative who is an EU national and who might be affected by the regulations.
The regulations sum up the Government’s lack of concern for the feelings and aspirations of EU nationals living in this country. There are simply thousands and thousands of people across the country affected by the issue. It is of huge concern to them. As the hon. Member for Glasgow Central has just pointed out, many of them have lived and been resident in the UK for a very long time. They have established businesses and are contributing significantly to the local economy.
My constituency has a large number of EU residents—so many that at one point, one of our local newspapers was published in Polish so that the Polish community could read it. We have residents from long-standing EU states through to people from new accession countries, as well as many from Switzerland and Turkey. Many of them have professional qualifications and business skills. They are involved in small businesses in every sector, from catering through to delivery businesses through to IT, which is a major local industry. Others are in other walks of life. The Government yet again show a complete lack of concern for those people’s legitimate desire to stay in the UK and continue their businesses here.
The regulations underestimate the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises and other types of businesses in the UK. The regulations also misunderstand the need for skilled, highly trained and committed entrepreneurs in Britain providing an important component of our economy. I could give many examples from my area of small and medium-sized IT employers dependent on international labour. There are also larger ones such as Microsoft, which has its second-biggest European office in Reading East. They expect and demand that countries around the world should be able to facilitate the ease of movement of skilled people, many of whom in IT, for example, are highly skilled subcontractors operating their own businesses and contributing to a wider IT economy.
I find it simply staggering that a party that once styled itself as the party of business can be so cavalier in its approach. Indeed, it is equally cavalier in its apparent lack of concern for people’s rights, and I urge the Minister, who I understand to be a decent man, to reconsider this ill-thought-through approach and to consider, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has said, the importance of primary legislation and a proper debate on the Floor of the House to explore these matters in much more detail and provide a much better and fairer law with which all our residents are more likely to feel comfortable.
Nadhim Zahawi
May I start by sharing with the Committee my dismay and disappointment at the conflating of this SI with issues of immigration and the status of European citizens, as well as those from Turkey and Switzerland, who work hard and deliver services here?
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central might not have been in the room when I confirmed that the Government sought and received the consent of the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales because we wanted to make sure that we received consent before we moved forward, but I hope that she and the hon. Member for Reading East will refrain from scaremongering. They both spoke about the impact on EU citizens’ rights, and I want to reiterate to the Committee that EU citizens’ rights are being preserved separately from this instrument. The Government have already committed to protect the rights of more than 3 million EU citizens, which we have heard being conflated today with this statutory instrument. We will make sure that their rights are protected. The regulations do not affect the offer that the Government have made to EU citizens resident in the UK at the point of exit. They do not interact with the citizens’ rights agreements with Switzerland and the EEA European Free Trade Association states.
Nadhim Zahawi
I have a lot to cover, but I will happily take the hon. Lady’s intervention later. The Government’s plan on citizens’ rights confirms that EEA and Swiss citizens resident in the UK by exit day would be able to apply to the EU settlement scheme until at least 31 December 2020 to secure their status in a no-deal scenario. The EU settlement scheme is live and performing well. More than 2 million applications have now been received, and the scheme will continue to run in a deal or no-deal scenario. EU citizens resident in the UK by exit day will continue to be able to access benefits and services on exactly the same basis after the UK exits the EU as they do now. I sincerely hope that colleagues will refrain from scaremongering. It is deeply irresponsible for hon. and right hon. Members to do so.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central asked important questions, which I will attempt to address. He asked about the impact assessment for the regulations. An impact assessment has not been prepared because the impact has been approved de minimis in line with the better regulation framework.
Nadhim Zahawi
Let me make some headway.
The only area in which the directly effective rights of establishment or free movement of services have been identified to have a direct impact on UK businesses is in the case of satellite decoders, where we expect the impact to be minimal. The directly effective rights of establishment and free movement of services impact the immigration regime applied to Swiss and Turkish nationals. Changes to the regimes will be delivered by primary immigration legislation, so let us not conflate those two things.
The hon. Gentleman also asked how we know that the EU will not reciprocate. Why are we doing this now? These rights are no longer reciprocated once we leave the EU. They are directly effective rights that are applicable only to member states. However, this does not preclude us from agreeing an ambitious free trade agreement with the EU.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said that the regulations are necessary to protect the Government’s freedom to regulate in a no-deal scenario and asked what regulations the Government are planning that would contravene or depart from those rights. We anticipate that the immediate practical impact of the regulations on the ability of EU, EEA, EFTA, Swiss or Turkish nationals to establish or carry on business or provide services in the UK will be limited, because UK law is currently expected to be compliant with these rights. Were there to be any legislative changes that depart from these rights—which I think is his point— after we have left the EU, they would be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament in the normal way and so would be considered at the appropriate time.
I want to return to the hon. Member for Sefton Central, who asked how the Government can be sure that there are no other direct impacts. The Government have prepared as thoroughly as possible. I hope he would agree that we have consulted as thoroughly as we can, and that the only exception is the satellite decoders.
Several hon. Members spoke about the submission from the Public Law Project. Allow me to address it. It is important that we get this on the record, because emotions are running high and the atmosphere is febrile in this place. I think I have addressed the issue of the impact assessment. The hon. Member for Sefton Central said that these go beyond the powers conferred on Ministers by the Henry VIII powers in section 8 of the withdrawal Act, a point that pretty much comes from the Public Law Project notes that were circulated today. I will share with the hon. Gentleman the correct position. The powers delegated to Ministers by Parliament via the EU withdrawal Act specifically allow changes to be made to existing Acts of Parliament by secondary legislation, through so-called Henry VIII powers. In its report on Henry VIII and delegated powers, the House of Lords Constitution Committee noted that
“the distinction between Henry VIII and other delegated powers is not in this exceptional context a reliable guide to the constitutional significance of such powers, and should not be taken by Parliament to be such.”
Section 8 powers to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in the EU law retained under the Act that arise from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU are used here to address deficiencies in retained EU law relating to certain provisions on freedom of establishment and free movement of services in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. Section 8 is used to address any inoperability of such rights and to ensure that UK law continues to function effectively and with legal clarity.
Bill Esterson
I made the point that section 8 of the withdrawal Act is designed to address deficiencies in retained EU law—that is not in question. The problem is that it is not being used for that; it is being used for changes in policy and to affect people’s rights. That goes way beyond the scope, as does addressing WTO deficiencies. That is not what was ever envisaged or stated by the Government when they passed the withdrawal Act.
Nadhim Zahawi
The deficiencies in retained directly effective rights concerning freedom of establishment and the free movement of services, including a lack of reciprocity, which there cannot be in this case, arise as a result of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. That is the whole point. The provisions in the regulations are being made as a direct consequence of the UK’s exit from the EU.
Finally, the hon. Member for Sefton Central mentioned the3million’s campaign on our doing this here through secondary legislation, rather than primary legislation. The regulations do not represent a significant policy change, as he suggests. They simply do not. If colleagues prefer to scaremonger, that is their prerogative, but I do not agree with them. I think it is a mistake to do that. It is a time to behave responsibly. The regulations do not impose any new restrictions on EU, EEA, EFTA, Swiss or Turkish nationals or on EU, EEA, EFTA, Swiss or Turkish-based businesses at the point at which we exit the EU, and we do not expect disapplying these rights to have a direct impact on the ability of EU, EEA, EFTA, Swiss or Turkish nationals to establish or provide services. The hon. Gentleman will know better than I do that successive Governments have implemented EU obligations via both secondary and primary legislation, so I hope he will reconsider his position.
I will end, Mr Hanson, because I want to get you over the road to the hospital to see your granddaughter. I thank Members for their valuable contributions to this debate. I compel them to think twice before they scaremonger. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central should talk to her colleagues in the Scottish Parliament on this.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
On that point, I agree with the Minister. It is very distressing in Scotland to hear the kind of propaganda we have heard this evening. It has been widely disseminated. In fact, an MEP in Scotland has written to all the EU citizens living in my constituency with similar scaremongering, with an opening paragraph on the Government’s attitude towards EU citizens. Does he believe for one minute that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central will go back to the constituents to whom she spent the weekend scaremongering and put them right? I do not. This is typical of the tactics that the Scottish National party is using in Scotland at the minute.
Nadhim Zahawi
It is incumbent on us all to be sensible and to reflect on today. Let us not add fuel to the flames of division. Let us come together. Hon. Members heard in my opening remarks that we have consulted thoroughly with our colleagues in Scotland and Wales, so I ask everyone to please act responsibly.
Stephen Doughty
I gently say to the Minister that it is certainly not my intention, or that of many hon. Members, to scaremonger in any way. The fact is that we are representing our constituents who are scared and who have concerns. I was not aware of this issue until my constituents raised it with me. I have to say that I do not agree with his characterisation of the EU settlement scheme. The Home Affairs Committee, on which I sit, has repeatedly found serious concerns and problems with how it operates, and indeed with the entire immigration system. That is why people have those concerns and are scared. It is genuine; it is not us scaremongering.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that thoughtful intervention. I only ask that he shares the debate with his constituents, so that they can read, in black and white, what I have outlined as the true position of the legislation.
I again thank you, Mr Hanson, and Committee members. The regulations form an important part of our preparations to leave the EU, hopefully with the great deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated. They help to preserve our freedom to regulate after we have left the EU with respect to the establishment and carrying on of business in the UK, and the provision of services. They also facilitate our compliance with international trade law, which is important. We pride ourselves on being a country where people obey the rule of law—a subject that has been widely debated in this place and across the media. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (amendment Etc.) (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 Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1312),
laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
The technical amendments made by this instrument will ensure that retained EU law remains operable upon leaving. These provisions mainly fall into the category of changes that are needed because EU regulations have changed since the end of March, when previous statutory instruments were laid before Parliament. This new SI is therefore needed to reflect the changes that have taken place in EU policy. However, this SI makes no new policy changes to the effect of the retained EU law, and no change in the way that the fishing industry conducts its activities is expected as a result.
The amendments extend and apply to the United Kingdom. Fisheries management in the UK is largely devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These instruments have been developed and drafted in close co-operation with the devolved Administrations, who have given their consent. This ensures a common approach that respects the existing devolution settlement and maintains the existing system of fisheries management, providing certainty to the fishing sector and to business.
The regulations amend three pieces of retained EU legislation. First, they make updates to the technical conservation regulation, which outlines technical rules that fishing vessels must adhere to for conservation purposes. That regulation is essential for the management of fisheries in the UK, wherever those vessels may be, and of non-UK vessels in UK waters. The technical conservation regulations were previously made operable in retained EU law through an EU exit statutory instrument made in March 2019. However, in July, the EU introduced revisions to those regulations. The UK was engaged in the process of revising the technical conservation regulations, which make important changes—for instance, to support the implementation of the landing obligation. UK fishermen are already working to those new standards, which are important for the protection of our marine environment.
Secondly, this statutory instrument completes the transfer of the North sea multi-annual plan into retained EU law. This establishes long-term plans for the recovery and sustainable management of mixed fisheries in the North sea. The bulk of the legislation was previously made operable in UK law, but this statutory instrument completes the process by bringing across legislative powers necessary to introduce or amend the details of the plan in future. Those powers were previously conferred upon the European Commission, but will now be exercisable by UK Administrations.
Thirdly, the SI makes necessary changes to ensure that the western waters multi-annual plan is made operable in retained EU law. This establishes a long-term plan for the recovery and sustainable management of mixed fisheries in the western waters, of which the UK forms a part. Just as we did for the North sea multi-annual plan, which was published and implemented earlier, we are making this plan operable now that it has been published and implemented.
As a consequence of changes made to the EU regulations since previous instruments were passed, the instrument also amends previous marine and fisheries EU exit SIs: the Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and the Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019. Such minor changes include the revocation of certain regulations relating to regional fisheries management organisations and a community fisheries control agency; as those regulations have been revoked at EU level, they will no longer form part of retained EU law. They also include a minor change to the amendments to the North sea discard plan, which has since been amended by the Commission. This ensures that our amendments to retained EU law are up to date with the legislation that, on exit day, will be transferred to the UK statute book via the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
There were also a number of errors in the previous instruments that are being corrected by this statutory instrument, such as a typographical error in a reference to “member state”, in the singular form, when it should have been “member states”, in plural. These minor typo- graphical errors would not have stopped the instruments functioning correctly, but given that we now have the luxury of time, as it were, as a result of the extension of exit day from the end of March, we thought it prudent to take this opportunity, since we were bringing forward an SI anyway, to make these minor corrections.
We have also corrected a handful of other small errors in previous amendments made to the annual EU total allowable catch and quota regulation. In particular, we have amended provisions relating to commercial and recreational bass fishing, to ensure that the approach intended by the regulation—namely that the provisions in question continue in force into 2020 until they are replaced with new regulations—is actually implemented, and to ensure that these provisions do not just fall at the end of the year.
Finally, this instrument makes minor changes to the Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, to amend an EU regulation on the protection of animals during transport and related operations. In particular, it removes an unnecessary power to make regulations about animals not previously covered by the regulations’ annexes, because there was already a power to amend the annexes themselves. Therefore, the power is not necessary. Similarly, a second amendment to a technical rule for transporting horses has been removed, because it duplicated an amendment made by a different instrument.
As I said earlier, these are technical changes to reflect the fact that EU law has changed since the end of March. As I also said earlier, we have consulted with the devolved administrations and secured their consent to make these changes on a UK-wide basis. I therefore commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George.
It is also a pleasure to see the Fisheries Minister back in his place, after his short sojourn away from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is also good to see the new Whip, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis, and the new and singular Parliamentary Private Secretary for the Department, the hon. Member for Witney. It is a shame that the Government have chosen to reduce the number of PPSs for the Department, but perhaps the political nature of PPS-ing may reduce somewhat and we can get back on to DEFRA issues with the new Secretary of State.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman says it is a dream team. One might wonder what type of dream could possibly dream up these people here.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Can the shadow Minister confirm whether anybody from the original team is still in place?
Luke Pollard
The Minister is back from the political dead. It is genuinely good to see him back in his place, because a common critique of the DEFRA team under the previous Administration was that there were far too many soundbites and not enough detail, and I know that the Minister was one of the few in the Department at the time who was holding out for detail, and I know that he knows these issues very well, so it is good to have him back.
When scrutinising this piece of legislation, it is important to view it in its context, and the real problem with fisheries regulations that we have under this Government is that there is still no Fisheries Bill. The Fisheries Bill needs to set the framework for all these statutory instruments to sit underneath. This SI is very similar to the other fishing SIs that we dealt with in March, in that it deals with a patchwork quilt—a dog’s breakfast of different SIs being updated and amended, here, there and everywhere. Like nearly every single SI that we have dealt with in this Session of Parliament, it deals with the errors of previous SIs that were hurriedly rushed through the House.
I know that the Minister tried to explain the matter away by saying that these are simple typographical errors, but they are still errors, and the key thing is that we should be taking more time to get this done right. That is a real concern, because in the absence of a Fisheries Bill that could change the fishing landscape and improve the experience of fishing for our coastal communities, some of the measures included in this SI seem to sit like little policy islands that are not really integrated with the other parts.
The importance of fishing cannot be overstated. We need a comprehensive and joined-up regulatory approach, be that for our departure from the European Union or for the everyday operation of our fishing industry in what is a complex regulatory environment.
There were opportunities missed in these regulations for us to amend fisheries legislation but which could be included in a complementary Fisheries Bill, such as increasing quotas for small fishing boats and banning electronic pulse fishing, on which we still need to see the detail. We need a Fisheries Bill for day one of a no-deal scenario, which is still a possibility. Will the Minister come up with his new excuse under this new regime for why we do not have a Fisheries Bill along the way? I am familiar with his excuses from the previous regime and am keen to see whether they have changed under this latest Administration.
During the plentiful sittings of the Committee on the now-dead Fisheries Bill, I tabled numerous amendments to promote the sustainability of the fishing industry. Much of the regulations deal with the industry’s sustainability. There is commonality between the Minister and me in wanting to make fishing more sustainable, both environmentally and—importantly—economically. If over-fishing is allowed to continue, there will not be enough fish left to catch, so there will not be a fishing industry left to catch fish. We need to ensure that fishing is truly sustainable.
Since we met in a room similar to this one to discuss that Bill, Parliament has declared a climate emergency. For me, the regulations provided an opportunity to reflect better the priorities of Parliament in making that declaration. Of course, the climate emergency is about not just carbon, although that is a large part of it, but about water, habitat loss, sustainability of fish stocks, protection of the fragile marine habitat and, to the purpose of the regulations, the careful management of fishing grounds, ensuring there are enough fish for today and tomorrow.
In paragraph 2.2 of the explanatory memorandum, we see the hurried consideration of previous statutory instruments on the common fisheries policy coming back to haunt us again. I am concerned about paragraphs 2.2 (a) and (b). We are starting to create a situation in which we cannot see a coherent legislation set on the common fisheries policy.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the updates required since 29 March. We will need to update our fisheries policy regularly, especially because fish do not protect borders. We must ensure that our policy sits closely in co-operation with that of our European neighbours. However, I am disappointed that in paragraph 9 of the explanatory memorandum, the Government state that, on CFP changes,
“There are no plans to consolidate the legislation.”
I gently say to the Minister that there needs to be an opportunity to consolidate many of these changes, because as we have seen from the patchwork quilt of edits in fisheries legislation, it is difficult for those working in fishing to follow the changes and difficult for stakeholders working in the sector to understand the consequences—intentional or otherwise—of changes.
Far too few people in this place follow the ins and outs of fishing policy. I am one of the nerdy few. I like to do so and, while the Minister might not describe himself in that manner, he is also one of those people. We need to spend more time ensuring that no further mistakes are being added to our statute book. The best way to do that is to join up the current regulations in a consolidated fashion so that the industry and stakeholders can see exactly what is changing and we do not risk putting more gremlins into our laws or further polluting our statute book.
The regulations matter, dealing with the size of fishing nets and the size of the fish that those nets catch. With many species of fish in British territorial waters at unsustainable levels, those rules matter. So, too, does the huge increase in ghost gear—the lost plastic fishing gear that pollutes the oceans around Britain’s coastal waters. I am excited about a new campaign we have started in Plymouth to pinpoint the ghost gear lost by fishing boats, using proper navigation tracking. There is an opportunity to do much more about that through regulations on fishing nets and fishing gear. Will the Minister reflect on that, given their mention in these regulations?
There is a lot more that we need to do in relation not just to fishing nets, as mentioned in the regulations, but to the other types of fishing gear that are lost at sea, including car tyres, which until relatively recently were an important part of fishing gear—they helped to weigh down fishing nets. In Plymouth Sound, the country’s first national marine park, we identified nearly 1,000 car tyres, all of which emit microplastics directly into that fragile marine habitat. The Minister has a huge opportunity to make more comprehensive and ambitious remarks on fishing gear, lost or otherwise, to ensure we deal with ghost gear and lost gear and, importantly, are able to return some of it to fishers so it does not simply count as a cost to their businesses. There is an opportunity to do that with these regulations.
Let me turn to some of the concerns from stakeholders. The Minister will know from previous remarks that there has been a certain level of stakeholder fatigue in relation to the tsunami of statutory instruments. The new Whip has managed to avoid many of them, but I understand that 12 more DEFRA statutory instruments are required before exit day. Indeed, we need to ask, if they are required before exit day—currently 31 October, before the extension that the Prime Minister has requested is granted—how could they have been passed before 31 March? That raises concerns about the pace with which these statutory instruments are being introduced and about what more DEFRA is discovering as it looks through the regulations that need to be updated before the SIs become law.
Greener UK has raised concerns about the removal of provisions on the effectiveness of mitigation measures and monitoring amendments in the statutory instrument. I will read out a few, and perhaps the Minister can respond to them. He will be aware that article 5(21)(c) removes article 21(c) of regulation 2019/1241 from the Parliament and Council, on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures. Article 21 sets out joint recommendations on conservation measures and the provision of information on the effectiveness of existing mitigation measures and monitoring arrangements. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm whether he intended to remove that provision. If so, what should replace it? I understand that Greener UK and some of its members have raised that issue with DEFRA, which argued that it has retained most of article 21 to highlight what may be included in regulations made under article 15, but arguably these provisions do not alter the powers available under article 15. I would be grateful if the Minister can set out whether he concurs with Greener UK’s concerns. They all sound quite technical, but the problem with fisheries regulation is that many of the concerns are actually technical, so the detail really does matter. Greener UK’s concern is that the removal could lead to cumulative measures being introduced, with little regard for their impact. I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with that point.
It is unclear from the statutory instrument and the explanatory memorandum that accompanies it what the Government’s approach to the North sea and western waters multi-annual plans is. It seems that we will co-operate with some of them but not necessarily all of them. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the Government’s continuing commitment to co-operate with our near-neighbours, be that in a pre-Brexit, post-Brexit or no-Brexit world, so that fishing is properly co-ordinated and measures are put in place to ensure the sustainability of our stocks. It is curious that the regionalisation of the western waters plan was omitted from this statutory instrument. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain the reasons for that.
Article 62(4) of the United Nations convention of the law of the sea, which the UK has signed in its own capacity, dictates that we will have to agree on the management of resources. Therefore, we have to co-operate with the EU in that respect, and the regionalisation should be included. I would be grateful if the Minister can set that out in his remarks.
The Minister spoke about how devolved fisheries administrations work together. That is really important, because fishing is rightly devolved to the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, which enables Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to have greater regard to the fish species that they catch.
I would be grateful if the Minister set out how any changes in the regional nature of fisheries management will be policed and, importantly, how any conflict between the views of those devolved fisheries administrations can be resolved. He will remember that in proceedings on the Fisheries Bill, the Labour party tabled a proposal for a dispute mechanism to ensure that if there was a disagreement—say, between the Scottish Government and the UK Government acting on behalf of England—about the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement, there would be a methodology to resolve those concerns, ensuring that the statement could still be put together, and that we would not enter a logjam. I am not presuming that the Governments of Holyrood and Westminster will disagree about fishing, but it is prudent to look at all possible future avenues. I would be grateful if the Minister set out the SI’s relevant powers in that respect.
Regular watchers of these Committees—I know that many watch Delegated Legislation Committees on Parliamentlive.tv—will know that the Opposition are concerned that statutory instruments are being rushed through with mistakes and gremlins in them that we have already spoken about. In a similar Committee on 25 March, I set out the Opposition’s concerns about the several glitches and gremlins in that instrument that had not been caught because of a lack of scrutiny, and noted that there could be severe consequences for implementation.
I am grateful for the fact that the Minister and his officials have caught a few errors; what concerns me, however, is the number of errors not caught during the implementation of regulations, especially at a time when there are so many fisheries sector SIs coming through. It is really hard for people to keep track of the tsunami of SIs.
The Minister managed to get out of coming to the main Chamber last week. I am very grateful to the Conservative Whips for tabling two statutory instruments for debate in the main Chamber, which enabled both of the Minister’s new colleagues to step up to the Dispatch Box and not quite apologise for the errors of their predecessors in pushing through SIs containing errors. None the less, there was an introduction about making sure that we get this right. Paragraph 2.11 of the explanatory memorandum states that “minor errors” need to be corrected. The Minister mentioned the typographical mistake, but I would be grateful if he spelled out what other errors this SI corrects, just so I am sure.
Hon. Members who have had the privilege of sitting through a Delegated Legislation Committee with me will know of my concerns about impact assessments and the language used in them. This 30-page statutory instrument makes a number of changes, including in relation to new European Union regulations made since the last fisheries SI was passed. I am concerned about the wording of the explanatory memorandum, which states in paragraph 12.1 that
“There is no, or no significant, impact”.
It goes on to state:
“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because no significant changes…are envisaged.”
It is really hard to distinguish between “no impact” and “no significant impact”. As we have seen from previous mistakes, and from the new regulations that the Minister cited, we do not know what impact measures will have if there is no impact assessment. In the past when I have asked about updating the language, the Minister has referred me to the Procedure Committee. I would be grateful if he used his good offices to look at whether explanatory memorandums could be clearer, because “no impact” and “no significant impact” are two very different things.
Finally, I will raise a few questions about Northern Ireland and the territorial application of the statutory instrument, which covers the entirety of the UK. I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether he anticipates that the Prime Minister’s deal, which was secured since the publication of the statutory instrument, means any changes for the implementation or future corrections of the instrument. The SI was published before the deal came about, and there are particular concerns about the proposed border down the Irish sea.
The deal gives rise to a number of concerns about Northern Irish fishing. As that is slightly off topic, Mr Howarth, I will not go into that now, but the territorial application of the common fisheries policy raises some concerns that are within the scope of this statutory instrument. Some of those concerns relate to the export of fisheries products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and vice versa, and the landing of fisheries products in Northern Ireland. For instance, if a British fishing boat lands in Northern Ireland and there is a separate tax regime there, would the refund on red diesel continue to apply? Would catch certificates need to apply? Would landing into a third country also create a requirement for prior notification and additional paperwork? Some of those things relate to elements of the statutory instrument. Some people are concerned that the detail of regulation on fishing, particularly between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is being overlooked. Will the Minister say whether any changes would need to be made following a deal? Have any of them been discussed?
The Minister made a number of comments that I want to touch on. I liked his phrase about the “luxury of time” that the extension gave us. The Minister and I are regular attendees of the BBC’s “Sunday Politics South West”; I am sure that viewers in the south-west will be pleased to hear what he said. He might wish to share that with the Prime Minister.
The discard ban and the landing obligations, which are covered by the statutory instrument, are causing significant concern to fishers across the country, particularly those who fish in mixed fisheries. The majority of the south-west counts as a mixed fishery. The Minister will know that since their implementation earlier this year, there has been significant concern about whether the discard ban and the landing obligations are being honoured, the perverse consequences, and whether the amount of fish caught, landed and discarded is correctly recorded. The parliamentary questions I have tabled on that have not quite produced clear answers from the Minister and his predecessors, so I would be grateful if he set out whether the discard ban and the landing obligations are due to be updated, as there is genuine, sincere concern about how they operate, especially on the part of fishers who do not possess a huge amount of additional quota for those fish stocks they are catching as bycatch and in mixed fisheries.
Bass fishing has been raised a number of times by stakeholders. I imagine Members from all parts of the House will have heard from recreational anglers about the new requirements that mean bass fishing is included in the quota arrangements. The Minister said that the SI means that current regulations will not fall at the end of the year. Will he say slightly more on that? Recreational anglers in particular have concerns.
Sir George, you will be pleased to hear that I am not an expert on transporting horses, so I will not comment too much on that element of the statutory instrument. However, it causes me concern that a statutory instrument mainly on sea fisheries should have provisions relating to the transport of horses. It should cause us concern us that these separate issues, as important as they are, are being mangled together in a dog’s breakfast—a patchwork quilt—of an SI that is not getting the scrutiny it needs, either in the parliamentary process or from stakeholders, who have to deal with a tsunami of SIs.
I am genuinely happy to see the Minister back in his place. He knows that I take the detail of statutory instruments seriously, because I represent a constituency with 1,000 jobs in fishing. If we are to do Brexit—that seems to be the Minister’s current position—it is important that we get the detail right. When it comes to fisheries, and the transporting of horses, it is not the soundbites but the details that really matter.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Here we are again, stuck in an endless groundhog day that stretches out before us with no end in sight. Alternatively, as this place revels in classical references, perhaps we are like Prometheus, tied to his rock and condemned to endless agonies—unless, of course, someone somewhere—the public, perhaps—takes the sensible decision that the whole bùrach is too much of a mess, and that it is time to finally put it out of its misery.
“Fishing after Brexit” sounds like the title of a novel about regret. Here we are, though, making sure that the common fisheries policy continues to rule over our fisheries after we have left the EU, and that access to markets for our fishing industries is restricted. We will still be stuck with the EU quotas, and ships and crews from other EU nations will have access to our waters. So much for the promises and predictions of the Leave campaign, and so much for the bravado and balderdash of the Government.
A previous Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, now lost to the anonymous corridors of some duchy, admitted repeatedly that leaving the EU would not include leaving the CFP, but that we would have better negotiating positions. It did not ring true then, and it certainly does not ring true now. The fishing fleets have been sold out once again by a Tory Government. It is economic catastrophe and utter betrayal, all wrapped up in one ideological miscalculation. Thirteen Scottish Tory MPs promised to vote down the withdrawal Bill if the negotiations continued. I look forward to their finally joining the rest of Scotland’s MPs in opposing Brexit.
George Eustice
I thank the shadow Minister for his kind words on my reappearance in the Department. He followed them with a blizzard of questions, which I shall try my best to address. I also want to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), our only PPS in the Department, is more than capable of doing the work of many, such is his ability. Indeed, he spends most of his time in Committees such as this.
The shadow Minister is aware, as all hon. Members are, that the central principle behind the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is one of continuity. It explicitly is not about changing, making or consolidating policy. It is about simply making the changes necessary to make retained EU law operable. The idea is that on day one after we leave the EU, we should have a statute book that is as close as possible to that of the day before. Only after we have left can we, through primary legislation, debate properly in this House what future policy should be, and what changes we want to make. In the 2018 Act, the emphasis is on continuity. That is why there is no consolidation planned. EU law is what it is—a hotch-potch of all sorts of regulations—and there is a lot of complexity in making those operable. However, I know that the National Archives will be publishing all the SIs that have been tabled. It is working on various products to ensure that those are accessible and available to people. The most important thing that we can do for people in the fishing industry, and any other industry, is give the reassurance that there will be a functioning statute book on day one after we leave that is as close as possible to what came before. Policy change and divergence thereafter is a matter for primary legislation.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
With my colleagues’ permission, I ask a question as Opposition Whip for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Could the Minister enlighten us about said primary legislation? Can he give us a hint, or a raised eyebrow, or perhaps suggest when we might see the Fisheries Bill again? He and the shadow Minister put a lot of work into it, as did officials, and as he says, the fishing industry needs some certainty to work towards.
George Eustice
I was just about to come on to the issue of the Fisheries Bill. A little under a year ago, we were debating it and taking it through Committee, perhaps in this very room. I had hoped that we would stick to the plan to leave the European Union at the end of March; that the House would get behind the withdrawal agreement that the previous Prime Minster had put together; and that we would then be able to get the Fisheries Bill through Parliament. We would have had an implementation period, and then the provisions of the Bill would have taken over. In the event, there was not a majority in the House for that. We all know what happened: this House has been in a muddle for a period of six months, unable to agree anything. It has been incapable of saying what it does not want and unable to say what it does want. That has made it very difficult to introduce any other Fisheries Bill.
George Eustice
No, I shall finish my point. The Fisheries Bill was unable to progress because Parliament failed and refused to progress leaving the European Union, and in fact voted to delay leaving. We now have a new Session, and the Fisheries Bill is in the Queen’s Speech, so there will be a Fisheries Bill in this Session of Parliament. That answers that question.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport raised a question that had been highlighted by Greener UK, namely why article 21(c) had not been brought across. The reason for that is that article 21(c) includes the concept of member states making joint recommendations for the European Union to consider. Once we are outside the EU, we will not be making joint recommendations to it; we will be controlling and deciding these things for ourselves, so the very concept of a joint recommendation does not make sense. In so far as there were other elements of article 21 that did make sense and did function in a national context, those were brought across.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the point about regional co-operation. To be clear, this statutory instrument brings across the conclusions of the North sea multi-annual plan and the western waters multi-annual plan, but it does not bring across the architecture for that co-operation, because once we cease to be a member state, under EU law, we cannot be a member of those particular groups. At the moment, Norway is not a member of those groups; it sometimes attends as an observer, but it gives its input to the groups on the North sea through different mechanisms.
How we will co-operate with our European neighbours will be an issue for a future partnership. If we can get across the current withdrawal agreement, which the Prime Minister has brought back, and get the deal agreed, the plan is to have a new partnership agreement with the European Union by next July. That can cover all manner of things, including how we would co-operate on a regional basis. The issue of the architecture for regional co-operation is a matter for our future partnership agreement with the EU. However, coming back to my point, the purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to ensure that on day one after leaving, we have an operable law book, and that retained EU law is operable. The changes to regulations that the EU has introduced since March are now EU law, and we should therefore make them operable. That is the primary purpose of this SI.
The hon. Gentleman asked about impact assessments, and complained about the use of the phrase,
“no, or no significant, impact”.
I am told that the term has particular relevance to the procedures of the House, and is terminology that it relies on.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about what other types of errors there were. They are all similar. In one case the word “fishing” was used, where it should have been “fisheries”. In another case, the text said “ICCA” when it meant ICCAT—the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. In one case, the Roman numeral “ii” should have been “a(ii)”. In one instance, “must” was used, but it was felt that “shall” was better. I do not want to bore hon. Members any further by going into that, but the hon. Gentleman asked a question that suggested that what we meant by “errors” was suspicious, and I just wanted to clarify the point.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if Parliament got behind the Prime Minister’s deal. He will be aware that all the statutory instruments that we are talking about and taking through should be seen in the context of no-deal preparations—preparations for what would happen if we came out without an agreement. A withdrawal agreement Bill will be published later today and will have its Second Reading tomorrow. A deal will include various saving provisions to ensure that we can have an implementation period. The regulations are predominantly about no-deal preparations. In the event of a deal being done, the provisions of the implementation period come into effect.
The hon. Gentleman asked about pulse trawling. He will recall that this was a matter we discussed in the Fisheries Bill. In a previous SI, we chose to ensure that the scientific exemption could not continue for EU vessels, and that will remain the case if we come out of the EU in a no-deal scenario. The European Union has since made other changes to phase that out by 2021, and has already significantly reduced the number of vessels that are licensed.
Finally, we discuss bass provisions every year. They form part of the total allowable catch and quota regulations, which would always stay in place until the new TAC and quota regulations take effect, typically at the end of January. The way the original SI had been drafted meant that they would have ended at the end of December, which meant that there would have been an air gap. The draft regulations simply ensure that the provisions will remain extant until replacement provisions are put in place.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarifications. In relation to the intricacies of fishing in Northern Ireland and the new border down the Irish sea, would the Minister be prepared to write with further detail, in particular about the paperwork required for a GB boat landing in Northern Ireland, and vice versa, and around the concerns that the industry has regarding red diesel?
George Eustice
Rather than write, let me touch on that now. The concerns on red diesel are a separate agenda being pursued at the World Trade Organisation about removing subsidies. We believe that, although we want to remove subsidies from fishing, red diesel is not the type of subsidy that we are referring to, so we very much support the continued use of red diesel for our fishing fleet.
The withdrawal agreement—the Prime Minister’s deal—does not have any implications for the fishing industry per se, because it is more about customs than fishing opportunities and fish being landed. It is already the case that a catch certificate is required when crossing borders, whether a boat is coming from the Irish Republic to the UK or vice versa. Beyond that, there will not be additional changes for the fishing industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1312).
Railways (Safety, Access, Management and Interoperability) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provision) (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 Railways (Safety, Access, Management and Interoperability) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1310).
That is a mouthful that I will refer to as “this statutory instrument” from now on. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I will start by explaining to the Committee why we used the affirmative procedure provided for in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
This statutory instrument will be needed if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal, as it is important to ensure clarity and certainty for the rail industry and passengers. The statutory instrument fixes deficiencies in a number of pieces of rail-related legislation, including important changes to the rail safety legislative framework and corrections to minor issues in previous Brexit-related instruments that were raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In previous debates on rail Brexit legislation in the House of Lords, the Government made the commitment that the rail safety amendments and issues identified by the JCSI would be fixed in time for Brexit.
The Government have given very careful consideration to the appropriate procedure for this statutory instrument. Providing certainty and clarity to industry and passengers is our absolute priority, and we concluded that to provide the right level of certainty and to fulfil commitments made in Parliament and to industry, the statutory instrument needed to be in place for Brexit day. The use of the affirmative procedure was thus appropriate to provide such certainty and clarity.
This statutory instrument’s most significant provision is to introduce in Great Britain a two-year recognition period for part A safety certificates issued in the European Union before exit day, by amending the Rail Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The statutory instrument also makes corrections to EU implementing legislation that came into effect on 12 April 2019, as well as some minor corrections to earlier implementing legislation.
The part A safety certificates are valid for up to five years and are essential pieces of documentation that are issued in the UK by the Office of Rail and Road. They confirm that train operators have the necessary safety procedures in place and are competent to run a railway. The statutory instrument will introduce a two-year recognition period for the existing part A safety certificates issued in the European Union. That gives certainty that an EU-issued part A safety certificate will continue to be recognised for the purpose of operating trains on the mainline railway in Great Britain for two years after Brexit or until it expires, whichever is sooner. A train operator will then need to apply to the ORR for a new part A safety certificate and the accompanying part B safety certificate.
A two-year period provides an appropriate amount of time for the industry to prepare and align itself with the Great British domestic certification regime, and it is consistent with recognition periods introduced in other rail-related Brexit legislation. It also gives Great Britain appropriate control, which we will use to maintain our excellent safety record. Safety is always the No. 1 priority on the railway.
Only one operator has been identified as providing services in Great Britain using a part A certificate issued in another EU member state. Officials, both from my Department and from the Office of Rail and Road, have actively engaged with the operator concerned to ensure that it is prepared for Brexit.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
What was that operator’s view on the fact that if there is a no-deal crash-out, its certificate would expire after two years rather than the time it has now, which could be longer?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I do not think that the operator has a view about the two-year period, because it hopes, by working with my officials and others, to fix that problem before Brexit day.
Alan Brown
Does that mean that that operator will apply to the ORR for an updated certificate?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Yes, that is what it is working towards.
On the amendments correcting issues in previous Brexit-related instruments, the JCSI identified minor drafting issues in two rail Brexit instruments. The Government thank the JCSI for identifying those minor drafting points. My Department has also identified minor drafting errors in two other Brexit instruments, which the instrument that we are discussing will also correct. I reassure colleagues that those drafting issues are all extremely minor and did not affect the viability of any of the Brexit instruments. However, it is important, in the interest of certainty, to ensure that we resolve those problems as soon as possible.
The instrument will also make fixes to EU implementing regulations. It makes fixes to Commission implementing regulations to maintain the ORR’s ability to charge a fee to establish the impact of an open access application. It will also make the usual technical Brexit-related fixes to various implementing regulations, including regulations on the new rail passenger services, on access to service facilities, and on establishing common safety methods for supervision by national safety authorities. I hope that everybody has enjoyed reading these papers, and I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I will not repeat the title of the legislation, which has been well documented. With just 10 days to go until the Government intend to leave the European Union, and in the light of the Minister’s admission that there have been drafting issues with legislation, it is clear that rushing through legislation at the eleventh hour is not the best way of conducting business. Are we expecting any further draft regulations? I believe that at least one piece of legislation is still outstanding. When does the Minister expect it to be introduced? We are getting close to the wire.
Ensuring the safe running of our rail system is vital for passengers, staff and the economy. The UK boasts the safest railway network in the world, despite the tragic loss of life that we have witnessed in the last year. It is vital that we continue to scrutinise all legislation to ensure that standards are raised and the public are kept safe. Moving the function of oversight and the issuing of part A safety certification should the UK leave the EU is non-contentious in itself. We need, however, to ensure that the Office of Rail and Road is properly resourced to carry out its extended functions.
I have noted a succession of secondary legislation arguing for increased roles for UK agencies; however, I am concerned that increasing the pressures on those agencies without sufficient additional resourcing will place additional pressure on what are already overstretched bodies. My first ask is that the UK Government commit to keeping parity with EU standards—non-regression—in advancing safety. Had I been able to amend the draft regulations, I would have inserted such a measure. It is essential that whichever jurisdiction—the EU or the UK—has the most advanced approach to safety, the regulation of standards and the oversight of those who are to abide by such standards, the highest application is adhered to.
I note that the rail safety directive is yet to be transposed into UK law. With time short before June 2020, when does the Minister expect that work to be done? I ask that it be expedited, so that proper scrutiny can take place and we can ensure that all safety standards are upheld. Perhaps the Minister could also set out how the regulations will apply to the cross-border service across the channel over the next two years. Will he also confirm where the information that is currently shared with the European Union Agency for Railways and the European Commission will be reported to, and where supervision by national safety authorities—currently within the EU—will come from? Clearly, the role of the Office of Rail and Road will be extended. How will that be accommodated, how much will it cost, and what level of additional staffing is anticipated? The Minister must have those figures, as the regulations will come into force within the next 10 days.
Labour is not in favour of opening up the market for operations or infrastructure, and we will bring rail back into public ownership when we are in office. Can the Minister say whether there will be any changes to the market on the introduction of the regulations when it comes to the economic equilibrium test, including the impact on open access? The legislation enables the Office of Rail and Road to charge a fee for its services. Can the Minister set out the fee schedule today? Such a schedule was absent from the legislation and could be applied within a matter of 10 days. Would an operator that currently holds a certificate that does not run out for a further five years be expected to pay for further certification from the Office of Rail and Road, or would there be continuity so that no more payment would be expected for this first wave of certification? Paragraph 2.11 of the explanatory note states that the UK will diverge
“where it is clearly in the UK’s interests.”
Will the Minister set out where he believes divergence will occur?
I also note the two-year grace period before the ORR alone will issue certification. If certification is not concluded within the two-year period, or if there is a failure to issue the right certification, it could lead to a serious fine or imprisonment. How will the Minister ensure that the current part A certification will be issued in time? I look forward to his response.
Alan Brown
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I will be brief. Given that these are technical regulations that relate to safety, I will certainly not be opposing them. I note that there were only eight responses from the 300 industry bodies that the Government consulted, so I take it that the industry is generally happy with the proposals.
It seems interesting that the Government believe that, in principle, they need a two-year transition period for these technical regulations; but we are supposed to believe that if the Government get the EU withdrawal Bill through, they will magically sort Brexit and all the other stuff in a year’s time. These technical regulations need two years to bed in, so there seems to be a complete contrast in how things are going to go forward.
On Saturday, a Labour Back Bencher claimed that Labour had secured concessions on continuing the protection of workers’ rights if there is an EU withdrawal agreement. Can the Minister confirm how workers’ rights and protections will be guaranteed? Will he also confirm, as the hon. Member for York Central asked him to, how safety regulations will be maintained in order to achieve parity with the EU? Those things represent the direct opposite of a Government who want to cut red tape and are adamant that they can do things differently following Brexit. The two things are polar opposites, so can the Minister explain how those guarantees will be put in place?
Finally, I note that the papers confirm that this is a transferred matter in Northern Ireland. The Scottish National party has called for a long time for Network Rail in Scotland to be devolved to the Scottish Government. While this stuff is going on, the Williams rail review is happening. Can the Minister confirm that Brexit will not get in the way of the Williams rail review and any recommendations that come from it? Can he also confirm whether the devolution of Network Rail will be followed through, as the Scottish Government have recommended?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I will answer as many of the points as I can, although some of them were political. I will steer clear of being political, because it is very easy to spark a debate on Brexit, which could last the full 90 minutes. Although I am up for doing that, I am not convinced that other Members of the Committee would be too pleased—
Chris Heaton-Harris
Most definitely, Mr Gapes, but that is your call, not mine.
A number of points have been raised. Let me start by saying that businesses welcomed the two-year recognition period for certificates. Such certificates would expire after two years. This statutory instrument gives continuity: only one business is affected by that regulation, and it is trying to sort out its certification way before that period ends. I think we are in a good place on that.
Is there any more secondary legislation required in this area for leaving the European Union? We prioritise; we have spent ages prioritising our legislation so that we have the right package of legislation ready for 31 October. This SI has gone through the JCSI and been thoroughly checked, so I am convinced that it is absolutely spot on. I thank the Committee for its work in finding the issues that we had with previous SIs. That proves that it is working on this all the time, not just when we consult it. I also thank my Department for spotting the couple of errors that existed in previously passed SIs that we needed to correct, and that were not spotted by others.
Will these regulations lead to any loss of access to EU information? No; information related to railway safety is stored publicly online on the European Union Agency for Railways database of interoperability and safety. That will be accessible in the event that the UK leaves the European Union with or without a deal, so there are no concerns there.
The hon. Member for York Central quite rightly says that we make, and she makes, safety on our railways—for workers and passengers alike—a priority. We want the highest application of safety standards, and I give her the commitment that she asked for in that area. She also mentioned where we might possibly want to diverge in the future; as she outlined in her comments, if we wanted to go further in the realm of safety, we absolutely would. I think there would be agreement on both sides of the House on that.
Rachael Maskell
Can the Minister therefore confirm that should the European Union advance its safety standards, the UK would at least keep parity with those standards—or, as he has just related, go beyond those standards?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Yes, I think I can; in fact, we will not be diverging to reduce safety standards from where they are now. We might choose to diverge to increase our safety standards, but I give the hon. Lady the commitment that she asks for about not reducing safety standards through diverging—absolutely, 100%.
Rachael Maskell
May I split hairs with the Minister on this issue? He has clearly stated that we will not regress from where we are now, but if the European Union were to advance its safety standards, would we keep parity with it at that juncture?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I would like to think so, but I honestly cannot answer, because I have no idea what the European Union might do in the future. I would like to think that we would be in advance of European Union standards. Certainly, there is no rush to diverge in any way from current European Union safety standards, and the only push that I can see from this Parliament and domestically is for better standards. I would assume, therefore, that if the European Union tried to improve its safety regulations and regime, we would be ahead of that curve already and the EU would be following us.
There were a number of questions relating to the Williams review of the Office of Rail and Road, its resources and whether it needs additional resources. There will be no additional cost to the ORR or train operators from Great Britain’s safety regime after Brexit, so, realistically, the ORR should have sufficient resources already. The Williams review opens up opportunities for how these things could be both resourced and policed in the future. We will doubtless have quite some debate across the Floor of the House on that, but that is for another time.
On devolution, I am as ambitious as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun is to have devolution writ thick through the Williams review. That, again, is not a debate for these particular regulations, but it is one that I look forward to having with him in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Agriculture (Miscellaneous Amendments) (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 draft Agriculture (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
This is one of a number of statutory instruments relating to our European Union exit that we have had the pleasure of debating. My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby took a number of them through Parliament during his tenure of my position, and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor has enjoyed the Committees on them so much that he volunteered to sit on more of them.
The instrument that we are debating amends retained EU law and domestic legislation on the common agricultural policy—including the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, also known as the CMO—to ensure their smooth transition into a domestic regime. The technical and operability amendments made in the draft regulations will maintain the effectiveness and continuity of legislation that would otherwise be inoperable following exit from the EU. The regulations will ensure that we continue to operate schemes for important farming sectors, and that we maintain the standards they set; that will support confidence in our farmed goods in domestic and international markets.
The draft regulations are technical in nature and limited in scope. They make changes to ensure that existing standards and processes continue in the UK. Where changes are required, we have endeavoured to ensure that they will have limited impact on businesses and other stakeholders. The regulations amend CAP and CMO functions in EU legislation that are carried out by the European Commission so that they are instead carried out in the United Kingdom by the Secretary of State—or, in one instance in relation to contractual negotiations in the dairy sector, by the Competition and Markets Authority. This will enable those legislative and administrative functions to continue to be used after the UK leaves the European Union.
The EU regulations concerned cover the following areas of the CMO: conversion rates for rice; certification and importation of hops; sugar sector agreements; milk and milk products; import and export of certain proteins derived from egg white or whey; export refunds; adjustments in the common customs tariff; producer organisations and co-operation; and the import of eggs. The EU regulations confer various functions on the Commission, so that it can develop the technical details required to operate a specific regime.
Examples of that include being able to update the legislation when necessary to take account of amendments in so-called CN—combined nomenclature—codes, which are used to identify tariffs in customs; establishing conditions for the fixing of export refunds; specifying certain forms to be used; setting financial limits or prices; defining programme eligibility criteria; setting deadlines; and facilitating producer co-operation and supporting producer organisations. If we were to leave the European Union without making these amendments, the legislative functions in the EU regulations would become inoperable, so this instrument simply uses powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to correct that deficiency to enable the necessary functions currently exercised by the EU to be exercised by the Secretary of State instead.
The draft instrument also makes a minor correction to a domestic EU exit statutory instrument, namely the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, to clarify that the power contained therein, concerning contracts in the sugar sector, rests with the Secretary of State, since it is a reserved power.
The draft regulations refer to reserved policy areas, but notwithstanding that, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has engaged with the devolved Administrations on its approach to CAP legislation under the 2018 Act, and on this particular instrument, to familiarise them with the legislation ahead of laying it before Parliament. DEFRA has worked collaboratively with the devolved Administrations and has fully involved them in discussions on the regulations. We consulted them extensively to ensure that the legislation that the regulations amend continues to work.
DEFRA has also engaged with stakeholder umbrella organisations and has met regularly with the Rural Payment Agency’s industry partnership group to update the farming and land management sectors on the Government’s plans for the UK’s exit from the European Union, including the approach to retained EU law.
These regulations, in common with many others under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, are really about changing references to EU institutions to references to the UK Secretary of State. Such changes are minor and technical in nature, but they are important to ensure that this body of regulations remains operable. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. Here we go again. I shall get the Whip to put “CMO” on my gravestone—and I will be there sooner rather than later if we have any more of these debates. We have had so many statutory instruments looking at the common organisation of the markets that we wonder where this one was, whether we have debated it before—perhaps the Minister can provide illumination on that—and whether we will be spending more time on the CMO.
These issues are important, as they involve segments of our agricultural industry. I was intrigued to hear what the Minister said, because it was almost a complete repeat of what was said another time by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. It is good to see the double act still in place, with one on the Front Bench and one on the Back Bench. The one on the Back Bench is sworn to secrecy, because he might be back on the Front Bench soon.
The Minister said that the legislation is technical in nature and limited in scope. One of these days, I will ask: what does that actually mean? All of it seems to be technical in nature and limited in scope, yet we go through it time after time. Why has it not been possible to at least group SIs together, as we have done previously? We seem to be dissecting all these different areas separately. He might be able to say something about that. If nothing else, can he warn us how many more statutory instruments we are likely to get? Clearly, the sands of time are clearly running out. It would be interesting to know what the implications would be of our crashing out by the end of the month—perish the thought—with regard to those statutory instruments we have agreed to, and those we will not have agreed to. There is not infinite time before the end of the month.
I have some fairly basic questions. First, the Minister talks about the Rural Payments Agency being in discussion with the sectors, but what about its level of preparedness? Will it be able to do exactly what has been done through the CAP? If so, will he assure me that payments will continue seamlessly, and that farmers or producers will not be seriously disadvantaged because payments have not been made on time? He knows, as I do, particularly from my time on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, that the RPA does not have the best of reputations when it comes to making expeditious payments, or payments that are right in the first instance.
Secondly, in the event of a no-deal exit, what guarantees are there, and what moneys have the Government set aside for payments that are due? I know that we are considering technical issues that do not necessarily tie in with payments, but as they say, “follow the money.” Someone, somewhere, will need to ensure that particular market sectors are not disadvantaged. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what preparations have taken place in different market sectors for dealing with the RPA in the immediate aftermath of no deal. There is also the question of whether market sectors will be protected, because some will be subject to duties or a fair degree of competition from outside. It is important to know exactly how they will be able to respond.
It would be useful to know how many more such statutory instruments we are likely to get. We had two on the agenda, but the Northern Ireland one has slipped; it would be interesting to know why. I saw the two as naturally connected; one followed on from the other. The position in Northern Ireland is particular. Why was that SI dropped at fairly short notice? When I came in this morning, after doing massive amounts of preparation for the debate that was to take place at 6 o’clock, I found that there was no such debate. Where has that SI got to? Are proceedings on it in train, or do we not need to debate it because circumstances have overtaken it? Perhaps the statement that will be made in the House shortly, about possibly getting the Assembly back in place, has something to do with it. I do not know. I hope the Minister can say something about the SI that we would have been considering.
We will not object to this largely technical instrument, but it is complicated and difficult to follow. It is also difficult to know whether we have debated it before, and whether we are amending amendments to earlier instruments, or even the amendments to the amendments. This is not the best way. The Agriculture Bill, which we need to get back in play, would hopefully go beyond some of the secondary legislation that we are considering, and would make it absolutely clear to farmers that we are working in their best interest and know what is going on, and that Members across the House will help them by ensuring that every eventuality is covered. If we do not do those things, some market sectors will undoubtedly suffer, not only in the shorter run, but in the longer run.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I am genuinely excited to be on this Statutory Instrument Committee; I would like to serve on as many as possible, particularly about agriculture, food and wildlife. I have a science degree in agricultural economics from Wye College, which is now part of Imperial College London, and this instrument strikes at the heart of what we were discussing even 30 years ago when I was at university.
I welcome the measure because it does exactly what it says on the tin: it pulls back powers to the United Kingdom that have been operated by the European Union and the Commission. With regard to the key area of debate about product standards and import-export, the measure is crucial in ensuring that our UK agencies can make decisions about the technicalities and the licensing and authorisation of movements.
I have three quick questions for the Minister. My first question is this: given the argument about whether coming out of the European Union means that our standards will be lowered, does the measure simply maintain existing standards—for example, animal welfare standards in live animal transportation—until a Secretary of State or the United Kingdom decides to improve them? Does the measure give the UK the power to improve those standards on agriculture and livestock?
My second question is about the devolved Assemblies. I recognise that many of the powers in the measure are reserved, so they go straight to the Secretary of State, but will there be an opportunity for the devolved Assemblies to take on some of those functions and powers?
My third question is general. We are all sick to death of the term “crash out of the EU”, because we know that, basically, we are pretty well prepared for leaving the EU in a measured fashion. Can the Minister confirm that this is one of the measures that ensures that when we leave the European Union, things are actually under control and within the power of the UK Parliament, the UK Government and the devolved Assemblies when it comes to standards, animal welfare and agriculture?
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. The Minister said that the regulations were technical amendments, but I am always wary. I have not sat on the agricultural Committees, but I have sat on umpteen Treasury Statutory Instrument Committees, and I am always struck by what their impact, and the cost for the UK taxpayer, will be. The explanatory memorandum worries me a bit. It says that there is expected to be “no” impact, but then there is a rider: “or no significant impact”. Either there will be an impact or there will not—this is in reference to the charity or voluntary sector and business. I would like the Minister to tell me what range the impact will be in. The explanatory memorandum also says that how the powers are exercised in future will determine the impact of the new arrangements, and that no impact assessment has been prepared.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Is it not the case that, although we are talking about EU schemes such as the basic payment scheme or environmental schemes, the administration is already done by the UK, through DEFRA, the RPA, Natural England, and so on? I suspect that is why the memorandum says that there will be no impact: we are delivering the schemes already, albeit under the auspices of the EU.
Mr Jones
I appreciate that, but as the powers are transferred over, there will be change. The hon. Member for Windsor argued that there could be an opportunity for the Government to raise standards; it is very strange that over the last few days no Conservative Member of Parliament has been talking about the fact that there will be an opportunity to weaken standards as well. The important point when it comes to being able to assess the impact is that there is a difference between “no” impact, which is straightforward—there is no change at all—and “no significant” impact. I am interested to know what, if any, costs there could be.
Likewise, the explanatory memorandum says that the costs that will fall to business from the change in regulation will be below the £5 million threshold. That is fine. I accept that when assessing impact there has to be a level, but it is important to know how close to that £5 million the figure could be. That might give us some indication of whether it will be, as the Minister says, business as usual. Clearly, a lot of what we are assured will be business as usual when we withdraw from the EU certainly will not be when we get into the detail.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am no farmer, though I used to own a farm in the Rhondda for a few years, where we had sheep.
Chris Bryant
My right hon. Friend tempts me to tell the story about my donkey, called Dusty, who died. It is a very sad story, but I am not going to tell it—nor that of the one-eyed sheepdog called Nelson.
It is always very tempting, when a Minister describes legislation as technical, to start worrying, and to ask him questions such as, “In regulation 6(2)(b)(v), what does proposed new point (f)(cc) mean?” But I am not going to do that, because I am sure that the Minister is right that, in large measure, this is entirely technical. As the hon. Member for Windsor said, in all honesty there is a lot of such legislation that we have to put in place to ensure that things will be in a good place.
I will, however, ask about regulation 3 and the provisions on eggs being imported into the UK. Why do we have to have a specific element on that in the legislation? One of my farmers who came to see me recently, along with other members of the Welsh National Farmers Union, was very keen to point out one of his big anxieties. He is a chicken farmer who produces eggs. A key part of his business model every year is deciding how many chicks to import from France, I think from Portugal, and from Spain. He has some anxieties about quite what route the Government are going down. He is not sure whether to import large or small numbers. It depends on whether he will be able to sell his chickens and eggs later next year. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I am curious about my hon. Friend’s farm and the donkey, but that is for another time. He raises an important point about the impact on the lives of farmers. There is a broader concern, related to impact assessments, costs, consequences for people, and disruption. The Government have made a habit of turning up to Committees without an impact assessment. “Without an impact assessment” should be replaced with “with wishful thinking”, frankly, because we are being expected to make decisions and judgments without evidence or analysis. The same has happened with the Government’s deal, and the failure to provide an analysis of the impact of the deal on the wider economy and the country, including for the Treasury Committee. It would be helpful for the Minister to give an assurance that the Government will not keep doing this.
Chris Bryant
Perhaps I should have stopped my speech before giving way; my hon. Friend could have made a speech of her own. I shall not, at this moment, be as ungenerous as she has been, if that is all right with her. The major concern about farming in my constituency has been to do with lamb. I do not really want to go down this route, but if we were to leave the European Union without a deal, there would be a problem in relation to tariffs on lamb; 50% of Welsh lamb goes to England, and 45% of it goes elsewhere in the European Union. We have always found it difficult to sell lamb in countries such as the United States of America, but I do not think that is really addressed in the regulations. I would love to tease that point out from the Government. However, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been clear in Parliament on several occasions that one of the toughest issues for Welsh agriculture would be lamb. I think that that is generally already accepted by the Government, and it is one of the things that we all know we shall have to address if there is some kind of political catastrophic failure.
George Eustice
I shall try first to deal with as many as possible of the issues that are pertinent to the statutory instrument. I shall then touch on some of the broader, connected issues that have been raised.
First, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud, is right. The CMO is a complex body of law, so in the context of this exercise it has in some ways been the gift that has kept on giving. He will, however, be pleased to know that we are reaching the end of the process. There is light at the end of the tunnel. I understand that there are just two more items left relating to the CMO and, I think, 12 more left in total linked to EU exit; so we have a few more to do, but we are nearing the end of this process.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the issues are ones that we had to revisit, or whether they were not dealt with originally. There was one exception, which I alluded to, which was a change of a power that was drafted originally as though it were devolved, when it was actually reserved. The vast majority were secondary and tertiary legislation—implementing acts and delegated acts from the Commission. They were deprioritised as not absolutely essential for March, but they were things that we intended to get to.
The right hon. Member for North Durham and the shadow Minister asked what we mean by “technical” and were suspicious of my intent. Let me give a few examples. The vast majority of the changes are about replacing EU-centric terms such as “the Union” and “the European Union” with “the UK” to make provisions operable. We are also replacing “Commission” with “Secretary of State”, so that there is an authority to go to. It is really a matter of making sure that there are UK bodies that can exercise functions currently exercised by the EU, since the EU will no longer be exercising them.
That links to the point about impact assessments and what
“no, or no significant, impact”
means. The purpose of all the EU exit statutory instruments is to keep everything exactly the same. I know many Members of the House would like to keep things so much the same that we do not even leave the European Union, but these particular regulations ensure that when we do leave, all the same procedures can continue to operate. The real cost to business would be if we left whole functions and bodies of law with which they are familiar to become inoperable and no longer work; that would have consequences. By ensuring that systems are operable, we give businesses the continuity that they seek, and we ensure that we have a functioning statute book from the beginning.
The shadow Minister asked about the position of the Northern Ireland SI and why that had been dropped. I understand that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was unable to clear it in time for today’s debate, which is why it will probably be debated instead on Monday next week.
To return to the technical issues, the types of things dealt with in the instrument are regulations on conversion rates for rice. We are talking about an assumed rate—about x amount of rice flour coming out of x amount of rice milled. An assumption is made about that for the purpose of an import licensing regime. I assure the right hon. Member for North Durham that these things are very technical. In the sugar sector, we have an arrangement at the moment whereby there are some exemptions in competition law to allow the National Farmers Union to corral a collective of sugar beet growers to work with British Sugar, and a collective bargaining system decides the price of sugar for a given year. That enables the Secretary of State to make any changes that they might need to make to keep the sector operable. If the NFU decided that it did not want to do that role anymore, but we decided that we would still like a collective to do that, we would have the option of changing that.
The hon. Member for Rhondda asked about the import of eggs. This relates to article 30 of EU regulation 589/2008. The provision simply confers power on the Secretary of State to make determinations of equivalence on marketing standards as a prerequisite for the import of eggs. We allow eggs to be imported only if they meet our marketing standard, which is currently an EU marketing standard. If in future a third country were to meet that standard, which is set out separately in law, there would need to be a body that attests to the fact. That is a power that the Secretary of State must have in future, as the EU will no longer be able to do that for us.[Official Report, 5 November 2019, Vol. 667, c. 7MC.] Again, that is a very technical thing around determinations of equivalence on marketing standards.
There is a wider issue with eggs: some egg producers are concerned that they might be exposed to competition from other countries, such as Ukraine, under a proposed tariff suspension. Some might also be concerned about their exports. We do not export a huge amount of eggs, but we export poultry meat. Those issues are perhaps for another day; I am sure we will have discussions on tariff rate schedules and so on in the future.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked whether we can improve standards. When we have passed the Agriculture Bill, we will have in place the primary legislation that is needed to change and improve these types of processes, but not until then. He will understand that the purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to bring across, warts and all, the existing EU system. It is not about changing things, but about continuity, and the regulations seek to preserve continuity wherever they can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor also asked about the devolved Administrations. When we leave the European Union, there will be huge scope for the devolved Administrations to have new powers over their agriculture policy. Agriculture is generally devolved policy, so they will have a new, additional set of powers that they do not have now, as those powers are now exercised by the EU. This statutory instrument is specifically about reserved powers relating to competition law, international trading standards and the like. All the powers set out in the regulations are reserved, and would remain reserved under our devolution settlement, even after we have left the European Union.
I hope that I have addressed as many of the problems and issues raised as possible, and I hope that the Committee will support the statutory instrument.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Funding for Hollingwood Primary School
Funding for St John's CE Primary School
Written Statements
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Brandon Lewis)
I am pleased to announce today that I am publishing the Government’s UK Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy (“the strategy”).
In recent years unmanned aircraft including drones have evolved rapidly in capability, availability, and their uptake for commercial and leisure use. The development of unmanned aircraft technology presents significant opportunities. In coming years drones have the potential to revolutionise industries such as logistics and even personal transport.
We want to safeguard this potential in order to maximise the economic benefits drones can bring to the UK. This strategy aims to do that by setting out our approach to countering the threat the malicious or negligent use of drones can bring, as happened at Gatwick Airport in December 2018. It will provide the security the public and drone users require to continue to enjoy the benefits of leisure and commercial drone use, and facilitate the growth of the drone industry.
The Government have been working for some time to reduce the risks associated with illegal drone use. Since the Gatwick incident, we have made significant progress in our ability to respond to illegal drone activity. But given the challenge posed by rapid advances in drone technology, and the threat it has the potential to pose, the Strategy will provide overarching direction to our efforts.
The UK Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy focuses on mitigating the highest-harm domestic risks resulting from malicious use of aerial drones. These include:
Facilitating terrorist attacks;
Facilitating crime, especially in our prisons; and
Disrupting critical national infrastructure (CNI)
The strategy is forward-looking, flexible and will evolve along with the underlying technology to keep ahead of the threat. It encompasses the roles of both Government and industry, and sits alongside CONTEST, the UK’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy, and the UK’s Serious and Organised Crime Strategy. It offers a single vision to ensure coherence, efficiency and value for money. It will also promote UK prosperity and inward investment, showing our intent to create a safe and collaborative environment for the incorporation of drones into business and society, as well as for the UK becoming a world leader in counter-drone technology.
The strategy is only concerned with countering the malicious, illegal use of aerial drones. A forthcoming aviation strategy will set out the Government’s strategy for the safe use of emerging aviation technology, including legal drone use.
Copies of the strategy are available in the Vote Office and to download from the www.gov.uk website.
[HCWS24]
UK-US Access Agreement
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Brandon Lewis)
During the passage of the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act earlier this year, the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend (Mr Wallace), the previous Minister of State for Security and Economic Crime, made a commitment to attempt to secure assurances related to the US use of the death penalty in relation to data acquired from a UK telecommunications operator pursuant to the UK/US agreement, and to formally update this House as to the outcome of those attempts.
The UK/US agreement was signed on 3 October 2019 and a Command Paper was laid before this House on 7 October. The agreement is a vital tool to facilitate law enforcement in the prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of serious crime, and to protect the public. It will remove any legal prohibitions which would otherwise prevent communications service providers (CSPs) in each country from complying with lawful orders for the production of electronic communications from the other, avoiding a conflict of laws and greatly facilitating the investigation and prosecution of serious crime.
We have agreed a binding position with the US, enshrined in the body of the agreement, preventing them from using material obtained from a UK telecommunications operator under the agreement as prosecution evidence in a US case where the death penalty may be imposed, unless they obtain the prior permission of the UK to use that material as prosecution evidence.
This will allow Ministers to make a decision on a case-by-case basis, continuing the existing practice under mutual legal assistance. It is the policy of this Government to continue to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances.
The death penalty has been recognised as a UK essential interest on the face of the agreement, enshrined in article 8 section 4:
Where an issuing party has received data pursuant to legal process from a covered provider, and
The United Kingdom has declared that its essential interests may be implicated by the introduction of such data as evidence in the prosecution’s case in the United States for an offence for which the death penalty is sought;
Prior to use of the data in a manner that is or could be contrary to those essential interests, the issuing party shall via, the receiving party’s designated authority, obtain permission to do so. The receiving party’s designated authority may grant permission, subject to such conditions as it deems necessary, and if it does so, the issuing party may only introduce this data in compliance with those conditions. If the receiving party does not grant approval, the issuing party shall not use the data it has received pursuant to the legal process in that manner.
[HCWS25]
Executive Formation: Extension Period
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Julian Smith)
The period for Executive formation under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 is due to expire at the end of today, Monday 21 October.
I take extremely seriously my obligations towards the good governance of Northern Ireland in the absence of locally-elected Executive Ministers. The expiration of this legal period without an Executive in place, and in the absence of other decision-making legislation, would leave Northern Ireland in an unacceptable position.
For that reason I am today laying before Parliament a statutory instrument to extend the period for Executive formation to 13 January 2020, the only such extension permitted by the current legislation. That has the effect, among other things, of ensuring that Northern Ireland Departments can continue to make decisions in accordance with the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 in the absence of Executive Ministers. The legal obligation on me to call an Assembly election would move too, to fall on that date. This does not prevent me from calling an Assembly election at any time.
I am disappointed that the political parties have been unable to reach an agreement to get Stormont back up and running before this legal deadline. But extending this legal deadline has no bearing on my continuing efforts to restore the Executive, which will continue in the days and weeks ahead.
[HCWS26]
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Penn
Introduction: Lord Woolley of Woodford
Visas
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the visa system for non-European (1) academics and (2) musicians visiting the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, UK Visas and Immigration continually reviews its global visa operation to improve its performance and deliver fast and fair decisions to customers while protecting the integrity of our immigration controls. UKVI continues to work with all stakeholder sectors, including artistic and academic bodies, to deliver improvements to the way we process visa applications from those who seek to enter the UK.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, there is mounting concern for the health of academic and cultural exchange between the UK and other countries. Is the Minister aware of universities’ concerns about the number of academics now refused entry and the worry that ambitions for conferences might be scaled down? Is she further aware of the treatment of some here in the longer term, including, shockingly, that of medical researcher Dr Furaha Asani, who is threatened with deportation to the Democratic Republic of Congo—a ruling decried by the University of Leicester? There is a disconnect between our academic interests and Home Office decisions that needs to be addressed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Earl will appreciate that I cannot discuss individual cases, but I hope that he will also be aware that on 8 August the Government announced a new fast-track system for top scientists and researchers, and the numbers are uncapped. Overall, our visa grant rate is 87%, and 98% of tier 2 applications are granted.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, many creative organisations have been forced to use standard visitor visas or the PPE route, despite their preference for the security of the sponsored tier 5 system. Will the Government accept the recommendations of the Creative Industries Federation and ensure that any new immigration proposals reduce the administration and costs for tier 5 certificates and enable artists to undertake multiple engagements with different organisations while they are here on a temporary stay?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I appreciate the point the noble Lord makes. He has made it before, particularly on the route from Ireland. There is a concession under the tier 5 route for creative workers and entertainers for non-EEA and non-visa nationals. That concession, as he knows, allows them to enter the UK without obtaining entry clearance. But he will also know that new guidance is now out for those multiple applications. Indeed, not only has the route through Ireland been temporarily clarified since February this year, but we plan to make secondary legislation changes to the Immigration (Control of Entry through the Republic of Ireland) Order 1972 so that non-EEA and non-visa nationals who hold a valid COS not only will receive deemed leave but will not have restrictions on paid entertainment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Minister has heard a couple of examples of the problems that academics and visiting musicians are having getting visas to work and perform in the UK. What effect does she think these cases are having on our international reputation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I outlined the visa acceptance grant rates, which are extremely high— 98% for tier 2—and the speed at which they are granted. I think 97% are now granted within the 15-week service standard.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Earl raises a very serious issue with his Question. Across the creative industries and the talent unions, there is concern about being able to forward plan programmes and artistic festivals. Will the Minister consult with talent unions and the creative industries to ensure a degree of certainty in these visa applications?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord for that. I misspoke in my previous answer: I said “15 weeks” when I meant 15 days. The whole point of a visa system is not to deter people or keep them out but to encourage the creative industries from around the world, while keeping our borders under control.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, talking of musicians, the Minister will be aware that, 214 years ago today, musicians were playing on the decks of the battleships of the British fleet as it bore down on the Franco-Spanish fleet. Will the Minister pass the regards of the House to the Royal Navy, who still protect the freedom of the seas for our nation, on this very special day for the naval service?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I shall do that with gusto. Every time the noble Lord asks me a question, I am educated.
Lord Fox (LD)
Turning from the high seas to our green and pleasant land, the Minister will be aware that there is already a recruitment problem for workers coming to harvest the crops in this country. The upcoming Immigration Rules will exacerbate this problem massively. It is not only tier 1 academics and people like that, but also people who work on the land, in our care homes and across our economy. That economy is going to be damaged by these rules. Can the Minister undertake to reassess the thresholds that are being used?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We are trying to achieve a fair immigration system for those who are visiting, those who are staying for a short time and those who are coming to work, from EU and non-EU countries. Looking forward, we are going to create a points-based system so that we can attract the brightest and the best to this country.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, like many noble Lords, I am sure, I welcome the intention within the Queen’s Speech for a more accessible visa system that attracts global scientific talent to tackle the greatest challenges facing our society, but does the Minister agree that science alone will not be enough to solve those challenges and that the perspective of the humanities and the social sciences will be essential if we are to take lessons from history, understand how people engage with technology and communicate the messages in a way that will drive changes in human behaviour?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with the noble Baroness that science alone will not solve the problems that we face, but science is hugely important, particularly given that we have a shortage of scientists in this country and a shortage of specialist engineers. That is why I think noble Lords focus on this area.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister’s definition of “the brightest and the best” extend to the brightest and best fruit-pickers?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think that the noble Lord is conflating two issues. In terms of our future immigration system, yes, we want the brightest and best, but it must be a system that works for people coming here both temporarily and for work.
Psychiatrists
Baroness Parminter
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle the shortage of psychiatrists in the United Kingdom.
Lord Bethell (Con)
Expanding the mental health workforce, including psychiatry consultants, is an important priority for this Government. We are not complacent about the scale of this historic challenge. In particular, we are focused on driving forward work to improve recruitment in psychiatry, including working with the Royal College of Psychiatrists on its excellent Choose Psychiatry campaign. Our NHS interim plan has also set out a wide range of actions that we will take to reduce the number of vacancies and secure the staff we need for the future.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
Vacancy rates for psychiatric posts have doubled in the past six years. Eating disorder services are particularly affected, contributing to lengthy waiting times for treatment, which can be life threatening given the mortality rates for anorexia. Will the Government agree to double the number of medical school places over the next 10 years to deliver more psychiatrists and better care for people suffering from eating disorders?
Lord Bethell
The Government recognise the issue with recruitment, in particular at the higher, consultant end, where it takes 14 years to train a consultant. There is undoubtedly an issue with filling all those places. The work of the noble Baroness on eating disorders is well known and the Government are very focused on that issue; in fact, we announced in 2014 that we would invest £150 million to expand community-based care for children and young people with eating disorders. Recruitment remains an issue that concerns us and we are focused on responding to it.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, in 2011, 70% of foundation doctors went on to specialty training, but in 2018 the figure was 40%. Does the Minister agree that in psychiatry, this may have something to do with concerns about working conditions, lack of support from specialist nurses and personal safety? I heard just last week of a young doctor who went to work in the evening wearing a stab vest because another trainee had been stabbed while on duty as a psychiatrist the previous week.
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is quite correct to suggest that the issues of psychiatry recruitment are complex. They are not simply a matter of funding; the Government have put a large amount of money behind mental health. It is not just a question of places—a large number of vacancies are available in psychiatry; it is one of the employer brand. The employer brand around psychiatry is not where we would like it to be, and safety is a difficult and challenging issue to address. We are focused on that. The campaign by the Royal College of Psychiatry addresses this very issue, and we will continue to work on it.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
My Lords, two years ago, Sir Simon Wessely, then president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, identified a serious problem with psychiatric recruitment, particularly among trainees as the Minister has mentioned. As it takes five years to get a trainee through to becoming a doctor, and bearing in mind that we are nearing Brexit or the effects of it and that many doctors come from the European Union, what action are the Government taking now to deal with this problem?
Lord Bethell
I am grateful for my noble friend’s question. He is correct that Brexit is a challenge, but I draw his attention to the interim people plan, which is focused on the issue of psychiatry recruitment. It addresses pension tax concerns—a key hurdle for those later in their careers—and increasing university clinical placements, and it bolsters the workforce through greater international recruitment. I remind my noble friend that there were 2,000 more EU nationals working in the NHS in June 2018 than in June 2016.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, there is a massive shortage of consultant psychiatrists, especially for children. What action will the Government take in the next few years to address that problem, which is getting worse, not better?
Lord Bethell
The issue with consultant psychiatrists will take years to address. However, I reassure the noble Lord that it is not only consultants who can help with children’s mental health; so can other strata of the workforce. We are providing an extra £1.4 billion to improve specialist mental health services for children and young people. That money will be dedicated to all levels of the workforce.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has referred to the mix of psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses who support children. If the Government’s plans are carried out, by when should every part of the country be covered to an acceptable and safe level?
Lord Bethell
The long-term plan published on 19 June announced that, by 2023, an extra 345,000 children and young people aged between nought and 25 will receive mental health support via NHS-funded mental health services. That commitment will go a long way to achieving the objective that the noble Baroness addressed.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, is there not also a problem of retention of young male and female doctors when they qualify? Should we not look at the system in Singapore, where young doctors have to sign on for five years after they qualify? We use that system in our Armed Forces. Is the answer to one of the challenges to look at retention?
Lord Bethell
My noble friend is correct that retention is an issue, although I reassure him that NHS Improvement’s retention programme has improved turnover rates of clinical staff in mental health trusts from 14.4% to 13.1% since 2017. However, these numbers are not good enough. The Government recognise that, which is why we are investing money in it. I will take his very good idea to the Minister and raise it up the chain.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the Royal College of Psychiatrists provides me with a psychiatrist to help me with my work here. While working with psychiatrists and the royal college, I have learnt that, although understandable concern exists about the dangers of technology for children—particularly gaming—there is also a body of evidence that technology can be very useful in dealing with psychiatric and mental issues. However, there is a lack of work being done on this positive side. Will the Minister undertake that the Government are prepared to explore this more fully than they have so far? That might go some way towards solving the problem of a shortage of psychiatrists.
Lord Bethell
The Government have articulated their commitment to technology in the long-term NHS plan; no Government have ever been more committed to technology. I pay tribute to the work of professionals in the mental health services. It has the human touch more than any other medical discipline. The work done by those in the NHS is exceptional.
NHS: Babylon’s GP at Hand App
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what impact assessment has been carried out of the effect that Babylon’s GP at hand app (1) is having and (2) may have on (a) GP patient waiting lists, and (b) the funding of primary healthcare.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
Lord Bethell (Con)
NHS England and partners commissioned an evaluation report of Babylon GP at hand. This was published in May 2019 and concluded that, overall, users are satisfied with the service, in particular its convenience. The GP at hand work- force demonstrated high satisfaction with the service, particularly with the flexible work arrangements. However, satisfaction was lower for waiting times for face-to-face appointments. Practice funding is being revised to improve fairness following the emergence of digital- first providers.
Baroness Thornton
I am not sure how many noble Lords realise what GP at hand is. It is a virtual GP app that uses artificial intelligence to identify health problems and has a partnership with the NHS in London and Birmingham, where patients can sign up for the digital-first GP at hand service and receive video consultations. I am absolutely in favour of the use of new technology in primary healthcare—this is not a Luddite Question—but clinical commissioning groups in London have, on the instructions of NHS England, had to reserve large sums of money, of up to £1 million, in their 2019-20 budgets for the next year to meet the costs of Babylon GP at hand. They have not commissioned this work; it is not included in the safeguarding or quality oversight of them; and it is paid for without basic information about how many or which patients are leaving local GP lists or the impact that this might have. Does the Minister think that this is a satisfactory situation, in terms of the control and accountability of local budgets? Would the money, which I understand stands in London at about a £21 million deficit, not be better spent providing technology and IT infrastructure for the use of our GPs in their surgeries?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness raises an important question. The Government are aware of the issues faced by out-of-area commissioning, and particularly of the concerns of Hammersmith and Fulham Council. We are looking at its concerns about its budget provisioning. We do not recognise all the numbers, but we are trying to understand them better. I reassure her, however, that we are putting in measures to ameliorate the situation. We are looking at ways to disaggregate a patient list if there are large numbers of digital-first patients; we are making more timely adjustments to CCG budgets, moving to quarterly rather than annual assessments; and we are looking at how to apply technology to under-doctored areas.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, how confident is the department that NHS England is ready to deal with the addition of a new model of access to GP services? Does the Minister have a view on whether legislation would be required to achieve this?
Lord Bethell
To date, there has been no articulation of a need for further legislation.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is it just a coincidence that Dominic Cummings used to work for this dodgy private healthcare company that is now getting so much financial and other assistance from the Government? How many meetings there have been between Health Ministers, particularly the Health Secretary, and officials from this company, Babylon? If the Minister cannot tell us today, will he write to me with details of every meeting and put a copy in the Library?
Lord Bethell
Decisions on individual providers are made by the NHS commissioners, not by special advisers. The meetings of special advisers are documented in Cabinet Office folders and I would be glad to send a link.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, is it not the case that the number of locum doctors working in GP practices is now at a record level? Is it not time that the GP contract and the structure of such practices were re-examined so that doctors who work in them can be expected to take responsibility for their management and smooth running, thereby increasing the potential for a consultation with a doctor one knows?
Lord Bethell
Working practices are changing in GP practices, as they are in every walk of life. One interesting piece of feedback from the assessment study of Babylon was the very high levels of work satisfaction from GPs, who like the flexible and at-home working. The feedback means that they will stay in the profession for longer. The Government assess this form of modernisation as being very helpful in holding GPs in their roles.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, with respect, the Minister did not answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who did not ask about meetings with special advisers but specifically about meetings between the company and Ministers, and particularly the Secretary of State. Can the Minister give that answer about how many there have been? If not, will he accede to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and write to him and put a copy in the Library?
Lord Bethell
Meetings with Ministers are published. I am happy to check with the department to see whether there has been any oversight, and I will share any response with the Member.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the big issue with apps and health is that the data used can be used by these private companies in a way that the Government cannot track, and that data—particularly of individual patients—is used in a way they do not control. In light of this, what new regulations will be brought forward, particularly on patient consent to the use of individual data?
Lord Bethell
The use of patient data by the NHS, its contractors and providers is highly regulated. The CQC regulates Babylon as it does every other GP practice, and it is subject to exactly the same rules as every other privately owned GP outfit in the country.
Frequent Flyer Airmiles Schemes
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to (1) ban or (2) restrict frequent flyer “airmiles” schemes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the fight against climate change is the greatest and most pressing challenge facing the modern world. The UK has done more than any other major economy to tackle emissions. UK airlines operate as commercial undertakings in the private sector; the Government do not intervene in commercial matters such as customer loyalty schemes.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, given that, as he says, climate change is the greatest and most challenging issue, surely it would be sensible to encourage airlines so that, instead of rewarding the 15% of the population who take 70% of the flights, it would be better for all the rest of us if they did not run these schemes—and if they did, we should have a frequent flyer tax instead.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I would much rather that we were able to address 100% of the individuals who take flights. That is why we are participating very strongly in the International Civil Aviation Organization—ICAO—to try to make sure that it addresses this matter at an international level. There are means which can be taken; the next meeting will take place in 2022, and the Government stand ready to play their part.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will understand that that is an international offsetting mechanism, which will not work. As individual car drivers we pay 58p per litre in fuel duty, and on top of that we pay VAT. The airlines pay absolutely zero tax on aviation fuel. Surely that is wrong. Would it not be an excellent way to address this, when we chair COP 26 in Glasgow next year, to have as one of our objectives that all airlines internationally should pay their fair tax and their fair contribution to remedying environmental damage?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
To be very clear, the UK has an air passenger duty which raises £3.6 billion a year. It is the highest such tax in Europe—many countries in Europe do not have such a tax—and that money goes a long way to address climate change issues, which are of importance to the Government.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, surely a customer loyalty scheme is what it says on the tin: it is trying to persuade people to fly with one airline rather than another. There is no evidence that if you discriminate against these schemes, people will fly less; they will just choose between one airline and another.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
It is not the policy of the Government to intervene in these commercial decisions. It is also important to recognise that this is a regressive step in many respects.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Is it not the Government’s responsibility to ensure that anybody going on a flight should know what damage is being done to the environment as a consequence of that flight? Is it not time that each individual should have on their ticket or in the email sent to them the amount of carbon that they will be using on that flight? Is it not right that we should have an international scheme whereby the more that people fly, which is recorded on their carbon footprint, the greater the contribution they should make towards the cost of the flight and towards putting the environment right by a tax that increases with more flying?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
To be very clear, our air passenger duty is a tax commonly passed on to passengers: the more you fly, the more you pay. Additionally, this should be addressed at international level, as the noble Lord said. I am not averse to the notion of people being more fully aware of what they are participating in, and I will examine that more carefully.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury
Can the Minister explain why the gap between aviation fuel being untaxed and road fuel being taxed as it is, is so great? If the answer is the difficulty of getting international agreement, why are UK internal flights not taxed to get some parity between different methods of transport?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The challenge we face in this country is that we are a major hub for international flights, as well as a country with a significant geographical challenge. We do all we can to ensure that people can take the types of journey they are able to take; it is up to commercial companies to determine how best to take that forward.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, might the Minister consider a more rifle-shot approach and, instead of thinking about commercial airlines, think about private jets? Might it be an idea to levy a tax on fuel sold to private jet companies, as distinct from the wider question of national and budget airlines? Private jets might be the best place to start.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My noble friend raises a question to which I do not have the answer in my notes. It strikes me that private jets probably constitute a very small proportion of the overall flights in this country, and that private jets may choose not to come here, depending on circumstance.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is great public concern, with the increased awareness of the damage of flying to our environment and climate? Does he accept that it is time that the Government took some action and worked with the grain of public opinion? Will he agree to talk to his colleagues and examine the simple carbon tax introduced by the French Government this year? It will come into force next year, it will tax every flight and it will start to address the damage that is being done.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Baroness makes a point, but air passenger duty is already a tax on every flight which is directly passed on to air passengers. It is also important to recognise that there is a responsibility on individuals. You do not have to fly abroad to take a holiday: St Andrews, in Scotland, is very pleasant, as are many other places in the United Kingdom.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, might not a positive way to address the issue be to extend the benefits of loyalty schemes to those who use public transport, cycle or walk?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Yes, that is probably true. I am not sure how it would work, but I am willing to go away, look at it and see whether we can do something with it.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister just dubbed this measure regressive in many ways. Could he enlighten your Lordships’ House on how it is regressive, given the climate emergency that we face?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The reason why I suggest that it is regressive is that by taking this approach, whether banning air miles or making other restrictions in this fashion, the people affected will almost certainly be the poorest, not those who are wealthy or who are travelling business class. The problem is that they can continue to afford to do so, while those who take family holidays will be hit by the brunt of the tax. That is regressive.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My Lords, I am sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. It is not true. The 15% are the wealthiest people, not the poorest people who take only one flight a year.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I have a sneaking suspicion that the 15% who are the wealthiest will not be deterred by the removal of a loyalty scheme.
Genocide Determination Bill [HL]
Monday 21st October 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Heritage Railways and Tramways (Voluntary Work) Bill [HL]
Monday 21st October 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Heritage Railways and Tramways (Voluntary Work) Bill [HL] 2019-19 View all Heritage Railways and Tramways (Voluntary Work) Bill [HL] 2019-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
Well-being of Future Generations Bill [HL]
Monday 21st October 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Goods Mortgages Bill [HL]
Monday 21st October 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Financial Services (Electronic Money, Payment Services and Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 5 and 9 September be approved.
Relevant document: 61st Report, Session 2017-19, from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 October.
Queen’s Speech
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open this day of debate on Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech.
The focus of today’s debate is home affairs, justice, constitutional affairs, devolved affairs and local government. The debate will enable us to explore some of the key themes of the gracious Speech, including laying the foundations for a fair, modern and global immigration system by seizing the opportunities of Brexit, doing more to redress the balance in the criminal justice system, and ensuring that victims receive the support they need and the justice they deserve. Both my noble friend Lady Williams and I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ contributions, given the wealth of experience represented on all sides of the House.
The Government are committed to making neighbourhoods safer and to ensuring that punishments fit the crime. People across the country are, rightly, appalled at the rise in violent crime. For that reason, the gracious Speech included a commitment to introduce legislation to ensure that the most serious violent and sexual offenders spend more time in prison, to match the severity of their crimes. The Government will also seek to strengthen community orders so that they deliver an appropriate level of punishment, address offenders’ behaviour, support people in addressing the potential underlying causes of their offending and provide reparation for the benefit of the wider community.
As well as getting tougher on criminals, the Government are determined to ensure that victims receive the support they need and the justice they deserve. To do that, we are accelerating plans to enshrine in legislation the rights to which victims are entitled, as set out in the victims’ code. We will publish the revised code in early 2020. We recognise that rights are meaningless without the means to enforce them. We want to legislate to ensure that victims understand the minimal level of service they can expect from criminal justice agencies and to increase the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, who is already a powerful voice for victims. The Government will legislate for the new victims’ law to be consulted on early in the new year. These changes will ensure that victims of crime receive the very best support as well as the information they need at every stage of the criminal justice system.
For the families of murder victims there can be many unanswered questions. No one should endure the anguish of having a loved one murdered and then be denied the dignity of giving them a final resting place. That is why the Government have brought forward legislation to make sure that the Parole Board must take into account an offender’s failure to disclose the location of their victim’s remains. This legislation also addresses another situation where a failure to disclose information about victims causes particular distress: where offenders fail to disclose the identities of children who are the subject of indecent images. The Parole Board will similarly be required to take into account any failure to disclose the identity of victims when assessing offenders’ suitability for release.
Marriage will always be a vital aspect of our society and it is sad for those involved when a marriage fails, but when people take the decision to divorce, the legal process currently incentivises one spouse at the outset to make allegations about the other’s conduct to avoid otherwise waiting for at least two years of separation. The new process will remove the requirement to evidence a fact to prove that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. In the gracious Speech the Government reaffirmed their commitment to reform the current legal process, which can be especially damaging to any children of the relationship. As well as removing the conflict flashpoints inherent within the current legal process, the Bill will introduce a minimum timeframe for it. This will allow for greater reflection on the decision to divorce and for couples to approach arrangements for the future as constructively and co-operatively as possible.
Domestic abuse shatters lives and tears families apart. It is estimated that in the year ending March 2018, some 2 million adults between the ages of 16 and 59 experienced domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Bill and wider action plan will help to ensure that victims have the confidence to come forward and report their experiences, safe in the knowledge that the justice system and other agencies will do everything they can both to protect and support them and their children and to pursue their abusers. We need a society in which there is zero tolerance when it come to domestic abuse and which empowers people to confront it. This Bill will be a step towards doing that.
The Government are determined to seize the opportunities of Brexit and bring an end to free movement to ensure that the UK can deliver a new points-based immigration system which will prioritise people’s skills and contributions to our society. For years, politicians have promised the public an Australian-style points-based system. We will actually deliver on those promises. We also remain committed to ensuring that resident European citizens, people who are our friends, neighbours and colleagues, and who have built their lives here and contributed so much to this country, have the right to remain.
After Brexit, the Government will take forward measures to provide certainty and stability to ensure that the UK is a world leader in private international law. We will ensure that we can continue to have clear and effective legal rules in place for resolving cross-border disputes. For example, if a UK citizen is divorcing and seeking child maintenance payments from another parent living abroad, we will have an agreed international mechanism for resolving this. If a UK business is contesting a contract with an overseas party, an international framework will be available for resolving it. The availability of agreed international rules will give UK businesses, citizens and families the confidence to work, live and trade across borders and will help the UK to flourish as a trading nation as we leave the European Union.
I know that the House will want to join me in paying tribute to the brave police officers up and down the country who do so much to keep us safe. The tragic killing of Police Constable Andrew Harper this summer starkly illustrated how police officers put their lives on the line and sacrifice time and again to help others. In July, the Government committed to the recruitment of 20,000 police officers over the next three years. It is now only right that we give all police officers the protections they need to keep the population safe. That is why we are putting our commitment to a police covenant on a statutory footing. We will also introduce measures to strengthen the legal protection given to police drivers when pursuing a subject or responding to an emergency. This will ensure that the police have the protections they need to continue their vital work.
As well as further protections for our police officers, we will invest them with the power to arrest individuals wanted by trusted international partners. As it stands, people wanted for serious crimes by countries outside the EU cannot be arrested if the police come across them on the streets of the United Kingdom. This Bill is about making clear that, where a person is wanted for a serious crime in a country such as Canada or America and may be a danger to the public, we will get them off our streets faster and in front of a judge within 24 hours to allow extradition proceedings to commence.
We will also introduce measures to improve the justice system’s response to foreign nationals who abuse the system by committing crimes. Anyone coming to our country seeking to do so should be in no doubt of our determination to deport them. The Government are already working hard to improve the efficient and effective removal of foreign-national offenders from the UK, but tougher action is needed to stop abuse of the system, speed up the process for deporting foreign-national offenders and deter foreign criminals from coming to the UK. This Bill will significantly increase—from six months to five years—the maximum penalty for those who return to the UK in breach of a deportation order. This will send a clear message to criminals who seek to return to the UK in breach of the law: if you return, you will go to prison for a long time.
This Government have always been clear that we will tackle serious violence and make our streets safer. That is why, together with strong law enforcement, we are determined to stop young people being drawn into crime. We need to understand and address the factors that cause someone to commit violent crime in the first place. The new legal duty we will deliver will ensure that all agencies work together to share intelligence and identify warning signs so that we can intervene earlier, protect young people and prevent and reduce serious violence in local areas.
Nothing is more important than ensuring that people are safe in their homes. This Government will legislate to put in place new and modernised regulatory regimes for building safety and construction products, and ensure that residents have a stronger voice in the system.
One of this Government’s key priorities is the integrity and prosperity of the union that binds the four nations of the United Kingdom. We will continue to work with all parties in Northern Ireland to support the return of devolved government and to address the legacy of the past. We want to unleash the potential of every corner of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by bridging the productivity gap, levelling up opportunity and prosperity across the nation and starting an infrastructure revolution.
As set out in the gracious Speech, the Government will bring forward our offer on devolution in England and a White Paper, along with refreshed strategies for the northern powerhouse, the Midlands engine and the UK shared prosperity fund. We are committed to invest in every area of the UK to boost jobs, productivity and living standards and, once the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, we will have a unique opportunity to devolve and empower regions across the country.
The measures outlined in the gracious Speech set out a clear direction for the future of Britain: a country with safer streets where punishments fit crimes but criminals are supported to overcome the causes of their behaviour; one where victims are supported throughout the justice process and after, so that they can move on and rebuild their lives; a society that values marriage but accepts the modern realities of divorce and has no tolerance when it comes to domestic abuse; one that gives the most legal protection possible to brave police officers who risk life and limb to keep us safe; a nation that values immigration and has enough control of its borders to welcome the skills it really needs and reject foreign criminals from our shores; one that addresses serious violence at its root causes to keep our young people safe from harm; a United Kingdom where every constituent part and region has the necessary political will, the right infrastructure and the ability to make decisions in its own best interest; one where opportunity is levelled up and every single person can thrive. Over the coming weeks and months, I look forward to debating with your Lordships the many measures that I have outlined today.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interest in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, in his place. This is my first opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord. I always enjoyed our friendly debates across the Dispatch Boxes. He was engaging and courteous at all times, both in and outside the Chamber. He was a very able Minister and is a real loss to the Government. I know he will continue to make informed contributions to your Lordships’ business, as he will today.
My focus today is a number of the proposals in the Queen’s Speech, covering areas in which I will have some involvement in your Lordships’ House in this Session of Parliament—however long it lasts. While this Session continues, and until Parliament is dissolved, I am absolutely committed to working with those on all Benches to improve the Bills that come before us. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, has told us, the debate today will cover home affairs, justice, local government, devolved affairs and constitutional affairs. I have seen only one of the Bills that is to be brought before us. With that proviso, I intend to set out my initial thinking and how I hope we will progress. My noble friend Lord Rosser will cover the areas that I do not reference. I look forward to all contributions from noble Lords to today’s debate.
Generally, I welcome measures that seek to address crime, in particular violent crime and thereby strengthen the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system. The types of crime perpetrated, and how they come about, change over time. We therefore need to update our response regularly and consistently. But addressing crime is about not only punishment but rehabilitation and addressing the problems in the first place, before we get anywhere near the involvement of the police, prisons or probation services. Longer prison sentences might get the Government a few favourable headlines in some of the tabloids, but do they punish, address offender behaviour and help with rehabilitation? That is the question we should be asking. Any Government who get the balance right and make positive inroads to both addressing offender behaviour and delivering proper rehabilitation will get, and truly deserve, praise for making our country a safer place, and save the taxpayer many millions of pounds.
Looking at some of measures announced in the Queen’s Speech, I am pleased that the Domestic Abuse Bill is making progress. I hope it can be speedily passed into law. If we do nothing else before this Parliament is dissolved, notwithstanding the issues around Brexit, I hope that this Bill will become an Act of Parliament. Domestic abuse is a wicked crime, perpetrated by those closest to you—those who should be protecting you, not making your life a living hell. There is no stereotype of a domestic abuser; they come from all walks of life. What happens to victims is wicked and evil, and totally unacceptable. Those who commit such crimes must understand that they will face the full force of the law, while victims must be confident that they have the protection of the state in all its forms.
From the Opposition Benches, I have been working hard, along with my noble friends Lord Rosser, Lady Gale and others, to get this important Bill passed into law. When the Bill arrives in this House, I will raise the issue of victims in some parts of the country being charged by GPs for a letter to confirm their injuries and that they have been a victim of domestic abuse, so that they can get access to services. That is terrible. It is wrong and the Government should put a stop to it. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will address that issue when she responds to the debate.
I welcome measures that will further support victims of crime, and the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who is not in her place, will be important to those debates.
I hope the Government will take up the care and support of victims of modern slavery. The Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, McColl of Dulwich, was lost in the other place, which is most regrettable. It will be good if, in this Session of Parliament, the care and support afforded to victims in England and Wales is brought up to the same standard that victims enjoy in both Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill puts on a statutory footing a practice already in place. Criminals need to understand that their failure to provide the most basic closure to victims and their families will be quite properly taken into account by the Parole Board when they are seeking release from prison.
I agree with and welcome many of the proposals in the Serious Violence Bill. I support a multiagency approach to tackling the root causes of violent crime. An emphasis on intervention with young people and an acknowledgement that law enforcement alone cannot tackle violence is correct—I agree with every word—but that means the involvement of social workers, youth workers, community workers, teachers and other parts of the local government family, along with the voluntary sector. However, it will be no solution to the problem if further requirements and burdens are placed on local authorities without commensurate increases in the resources they have to deliver these new obligations. Unfortunately, it has been a recurring pattern for the Government to do that. We have heard time and again from the Government the standard response that local authorities have the powers to tackle these issues. Maybe they do, but they do not have the resources and that is a big problem.
On social care increases, too many times we have seen that when we have been allowed to increase resources it comes in the form of approval to increase council tax rather than in direct government grants. As noble Lords will know, council tax is a regressive form of taxation.
The proposals to recruit 20,000 new police officers are welcome but have to be seen in the context of the Government cutting a similar number of police officers since 2010. Experience has been lost and I have a Question on tomorrow’s Order Paper about the relationship between the number of officers and the number of crimes committed. The Police Protections Bill looks like a measure that we on these Benches can fully support but, again, the detail will be as important as recognising police bravery and supporting officers. What is proposed in the Bill needs to make a positive difference, not only in words but in deeds and proper actions.
Turning to the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill, criminal activity does not respect borders and boundaries, and so making things as difficult as possible for criminals and making sure that they cannot evade justice is to be supported. It is, though, disappointing that these measures may have to be used if we no longer have access to the European arrest warrant, which has been a success in bringing people back to the UK—and in sending them elsewhere in the European Union if they are hiding in the UK—to face justice. Clearly that is another of those Brexit dividends we were not told about. This legislation will need careful scrutiny to ensure that we get the balance right.
Again, in principle I welcome the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has sought through private Members’ legislation to improve divorce proceedings many times and I will fully support her in anything she does to make these matters better.
The White Paper on English devolution, referred to in the Queen’s speech, seems, disappointingly, to carry on with the same confused patchwork of local government reforms that started with the Cameron Government. This is not a real devolution of power. I see no devolutionary zeal, only tired tinkering, and that is disappointing. The Labour Government elected in 1997 made radical changes to the governance of the United Kingdom. The one country that did not see radical change—other than the establishment of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly—was England, which still has very a centralised form of government. I do not see much progress here to deliver a new settlement.
There has been much talk of measures around electoral integrity. I want measures in place that ensure that people who are entitled to vote are able to and to eliminate voter fraud, but any measure to require that identification be produced at the polling station must be introduced carefully and proportionately. From all the evidence I have seen, voter ID fraud is minimal. We cannot have hundreds more people who have the right to vote being refused it at a polling station. That would be totally unacceptable. We actually have a voter underregistration problem in the UK. Any measures brought in by the Government should address that problem as well as part of any voter integrity package, along with measures to make our elections safe from abuse and from unscrupulous campaigners who seek to benefit from the inadequacies of our electoral law, so that elections are free and fair. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who is not in his place, has agreed with me numerous times at the Dispatch Box that our present electoral law is not fit for purpose and in need of urgent reform. That urgent reform should be put in place before we have a general election. The Government will have the full support of the Opposition to do that quickly if they choose to act on these matters, which they should do urgently.
In concluding, I repeat the point I made at the start: I will engage positively with the Government and all Benches in this noble House to improve proposals that come before us for consideration. When I agree with the Government, I will happily say so and support them, and where I differ, I will seek to persuade them of the soundness of my arguments. I always reserve the right, however, to divide the House if all else fails. I look forward to an interesting debate today and to the Minister’s contribution at the end.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, when the Prime Minister promises not to send a letter to the EU requesting an extension and does, and when he promises no border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and then agrees a deal that would put such a border in place, the primary consideration becomes one of trust. Whether it is promises about ending free movement, ensuring the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, supporting our police or tackling violent crime, I suggest that this Government’s promises should not be trusted.
Sometimes this becomes apparently only when you look at the detail. The Home Secretary says free movement between the EU and the UK will end on 31 October when, in fact, this House has already passed secondary legislation which, in the event of no deal, would allow EU citizens unrestricted access to the UK and its employment market, with the only requirement being a day trip to Boulogne every six months, which would be impossible to enforce. Can the Minister say what would happen to free movement in the event of a deal and us going into a transition period? Would free movement end on 31 October?
The Government say they are committed to ensuring that EU citizens resident in the UK have the right to remain, yet on 9 October 2019 only 929,600 of the 2.7 million EU citizens living in the UK had been granted full settled status. That is just over one-third of them. The best way of ensuring that resident European Union citizens, who have built their lives in, and contributed so much to, the United Kingdom, have the right to remain is for the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union, and that is what the Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring through a confirmatory referendum or, if the public vote for a majority Liberal Democrat Government at the next general election, by revoking Article 50.
Further on Brexit and immigration, more than 20 organisations, including the Refugee Council, are currently in receipt of funding from the EU’s Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund to deliver a range of services aimed at supporting the integration of refugees in the UK. Can the Minister confirm this funding will cease immediately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal? Do the Government not think that the integration of refugees is important?
On Brexit and crime, it was the conclusion of the National Crime Agency lead on Brexit that the UK will be less safe and less secure if we leave the European Union, with or without a deal. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, said, we will no longer have access to the European arrest warrant, for example. Any measures that the Government introduce,
“to arrest individuals who are wanted by trusted international partners”,
will be problematic. Extradition will take months, if not years, compared with weeks under the European arrest warrant. Remands in custody pending extradition over such an extended period are likely to be granted only in the most exceptional cases and, even if suspects are detained, it will create additional strain on an already overloaded prison system.
The Government say that they are committed to strengthening public confidence in the criminal justice system. That confidence starts with the certainty that offenders will be caught, and that requires an effective police service. The Home Secretary says that she will put criminals in fear, but it is innocent members of the public who are in fear, as the visible uniformed presence on our streets has all but disappeared.
On policing, the Government promise 20,000 “new” police officers over the next three years. We have lost 20,500 police officers since 2010, 4,800 special constables and over 7,000 police community support officers—the backbone of community policing. That is 12,300 fewer uniformed officers than in 2010, even after the Government’s promised 20,000 “new” officers.
It is not just about numbers, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned; it is also about the loss of experience and the loss of diversity. Historically, there has been a much higher proportion of black and minority-ethnic officers among specials and PCSOs, whose numbers have dropped 30% and 42% respectively since 2010. Public confidence in the criminal justice system is not about an overwhelmingly white police force exercising stop and search with no reasonable cause to suspect any wrongdoing. That results in communities feeling overpoliced and underprotected.
We need to restore community policing with officers who reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. We need to get communities and the police standing shoulder to shoulder against the knife carriers, rather than create a climate where suspicionless stop and search makes some communities feel that they have to fight the police as well as the criminals. What targets are the Government setting in relation to the recruitment of black and minority-ethnic police officers in this drive to find 20,000 new officers, and how realistic is that target of recruiting 20,000 new officers in three years?
A few years ago, I met a PCSO who wanted to be a police constable. PCSOs have no power of arrest, are not trained or equipped to deal with violent offenders and never get involved in violent demonstrations. That PCSO told me that he could not afford the drop in earnings to the starting salary of a PC. PCs run towards danger and put their lives on the line for us every day they are on duty. He was on £30,000 a year as a PCSO. A PC at that time was on a starting salary of £17,000. With the erosion of police officer pay and conditions under this Government, no wonder 22,367 police officers have left the police service in the past three years.
To increase the size of our police forces by 20,000 over the next three years, we will have to select, recruit, train and equip over 42,000 police officers, if wastage continues at the same rate. That is 14,100 police officers a year—50% more than in the last financial year. In fact, in the past 20 years the police have never been able to recruit more than 13,100 officers in any one year. The recruitment, selection and training resources are simply not there, and the money that the Government are promising will not be enough to recruit, train and equip the officers that they are promising to deliver.
The Government say that they are committed to addressing violent crime by making serious offenders spend longer in prison. It is the prospect of being caught, not the length of the sentence, that cuts crime. We need a real violent crime strategy with objectives, targets, co-ordinated implementation of what has proven to be effective and proper long-term funding for initiatives that work, not a patchwork of piecemeal projects and a multitude of funding pots. As the Children’s Society put it in its briefing on this Bill,
“the Government runs the risk of implementing short-term ineffective responses to youth violence and knife crime. The current government approach to tackling youth violence through knife crime is punitive—The Children’s Society believe this approach is fundamentally misguided”.
More than anything else, we need to invest in our young people, addressing adverse childhood experiences and providing safe and healthy alternatives to criminal gangs and an education system that excludes no one. The Liberal Democrats will invest in our police, youth services and education system to ensure a fair society where even the poorest and most vulnerable feel safe.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, in the gracious Speech there is a reference to the integrity of democracy. I will address the simple principle that the integrity of democracy in this country depends on the survival of the constitution. We have a great number of problems. We are not providing the constitution with the protection it needs, if I may say so, from Parliament. We never have time to examine these issues as a whole. We examine them piecemeal and do not appreciate that each part of the problem adds up to one problem overall, so I will pick four examples.
First, there is the obvious one. To avoid a political difficulty, Mr Cameron, with a great deal of support in Parliament, and, let us not forget, with its certain concurrence, gave us the Brexit referendum. The public were led to believe that their decision in the referendum would be binding on Parliament. They did not choose the questions that they had to answer; the questions were chosen for them. We now know what answer was given. It did not coincide with the views of the majority of people in either of our two Houses. Simply because a referendum has no real place in our constitution, the constitution did not provide and could not be expected to provide an answer to a simple question.
In such a clash, who wins? Those who support Brexit assert—it has been asserted in this Chamber time and again—that a democratic mandate was given to the people and that this overrides Parliament. The same has been frequently asserted in this House the other way around: the ancient principle that ultimate sovereignty rests with Parliament. What a constitutional shambles! It is a salutary lesson to all politicians on all sides that if you mess about with the constitution it will bite back, and it is the public and nation who suffer the consequent injury.
Secondly, as part of a deal to create a coalition Government—in other words, to deal with a political difficulty—the then Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Parliament enacted a new principle: the five-year Parliament. The result is that, although the Prime Minister of the day failed more than once to obtain parliamentary agreement to the deal she had agreed with the EU, an absolutely central part of her legislative programme, the country was deprived of the only constitutional way to resolve the problem: a general election. There should have been one, but there could not be. I am not saying that we need a general election now—I keep off general elections or referenda in the present context—but I am reflecting that what I am sure was an unintended consequence of this enactment is that an important constitutional principle was undermined. Before the constitutional change was made, did anyone give thought to how it might impact on that constitutional principle? I regret to say that I doubt it.
I come to my third point. All parties are involved in this. Until recently, the Lord Chancellor held office as a major member of the Cabinet, among other things, and as head of the judiciary, with special responsibility for safeguarding the constitution, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. That office has now been downgraded. It is no longer the pinnacle of a political career. In truth, it is a relatively minor ministerial appointment, in Cabinet terms. It will be remembered that this important constitutional change was simply announced to the public, before any discussion with Parliament.
So far as the constitutional responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor are concerned, we now have a Minister for the Constitution; I wonder how many Members of this House know that. However, that Minister is not a member of the Cabinet. Like the Lord Chancellor, the Minister does not have to be a lawyer. Therefore, the Minister for the Constitution is not a member of the Cabinet and, like the Lord Chancellor, he or she may never even have read the Ladybird book on the constitution. I am not forgetting the Attorney-General, but he or she is not a Cabinet member either and, in any event, the basic responsibility of the holder of that office is to give independent-minded advice to the Government when the Government are his or her client.
I would love to enter into the Prorogation question in this debate, but I will not. For today’s purposes, I should love to know whether the Minister for the Constitution was consulted in any way, shape or form about the proposal that there should be a Prorogation in September. If not, what is he or she doing? Why do we have such a role? I would argue that in the interests of our democracy and the importance of our constitutional arrangements to preserve that democracy, the Minister for the Constitution should at least be in the Cabinet. I do not expect that we will ever get back to the old-fashioned influence and responsibility of the former office of the Lord Chancellor, but this story is a very serious indication of whether we are at all bothered about the constitution. As things stand, the constitution has been relegated in the government structure and the Cabinet hierarchy. Do we think that is a good idea?
I will make one last point before this turns into a lecture. I want to highlight an issue which may not have crossed all your desks. I am very grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report of January 2018. Your Lordships’ House had nothing much to do with the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, as it was a supply Bill and therefore not for this House. Nevertheless, our committee reported in very troubled terms on the delegated powers in the Bill, which involved a massive transfer of power from the Commons to Ministers, with over 150 separate powers to make tax law affecting individuals and businesses, running to thousands of pages. Can we bear in mind that the essential foundation of all our constitutional arrangements and the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament depends on the principle which literally goes back to Magna Carta, Clause 12—that there should be “no scutage nor aid” without consent? That moved across the Atlantic in the principle which the Americans took from this country and summarised as “no taxation without representation”.
The report is utterly courteous, but it is damning about the powers that the Bill—now the Act—gives to the Executive. One example will do. Section 32 creates a regulation-making power, subject to not affirmative but negative procedure. It relates to regulations of the widest possible impact, including those on VAT and customs and excise duty, and of course includes all the ability to disapply primary legislation and so on. This is all on the basis of a “public notice” published by the Minister or HMRC commissioners.
The Public Law Project, a national charity, drew my attention to a new statutory instrument made in purported compliance with these powers. It also made a legal argument that the regulations were ultra vires the parent Act and threatened a judicial review. It has now been conceded that, in law, it was right. But that is a temporary victory. The Act remains in force and so do the wide regulation-making powers. We are not even aware of it. This is a return to rule by proclamation, but because nowadays we all know that we dislike that and are very aware of Henry VIII and the Statute of Proclamations, what do we do? We have a “public notice”—a notice that the Treasury, not the Commons, considers appropriate. This is taxation by proclamation. The mind boggles.
I have said this frequently before, so forgive me, but I simply want to highlight that, as Parliament, we vest vast powers in Ministers, the Treasury, HMRC or any other government department, to create laws and change laws. The constitutional framework is shifting. We are building our constitution on softer sand; not loudly or so anybody notices, but it is happening.
For those noble Lords who are disturbed, let us not forget that criticism should be directed to Parliament. It is up to us. It is very simple: if we want to guard our democracy and its integrity, we must guard our constitution against temporary political advantage or expediency. We must be alert to it and we must fight it. Our constitution is wonderfully flexible, but even a wonderfully flexible constitution can be tested to destruction. That is what we must avoid.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
Would the noble and learned Lord agree that in times such as this, it is so important that we rely on our tried parliamentary machinery, and that in recent times we have altered that parliamentary machinery without giving due thought to the consequences?
Lord Judge
My short answer is “yes”, but it would be a very long answer if I explained why and what my reservations are about my “yes”.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests as set out in the register, in particular as chairman of the British Insurance Brokers’ Association and as a partner in the global commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft LLP.
It is a privilege to follow what I regarded as an outstandingly good speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. It was my privilege to sit with him on the Constitution Committee for several years. Sadly, we are no longer on that committee and he has moved on to a much higher role in this House, but I welcome his words of reflection on the unwritten constitution. Because it is not written at the moment, we have the opportunity to write, for the first time, our constitution. That is something for which we should bear in mind his wise words.
I recall that we did have a great debate about all this. I am sad to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is not in his place, because that debate took place on the very idea, put forward by the then Lord Chancellor, that we should in effect downgrade the position of Lord Chancellor, albeit by creating the Supreme Court and siting it elsewhere. In a way it also paved the way for the very situation that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has just outlined. The constitutional framework has shifted on to “softer sand”, to use his words. We should pause and reflect on that.
Overshadowing us is the fact that, as we are already acutely aware, while we debate so many important aspects of Her Majesty’s gracious Address, along the Corridor in another place the protracted and debilitating discussion of Brexit continues. I understand that the latest information is that we will be sitting through Friday, Saturday and Sunday of the coming weekend. No doubt we shall hear more about that.
Brexit touches on all aspects of our lives, including those that we are debating today. My area of activity for the last 50 years has been the financial services sector, which leads the world and is vital to our entire social and economic fabric. It makes doing business possible and brings security into all our lives. Its business model is predicated on highly sophisticated and flexible modelling of risk and uncertainty, and it has done everything possible to make itself Brexit-proof. I pay tribute to the chief executive of BIBA, Steve White, and his team, for their skill in helping the industry prepare for whatever transpires. None the less, the current uncertainty is causing incalculable and unnecessary cost, stress and friction. A no-deal Brexit would still cause significant damage. As the Government seek to steer between the Scylla of a Government led by Jeremy Corbyn and the Charybdis of a no-deal Brexit, they do of course enjoy my full support.
Breathless after that, I will take this opportunity to praise this Government’s commitment to the continuing improvement of high-speed broadband coverage. It will improve people’s lives, be beneficial to commerce and provide the necessary foundation for the UK to emerge as one of the leading developers of autonomous vehicle—AV—technology. At the same time, I voice a note of caution. For us to remain at the forefront of AV development we shall need greater investment in infrastructure beyond 5G. I refer noble Lords to KPMG’s 2019 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index, which noted that, despite leading the way in other areas:
“The UK faces challenges concerning digital and physical infrastructure … It lags behind other countries in 4G coverage, global connectivity, quality of roads (especially smaller roads) and logistics infrastructure”.
The Law Commission has just published its second consultation paper on the regulatory framework for the safe deployment of automated vehicles in the UK, which noted that rural areas of the UK would be in serious trouble. What I am talking about is: in Wales, how on earth would a driverless car negotiate flocks of sheep? My experience as a Whip, by the way, is wholly unconnected. I welcome the Government’s proposals. Above all, this debate reminds us that there is going to be life after Brexit.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I join the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for a positive and always very constructive working relationship.
The focus of my remarks today will be confined to some aspects of local government. Nearly 20% of total national spending on public services is through local government. Sadly, though not surprisingly, the two words not mentioned in the Queen’s Speech were “local” and “government”. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the current Government have no interest in, nor concern for, local government. The sins of omission are as great as those of commission. Despite the fundamental place that local government has in the lives of everyone in our nation, this Government have nothing substantial to say on what they intend to do to enhance that offer.
The Government have accepted for at least the past four years that a crisis exists in the funding of care for vulnerable adults. The Prime Minister has told us that he will solve that crisis. I looked in vain for concrete proposals. Once again, the Government are ducking their responsibilities. The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has put it bluntly, saying that social care in England is adrift in a “sea of inertia” caused by years of budget cuts and concluding:
“The system is not only failing financially, it is failing people”.
The Government’s only financial response is to pass on to hard-pressed council tax payers the burden of funding social care, with some additional national core funding, which will still mean a significant shortfall in what is required. Can the Minister provide a timetable for the publication of a White Paper with proposals for tackling this crisis?
At least the Government have recognised that there is a crisis in the funding of adult social care. The costs of care for vulnerable children is, if anything, a bigger funding crisis. The total number of looked-after children reached a new high of 75,420 last year, representing the biggest annual rise in the number of children in care in eight years. An average of 88 children now come into care every day and, overall, councils face a £3.1 billion funding gap for children’s services by 2025. Again, sadly, the government response in terms of funding is minimal in comparison to the need—just a share of the social care and children’s budget of £410 million, when the need is £600 million for children alone. Can the Minister provide assurance that policies are being developed by the Government to address what appears a startling abdication of responsibility for the most vulnerable children in England?
At the heart of these two immense failures is the bare fact that the Government are failing to develop policies for the fundamental reform of local government finance. They have previously committed to a multiyear provision of funding. That has failed, and local government finds that it is unable to plan for more than one year at a time because of it. That is simply not an efficient use of public funds. A major portion of the quantum of funds available comes from business rates. That tax is rightly criticised for no longer reflecting modern business practice. My party, the Liberal Democrats, has at least proposed a solution: replace business rates with a commercial landowner levy and increase funding for health and social care with a 1p rise in income tax. What are the Government’s plans?
Of course, a major element of the problem for local government is that key decisions are still taken in London. Where are the plans for a genuine devolution of responsibilities and funding? Perhaps the Minister can provide some clues.
The one glimmer of hope in the Government’s plans addresses the viability of some struggling towns. Of course, additional funding is to be welcomed, but deep-seated problems will not be resolved by one-off funding, as previous iterations have demonstrated. Councils provide essential, life-enhancing services. It is a shocking indictment of this Government that these needs are not being addressed.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government and welcome their initiative on the NHS. I assure them that, if they have the chance to put this in place, some of us on this side will ensure that it is well scrutinised and applied. I also welcome the long-awaited Domestic Abuse Bill. I hope that both Houses can come together to find the best way to ensure that this scourge is brought to an end.
I will pick up one minor point in this context. I welcome the Government’s initiative in bringing forward an SI on the alcohol abstinence monitoring requirement. When this was being debated about six years ago, I was involved, with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in persuading the Mayor of London to run a trial with it; another trial was introduced in another part of the country. Under this scheme, those found guilty of offences, in many instances involving violence, but who manage to avoid prison, are given community sentences to which are attached a requirement that they should not be taking drugs or alcohol. Monitoring, to make sure they stay sober, has been introduced on an experimental basis. Last week, I had a meeting with the Minister responsible and I am pleased that this is being embraced with enthusiasm and it is now intended to roll it out around the whole country.
This helpful development links to the Domestic Abuse Bill, because much domestic abuse is linked to drugs and, more particularly, alcohol abuse. My major criticism is that people will be kept under review and required to be tested for a period of 120 days. In our jails, people who have problems with drugs and alcohol are given assistance to get sober while they are inside, but when their sentence is over and they go back into the community, they frequently go around in the same old circle and end up recommitting offences, in many cases linked to drug and alcohol abuse. I therefore question whether looking at people for 120 days is enough. I have suggested to the Minister that he should convene a meeting of interested charities and voluntary organisations. Recognising the pressure on resources, we have to look to all the areas where we can get additional assistance. This might involve the voluntary sector, perhaps using organisations such as AA, which have tried-and-tested experience in assisting people to get permanent recovery. A small conference, bringing together interested parties, might find a way to give longer-term assistance and support, well beyond the 120 days. That would benefit not just those individuals but also their families, who are so often affected by the violence arising from drug and alcohol abuse. That is my major, modest contribution to this debate.
From listening to the debate so far, I have a few comments. I listened particularly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and others who picked up the issue of democracy. I spoke on Saturday about our failure as leaders to respond to changes taking place in our communities. Technology is moving quickly and we find ourselves falling behind. People are expressing views and participating by using technology in a way unthought of five to 10 years ago. My guess is that this will move even faster, yet we are very slow in responding to it.
We talk about the constitution, and Scotland immediately comes to mind. There will be a referendum in Scotland. There will have to be an amazing change if there is to be a shift in public opinion in Scotland away from that, so it is an important issue. Northern Ireland and Ireland looms up again, with big changes possible. Even Wales is now splitting in its old party system, leading to completely new ideas emerging there. I suggest that we must spend more time in this Chamber, where we have so much expertise in the constitution and the law, and look at what is around the corner and how we can adapt and try to embrace it in a way that we have not done so far.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about the problems we have: the country is split between from one region to another and we have to address this and find ways for people in those areas to express their views. In turn, we must be more open to change than we have been so far.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, there is an air of unreality about this debate. I cannot recall debates on a Queen’s Speech being held in a state of such uncertainty. Nevertheless, there are two issues that the gracious Speech raises that concern me and that are worth commenting on, lest they go further. The first arises from this sentence:
“New sentencing laws will see that the most serious offenders spend longer in custody to reflect better the severity of their crimes”.
At first sight, it is hard to disagree with this—if there is something wrong, it needs to be made better—but the background briefing tells us that the main elements of the proposed sentencing Bill include changing the automatic release point from half way to the two-thirds point for adult offenders serving sentences of four years or more for serious violent or sexual offences.
I have to confess that I am in two minds about this. On the one hand, I dislike the system of automatic release before the full sentence has been served. As a former judge, I believe that sentences should mean what they say. When I entered practice some 55 years ago, the system was that offenders had to earn their release before the end of the sentence by satisfying the Parole Board, once they became eligible, that they should be released. That was the position under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which provided that offenders had to be half way through the sentence before they were eligible. It was to relieve the pressure on prisons caused by a relentless rise in the number of prisoners that the system was changed from one of eligibility to one of automatic release. To move this system to the two-thirds point, closer to what the judge was saying, has some attraction, but I have concerns.
The gracious Speech goes on to say that the Government,
“will work to improve safety and security in prisons and to strengthen the rehabilitation of offenders”.
To move the release point to two-thirds will mean an increase in the prison population, according to the Government’s own estimate, by about 3,000. It is no secret that England and Wales already have more people in custody that any other western European nation, and it is well known that many of our prisons are overcrowded. This has consequences. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists pointed out in its briefing note, prisoners are dying at an unprecedented rate from suicide and physical ill-health, and mental health teams are finding it difficult to access prisoners who need help. How, it asked, are prisoners supposed to be treated and rehabilitated and enabled to prepare themselves if they are required to spend longer in these conditions?
The longer prisoners spend in custody, the more they become institutionalised and the more difficult it becomes for them to face up to what will happen if and when they are released. During one of my many visits to prisons when I was Chief Justice in Scotland, I met prisoners who had long since forgotten how to use a knife and fork when eating their meals, and for mental health reasons they found it very hard to sit at a table with other people at mealtimes. Rehabilitation matters, and overcrowding is an obstacle to progress. I hope that the Minister will explain how increasing the prison population to such an extent can be reconciled with the aim, which of course I support, of strengthening the rehabilitation of offenders.
I have time to mention one other concern. The gracious Speech says:
“Laws will be introduced to ensure that the parole system recognises the pain to victims and their families caused by offenders refusing to disclose information relating to their crimes”.
But this is already the established practice. We are told that making this a legal obligation will reassure victims, but I dislike the rigidity of a statutory obligation. Judges know all about this when they are faced with rigid rules which have been fixed by statute when it comes to the matter of sentencing.
One has to bear in mind too that under the established practice of the Parole Board, very occasionally mistakes are made. For example, Victor Nealon, having been convicted of rape, spent 17 years in custody beyond his tariff release date because he refused to admit his guilt. He was eventually released when DNA evidence showed that he could not have committed the crime. For him, his repeated appearances before the Parole Board were a prolonged nightmare.
There may be a variety of reasons why a prisoner does not disclose information, some of which he cannot control. I fear that a legal obligation may increase the number of mistakes, especially if the measure extends to any failure, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, said in his opening speech. I would much rather leave this to the discretion of the Parole Board, with all the sensitivity that it can bring to bear, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there is a real need for this change. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what the need really is for this to be a statutory obligation rather than for it to be left to established practice.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to respond to Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. Almost all the major Bills announced have been trailed from the time Boris Johnson became Prime Minister. I have no doubt that this announcement, disguised as the gracious Speech, will form the Conservative manifesto at the next election.
The Speech contains announcements which I welcome: for example, on bringing forward legislation on domestic violence and improving the treatment of victims of crime by the criminal justice system. Regrettably, however, these sensible measures have been overshadowed by the Government’s determination to project a macho, harsh image towards criminals by yet again increasing the severity of sentencing.
The problems in our prisons are well known and they have been debated many times in this House. This country has the highest rate of imprisonment in western Europe. There are 139 prisoners per 100,000 population in England and Wales, and 150 per 100,000 population in Scotland, compared with 104 per 100,000 in France and 77 in Germany. The severity of our sentencing has greatly increased. Last year, the average sentence for an indictable offence was 58 months—or just under five years. This is more than two years longer than the average sentence 12 years previously in 2006, when it was just under three years.
As a direct result of our high use of imprisonment, the state of many of our prisons is a national disgrace. In his annual report for 2018-19, the Chief Inspector of Prisons said that,
“far too many of our jails have been plagued by drugs, violence, appalling living conditions and a lack of access to meaningful rehabilitative activity”.
Prisoners and staff now feel less safe than they have at any point since records began. The number of deaths in prison has almost doubled in the past decade. Rates of self-harm by prisoners are the highest ever recorded. Assaults in prisons are also at the highest level ever recorded. The number of recorded sexual assaults in prison has quadrupled since 2012. Assaults on staff have tripled in the past five years.
Yet the Government now propose sentencing changes which will send even more people into already overcrowded and struggling prisons. They propose to increase the proportion of sentences to be served by violent and sexual offenders before they are released on licence from one half to two-thirds of their sentence. When those prisoners are released, the length of time for which they will then be supervised on licence will be less than it is now, despite the strong evidence that such supervision greatly reduces the likelihood of further offending.
It is perfectly obvious that the motivation behind that is to enable the Government to adopt a tough-looking stance in a forthcoming general election. When judges conclude that an offender is dangerous, they already have the power to pass an extended sentence. When they do so, the offender serves two-thirds of their sentence in custody, followed by an extended period of supervision in the community, so it is difficult to see what benefits the new proposals will have for public safety. The Government also propose to increase the minimum periods which life sentence prisoners must serve by changing the way in which tariffs are calculated and increasing the number of offences for which prisoners receive whole life tariffs.
These changes also do nothing to increase the safety of the public. Life sentence prisoners who have served their minimum term are released only after a careful review of their case by the Parole Board, which must be satisfied that their risk is minimal before they can be released on licence. The proportion of offenders released on parole who commit a further serious offence is less than 1%, so it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the changes are simply a grandstanding gesture. The result of that grandstanding will be felt on every landing in every prison in this country. It will be felt by prisoners and by hard-pressed prison staff, who are struggling to cope in an overstretched and underresourced prison system. What is the Government’s estimate of the increase in the prison population which will result from their proposals on sentencing?
These changes will do little, if anything, to reduce crime. International surveys, including a thorough international survey by our National Audit Office in 2012, have shown that there is no connection between the level of imprisonment in a country and its crime rate. Rates of crime depend on a wide range of factors in society, including rates of employment, the extent of drug and alcohol misuse, levels of family breakdown, income inequality, mental health provision and the way in which a society supports its most vulnerable and marginalised members. In comparison with those factors, sentencing has only a marginal effect.
The best way to combat crime would be a strategy to reduce the use of prison, increase the use of community sentences, which are less expensive and more effective, and increase the resources devoted to social measures which can prevent or reduce crime. It is regrettable that the Government have abandoned sensible proposals floated by previous Secretaries of State for Justice which could have offset some of the damage which will result from the new sentencing proposals.
Until recently, the Government were canvassing the idea of introducing a presumption against short sentences.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I remind the noble Lord of the advisory speaking time. Perhaps he could draw his comments to a close.
Lord Dholakia
I shall do that. It is an advisory limit, but I shall conclude now.
Short sentences are the most ineffective of all types of custodial sentences. They have the highest reconviction rates. They are not long enough for any serious attempt at rehabilitation, but they can result in offenders losing jobs, accommodation and family life.
Looking at the rehabilitation of offenders would do more to protect the public than headline-grabbing announcements designed to help win a general election rather than fight crime.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, this particular section of the Queen’s Speech is always a bit of a pot-pourri of issues because of the extensive responsibilities of the Home Office, the other home departments and the Justice Department. I extend my sympathies to my noble friend Lady Williams, who must contend with responding to 50 speeches on a wide range of subjects. I am afraid that I am about to add to her difficulties, for which I apologise, by raising yet another subject that has not been discussed much so far: the contentious issue of immigration. I do so because it is my view that no Government—neither the present Government, nor the coalition Government or the Labour Government that preceded them—have handled this issue well in recent times. They have handled it so badly that it has contributed to the distrust of the political and constitutional system that has been much commented on in the course of our debate.
However, with Brexit, there is an opportunity to reset our policies in this area to ones that are more sensible and command greater public support. This can be done in a number of ways. First, the Government should look not just at immigration per se but population trends as a whole—in short, the entire demographic picture of the country. The fact is that we are a very crowded country. For example, England is twice as heavily populated as Germany and three and a half times as heavily populated as France.
Moreover, the population of the UK is growing at its fastest rate in more than a century. The central forecast of the Office for National Statistics is that, if this growth continues, we will over the next 10 years add the equivalent of the populations of Greater Manchester and Birmingham to existing populations. I recommend to the House my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts’s excellent pamphlet, Britain’s Demographic Challenge, which spells out some of the consequences of this extraordinary prospective increase in population. I accept that this is just a forecast, of course, but it is the central forecast of the main government forecasting body. Is this what we want? Is this what the public want? Not according to surveys of public opinion. The latest ones on this subject indicate that three-quarters of our present population think that the country is already overcrowded, and more than 70% think that the net immigration figure should be reduced to tens of thousands a year.
Secondly, we need to pay much more attention to the questions of social cohesion and quality of life, as opposed to the economic aspects of immigration. For example, the main body that the Government consult on immigration issues—it is referenced throughout the White Paper on immigration, produced in December last year—is the Migration Advisory Committee. However, with one exception, all the committee members are university economists. I am a graduate of the dismal science, so I am not likely to underestimate the value of good economic advice, but, frankly, that is ridiculous. The committee needs some social scientists, a local authority representative, a geographer—perhaps even someone from Population Matters, the organisation headed by Jonathon Porritt and Sir David Attenborough, because population is also a climate change issue. Certainly, a more holistic approach to this issue, rather than a purely economic one, is required.
Thirdly, in the course of their discussions on immigration, the Government have mentioned the example of Australia. Australia’s points system is actually not dissimilar to our own, but it has something that we do not have: an immigration planning programme and system, which sets out the number of permanent visas in a budget every year. The total is broken down into various categories—skilled workers, unskilled workers, families, et cetera—and there is some flexibility for trade between the various components. Canada, another country with extensive immigration experience, does much the same. It seems to me that we should learn from these countries with real experience in immigration of a kind that, until recently, we did not have.
Finally, all of these countries make a point of presenting the annual immigration plan to their Parliaments for an annual debate. I would prefer, as I have suggested, to look at the demographic picture as a whole rather than purely just immigration, but whichever way it is done, the idea of a kind of Budget statement and debate with parliamentarians, whatever their views on the subject, being able to dissect government policy, the reasons for their approach, and to come to conclusions. If this policy framework or even something like it was set up, we would have a system that was more accountable and transparent. In my view, it would give us a chance to have more sensible and sustainable population and immigration policies with a better balance between economic, social and environmental concerns. It might also reduce the distrust of ordinary people of government which, as I have mentioned, is now so evident. It would, in short, be good government—and, my heavens, we need some good government today.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I have chosen to speak today in order to raise a pressing devolved affairs issue, but I turn first to some other matters. The proposed immigration Bill will be the third such Bill before your Lordships’ House since I joined it. The two previous ones created the legislative underpinnings for Mrs May’s really hostile but now compliant environment. I do not see any signs that this one will start to dismantle that. Indeed, talk of deportation has fuelled fears that many EU citizens could become embroiled in it if they fail to apply for settled status in time—Windrush revisited.
There are a number of asylum and refugee issues that also need to be addressed, in particular the right to work, family reunion and the destitution faced by too many who fall through the bureaucratic cracks when granted refugee status because they are not allowed enough time to move from asylum support to mainstream social security. Further, although these are not strictly speaking immigration issues, the Bill would provide an opportunity to put right a couple of injustices raised recently by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. One is the denial of citizenship to the offspring of fathers from British Overseas Territories who were not married to their mothers. When we recently debated this, the Minister agreed that,
“we need to remedy this sooner rather than later”.—[Official Report, 23/7/19; col. 708.]
Can she confirm today that it will be remedied in this Bill?
The other issue is the exorbitant fee of £11,002, of which only £372 represents the administrative costs, charged for children born here or who have spent most of their lives here who are entitled to British citizenship but who have to register that entitlement because of their parents’ status. The previous Home Secretary admitted over a year ago that the fee represents a “huge amount” and said that he would look at it, yet despite concerns raised repeatedly in both Houses and a critical chief inspector’s report, nothing has happened other than that the fee was not raised this year. It is nearly a year since the Minister wrote to me with an assurance that,
“we are actively considering what changes we might be able to make to the charging framework for children”.
Given that the new Home Secretary apparently raised the issue herself with the Home Office shortly before taking on her new role, can we finally hope for action and not just “active consideration”?
The gracious Speech also promised that Ministers,
“will ensure that all young people have access to an excellent education”.
All too often, such access is impeded by poverty. For instance, hungry children are not well placed to benefit from their education, however excellent it might be. Questions about the future of funding after March 2020 for the very successful national school breakfast programme have been met with the answer that decisions will be taken as part of the spending review. Well, the review statement has been and gone and I have seen no mention of the decision. This is urgent because schools need to start planning now. When will we have an answer?
Urgent too is the devolution issue I wish to raise concerning social security mitigations in Northern Ireland. Because of Northern Ireland’s special circumstances, a mitigations package to soften the impact of certain elements of so-called welfare reforms was agreed up to March 2020 by the Northern Ireland Executive. There is considerable anxiety in Northern Ireland about what is going to happen to this package in the absence of a functioning Executive. A recent joint report by the Work and Pensions Committee and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recommended that it be extended beyond next March, stating:
“The UK Government must act quickly to end the uncertainty”.
It argued that the circumstances—
“a potentially drastic impact on vulnerable people and no Assembly to extend the legislation”—
are sufficiently exceptional to override questions of devolved competence.
The response I received to a recent Written Question on this was that:
“The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland is responsible for the delivery”,
of the mitigation scheme, and that:
“A decision to extend … beyond March 2020 would be a matter for an incoming Minister for Communities in a restored Northern Ireland Executive”.
I am sorry, but this is simply irresponsible given that there is no certainty that the Executive will be restored in time.
The Department for Communities itself has made clear that:
“In the absence of a functioning Assembly it is considered that the only viable option for providing the legal authority for the Department to make mitigation payments beyond 2020 would be for the Westminster Parliament to bring forward appropriate legislation”.
But there is no mention of this in the gracious Speech. There is a clear civic and political consensus in Northern Ireland that the mitigations must continue beyond March 2020. In the absence of a local devolved Assembly, the UK Government must act. Will the Minister therefore give me an assurance that this will now be looked at as a matter of urgency? I am speaking at a civil society conference in Belfast this week and would like to be able to offer a ray of hope.
Of course, the mitigations package does not mean that Northern Ireland’s claimants have been immune from all social security cuts. The Cliff Edge Coalition NI told the joint committee that the largest financial losses were due to the cut in the real value of benefits and credits since 2011. Until the change in Prime Minister, Ministers deflected criticisms of the four-year benefits freeze with the assurance that it is coming to an end next year. Although that did nothing to address the significant loss in the value of benefits it has caused, it was at least reassuring. However, now Ministers are refusing to give a straight answer to questions about the future of the freeze. This is very worrying indeed, especially given concerns about the likely impact of Brexit on those on the lowest incomes.
In his introduction to the briefing on the speech, the Prime Minister assured us that,
“we will move forwards, towards a future in which our children, and their children, can grow up to live longer, happier, healthier and wealthier lives”.
If his Ministers cannot give an assurance that the benefits on which their families rely will again be index-linked, that promise rings hollow for the growing numbers of children living in poverty.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, this is a fantasy gracious Speech, because it comes from a Government who do not have a majority to carry out their programme and because there will be an early general election and another gracious Speech, with a Government who may look very different from this one. As Liberal Democrats, we are certainly looking forward to that election, which would have happened already had we not had a Prime Minister who was willing to use the Prorogation as a space free of Parliament so that he could go ahead with a no-deal or bad-deal Brexit without scrutiny or challenge.
I turn first to the criminal justice section of the Speech, which reads as if a good draft prepared by David Gauke, the former Justice Secretary, has been chopped and changed by the Prime Minister and his political advisers so that the good intentions—such as rehabilitation and multiagency co-operation to combat serious violence—remain in, but the resources are mostly diverted away from this work in order to keep many more people in prison for longer. Promising to do this is seen by some—I think wrongly—to be a vote-winner.
The sentencing provisions in both the sentencing Bill and the foreign-national offenders Bill, which will have wider inflationary effects on sentencing, will demand massive resources that could be much more effectively used in tackling the causes of crime and reoffending. What is the point of spending a lot more money than we already spend to feed, clothe, house and guard returning foreign offenders? We could have used that money more efficiently to prevent them returning in the first place, or more efficiently and quickly to return those we now identify—or, in many cases, fail to identify.
Prison is a very expensive resource. We need it to safeguard our citizens from dangerous, persistent and serious offenders while we attempt to turn them away from crime, but every unnecessary or excessive use of expensive custody diverts resources from crime prevention and contributes to the inability of overcrowded and understaffed prisons to carry out essential rehabilitation.
There is a phrase in the Queen’s Speech, quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope:
“New sentencing laws will see that the most serious offenders spend longer in custody to reflect better the severity of their crimes”.
Using expensive custody as the sole barometer or signal of the seriousness or severity of a crime leads to ineffective policy. We must develop more cost-effective non-custodial sentences, or parts of sentences, which are seriously challenging to offenders and a more effective response to the seriousness of the crime than merely adding massively to the cost of the prison system.
The serious violence Bill has ambitions with which I entirely agree. However, I cannot think of anything that cannot be done without it; it seems to me an unnecessary Bill. On the other hand, the Bill dealing with the online procedures of the courts and tribunals is much needed, and has now been lost twice due to Prorogation or Dissolution, but did not appear at all in the gracious Speech.
I turn now to our constitution, on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, gave such stimulating thoughts. Ours is not an entirely unwritten constitution—some of it is written—but much of it is dependent on conventions and assumptions about how political leaders will behave. This is explained by our colleague the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, as the “good chap” theory of government. These behavioural issues are particularly relevant to safeguarding the monarchy and promoting the rule of law. These presumptions have been tested much more severely than before during recent events.
When Her Majesty addressed both Houses, fresh in her memory will have been the Prime Minister’s advice, unanimously overruled by the Supreme Court, that Parliament should be prorogued for five weeks. It is certainly fixed in our minds, not least because it was followed by the public questioning by Ministers of the independence of the judiciary. These included the Prime Minister himself, who said in an interview in the Daily Telegraph:
“If judges are to pronounce on political questions in this way, then there is at least an argument that there should be some form of accountability. The lessons of America are relevant”.
Those lessons are relevant, but in an entirely negative sense. Trying to identify the political opinions of judges and choose them accordingly would be extremely bad for our country.
I have no doubt at all that the Lord Chancellor and the Advocate-General for Scotland, who opened today’s debate, are resolute in their personal commitment to judicial independence. But I am not so confident of the Government as a whole, still less of their political advisers. We must never go down the road of political appointments to the judiciary, or of confirmation hearings designed to test a judge’s past and present political and social opinions. We appoint judges on the basis of their ability to set aside their personal opinions and use their knowledge and intellectual ability to interpret and define the law in accordance with the statutes that this Parliament has passed and the inheritance of common law.
We will face further constitutional issues with the withdrawal agreement Bill. There were repeated requests from members of the Constitution Committee to have advanced sight of the main clauses of the Bill, so that we could examine its structure and the mechanisms it uses. Clearly, any draft we saw would subsequently be affected by the changes made to the withdrawal agreement by the current Prime Minister, but it was necessary, or would have been better, for us to have had advance sight of some of it. It is likely to involve a massive expansion of the power of Ministers to act independently of Parliament. Will those powers be confined as much as possible? Will they be strictly time limited? How adequate will be the opportunities for parliamentary consideration of the orders made under the powers? This House, in a matter of a few months, has examined 500 Brexit-related orders. How are we going to manage that with the consequences of the withdrawal agreement Bill? Will this House be able to do the same if huge gaps in our law open up as a result of Brexit and need to be filled urgently? Henry VIII will be stalking our corridors, day and night.
Possibly as soon as next week, the focus and the Bill will shift from Commons to Lords. This House may be under extremely severe pressure to wave through unamended a constitutionally significant transfer of legislative power to the Executive.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I remind the noble Lord that the advisory speaking time is for the benefit of the House.
Lord Beith
I am the second Liberal Democrat to whom the noble Baroness has given that helpful advice, but I am on my last sentence: that it is our job to make sure that the Bill is properly examined.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have remarked, today’s debate takes place under the shadow of major developments as regards Brexit. However, Brexit will eventually, thankfully, finally come to a conclusion and it is important that in the interim we reassure our fellow citizens that we are not unaware of the many other problems and issues that affect their lives. In that sense, and the sense that we need to move on, I support the general approach of the Government’s programme. The Financial Times may have rather disobligingly dismissed the contents as “sunny optimism”—as if sunny optimism was somehow a crime—but, for me at least, some optimism is far from unwelcome.
The Queen’s speech gives an opportunity to step back from the day-to-day preoccupations and look at the wider picture. I wish to focus on two issues of which the Government need to be aware and take into account in their future thinking.
The first major challenge is the impact of the fourth industrial revolution—that of artificial intelligence and robotics. In the 1960s, Gordon Moore, the founder of Intel, devised what became known as Moore’s Law, which is that computing power will double every two years into the future. The sceptics laughed at Mr Moore but, so far, he has been proved right. We no longer have to confine ourselves to computing power; we now have the rapidly increasing programming power. It is this combination of computing power and programming power that will change the way we live and work.
It is estimated that between 7 million and 8 million jobs in the UK will either disappear or be radically reshaped over the next 20 years. The charges for Governments over that period will be to consider what geographic areas and spheres of economic activity will be particularly affected and then to take remedial action if we are to avoid what may prove to be intolerable strains on our social cohesion.
That circumstance takes me to my second point: the rapidly increasing population of the United Kingdom, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Horam. I have raised this matter in your Lordships’ House before, and again today I make it clear that this is not an attack on immigration or immigrants. I recognise that a level of immigration refreshes our society and economy. My concern is about the wider impact that each one of us—young or old, whatever our race, colour or creed, whether we arrived here five minutes ago or 500 years ago—has on our country. The numbers are stark. As my noble friend Lord Horam has pointed out, the population of the country is increasing by over 1,000 a day: roughly 400 from natural increase—the excess of births over deaths—and something over 600 from net immigration. The longer-term picture is no easier to understand and discern. The ONS suggests that by 2040 we will have more than another 7 million people in this country. My noble friend Lady Williams knows Manchester well and that its population is about 2.5 million. So, we are going to have to build three Manchesters over the next 25 years.
The Migration Advisory Committee, to which my noble friend referred, provides expert advice to the Government on these matters. Its work is valuable and no doubt its advice will be sought in establishing the promised points-based immigration system, but, as my noble friend also pointed out, it has one fundamental strategic weakness: that, following its terms of reference, it sees everything through an economic prism and in economic terms. However, demographic change is about much more than economic impact: it has huge quality of life impacts.
This is a big subject but let me give two quick examples. First, water. The Environment Agency says that by 2040-45 this country, especially in the south-east, will be running short of water. Some of this, of course, will be the result of global warming, but much more will come from the growth in population. Each of us on average consumes 140 litres of water a day.
Secondly, there is the impact on our environment and ecology. In 1970 the United Kingdom had 20 million pairs of farmland wild birds. By 1990 we had lost half of them, and by 2010 the number had halved again. Behind this came collapses in the less glamorous forms of life: insects, plants, fungi, lichens and bacteria. Is this all down to demographic change? Of course it is not, but growth in population is clearly playing a significant role. Does it matter? To many of us in this House, it does not matter that much because we will not be here in 2045 when these developments finally play out and we see the impact. However, there is surely a need for a calm, rational debate, discussing how to weigh up these many difficult, sensitive and often conflicting objectives, if only, and not least, to take into account the views of the generations who will come after us. So, when the Government produce an Environment Bill—pages 98 to 100 of the briefing on the Queen’s Speech—which does not even mention demographic change, I am inclined to despair.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I add my name to the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, who, thankfully, is still in his place. He gained the House’s respect and admiration on devolved issues and we will miss his wisdom and knowledge at the Dispatch Box. He has been a true friend to Wales, and I thank him very sincerely for his massive contribution to the devolution process.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who spoke on day 2 of this debate, I read the Queen’s Speech carefully, hoping to find some reference to Wales—something to show that the Government understood that for the devolved Administrations the process of the further transference of powers is important. From these Benches, my colleagues have, in the past, made the case for the powers highlighted in part 2 of the Silk commission’s report to be transferred to the Welsh Assembly: further powers over transport, energy, broadcasting and youth justice, among others. We have also made the case for the funding of Network Rail in relation to Wales and for new powers for Wales’s Children’s Commissioner. The list is not short, so I am surprised and disappointed that the Secretary of State for Wales was unable to find support among his Cabinet colleagues to address at least one of these issues.
Last year we deplored the Government’s decision to turn their back on major infrastructure projects in Wales: the electrification of the railway line from Cardiff to Swansea and the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon scheme. I look forward to hearing the Chancellor's Budget Statement at the beginning of next month, to learn whether, now austerity is apparently over, at least one of those projects will make it back on to his list and we will, at least, get a mention.
I am a federalist who has always supported devolution, believing that the devolution process Ron Davies talked of would eventually lead to the destination of a federal UK with a mature, mutually respectful system of government of equals. But progress is slow and, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, suggested earlier, opinions in Wales are beginning to diverge. This year we have seen a number of independence marches across the country—not as large as the People’s Vote march we saw outside Parliament on Saturday, of course, but equally focused and as quietly determined.
Those of us who live in Wales have become used to a new political term this year:“indy-curious”. It describes people—unionists, federalists and the hitherto uncommitted—who want to know more about independence and how it would work for the people of Wales. They are both Welsh and English speakers, who have watched the Brexit fiasco over the past three years and come to the conclusion, even before the Prime Minister’s latest plan to create a new economic border in the Irish Sea, that the prospect of Irish reunification is an increasingly real one, as is the prospect of Scottish independence.
The vision of a future UK consisting of Wales and England only is the one that the indy-curious find less than attractive. Just as remaining in the European Union is best for the UK’s economy and security, I believe that Wales remaining in the UK is best for Wales’s economy and security. However, the Government should understand that, if there are increased calls for independence for Wales, they will be fuelled by the pragmatism of the indy-curious and not necessarily just by nationalism.
A recent Welsh Government report, Reforming our Union, has concluded that this Parliament should allow Wales to hold an independence referendum if politicians who call for one win an Assembly election, and that the UK must be open to Wales voting to quit the union. In comments on the report, Mark Drakeford, the Welsh First Minister, himself a unionist, said that the parliamentary sovereignty model in which the UK Parliament is the highest form of authority in the land does not,
“provide a basis for the future”.
The fault-lines in our union are showing. The self-styled Minister for the Union, who is prepared cavalierly to break from the European Union and carelessly begin the dismantling of the UK by placing an economic border in the Irish Sea, needs to understand that giving himself a fine-sounding title will not in itself heal this fracturing union. That will require leadership and the ability to listen, to compromise and to put aside partisan opinions and make decisions that benefit everyone—but, above all, it will require a change in attitude.
English paternalism, however well meaning, has had its day. The devolved Administrations are reaching maturity and have their own visions of their future. I would prefer that future to be one that sees the nations of the UK working together as equals. If this union is to survive, the Government need to take action to secure it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, whom I know well from the National Assembly and who always has valuable insights, for which I thank her very much.
This is a very interesting time to debate a Queen’s Speech. We have waited a long while for one and now I suspect that there will be two along in close succession, just like the proverbial buses. It is also interesting that it gives us the ability to look beyond the pathological obsession that we have had with Brexit as a House, and indeed as a Parliament, to some of the important things that need doing in our country. Let there be no doubt about it: out there, down at the Dog and Duck, people want us to get on to other things, and this gives us an opportunity to consider some of them.
There is much to welcome in the Queen’s Speech. I particularly welcome the Domestic Abuse Bill, which has massive cross-party support and will be one of the lasting legacies of the previous Prime Minister, Theresa May. I very much welcome it. Following on from what the noble Baroness said about devolution, it is important to note that we need some constitutional underpinning for the devolution settlement. It is important that the different arms of government speak together to exchange best practice on different policy areas, and it is important that we have some institutions to do that. In a very small way, in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, I set up a devolution forum whereby Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England, or Westminster, could come together to discuss different policies. It was very valuable to be able to encourage other parts of the union in saying, “This works”, or, “This doesn’t work”, and I think that that should be picked up by other government departments. It is something that we really need to look at—it is unfinished work.
I personally welcome metro mayors, although there is more work to be done there. There is a gap in West Yorkshire, for example, that needs filling, but elsewhere it will be good to see what these proposals bring forward. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that the English part of this dimension is the dog that has not barked, and we certainly have to look at that.
Perhaps I may say a few words about housing, which we have not touched on but is vital and is, believe me, one of the topics discussed in the Dog and Duck. We need not just action on building more houses but when doing so—we are in control as a Government on garden towns and villages, for example—we need to make sure that practice in best design is embedded there. We need to ensure that we improve our accessibility standards; there is a classic opportunity on the back of the Hackitt review to help both the disabled and all of us as we age. It just makes sense to do that. I know that the Minister is personally committed to these things but I would welcome some reassurance from her that we are committed to good design—I know that the Secretary of State is—to accessibility improvement for homes, to doing something on energy improvements in homes to meet our climate change targets and to providing cheaper energy for the people who live there. This is imperative; somebody—I think my noble friend Lord Duncan during Questions—said that the climate change agenda is the most important challenge we face as a world. That is certainly the case.
Integration is vital, and tied in with concerns about population growth is the important work we are doing on that. Some of this is driven by statute and some by government policy, but I would welcome reassurance on resources for the teaching of English to people whose first language it is not. There are a lot of those people, and this is something that people are very concerned about out there—our surveys have shown that there is unity on this.
The race disparity audit, which is also very much to the credit of the previous Prime Minister, Theresa May, has shown what we all suspected: that those with the worst life chances in our population by some margin are Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. They have atrocious outcomes in health and education. It is high time that we really did something for these communities. I know that we are committed to this, but I would welcome some timeline on what we are doing because it really is important.
There is also the definition of Islamophobia. This country led the world on the definition of anti-Semitism; it is very important that we do the same on Islamophobia. I am not sure whether this will be given statutory effect, but it is important and we have started that work. It would be valuable if the Minister could give some timeline for this and restate that commitment.
In this same area, hate crimes have gone up atrociously. The very important anniversary is coming up in 2020 of remembering Srebrenica and the dreadful genocide that happened there 25 years ago. It is an important commemoration year. We have a valuable British Bosnian population; as a Government we have a commitment to ensuring that this is properly celebrated, so I would like reassurances on what they are doing to back up Waqar Azmi, head of Remembering Srebrenica, in this crucial year.
There is much to welcome here, particularly on domestic abuse and climate change, on which there is much to do in terms of our commitments. We have the Conference of the Parties in Glasgow in 2020, which is a great opportunity to lead the world on this issue. These are the challenges that will face us when we are through Brexit. I know we will not be through all of Brexit for some time, but, at least when we are through the major decision on it, for heaven’s sake, let us begin to tackle the things that really matter to the people of this country and will matter for years to come.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, it is arguable that Brexit is not primarily about Europe. It was about other things: austerity, inequality and immigration. To a degree, it is also about the constitution. The distaste for and dissatisfaction with the constitution that emerged from about the 1970s onwards, particularly in Scotland, has been made far worse by the atmosphere of poisonous nationalism released during the Brexit controversy.
Some of the complaints about the constitution have been exaggerated—for example, the criticism of the judiciary and the Supreme Court, which founded its view on traditional ideas of parliamentary sovereignty going back to the reign of James I. Others were more serious. The subtle interaction, as mentioned by noble Lords, of convention, tradition and precedent has been undermined, partly by the Prime Minister and partly by the leaders of other political parties, including my own. It is striking that, apart from a few generalities, the Queen’s Speech said very little about these issues.
Going rapidly through some of my points, the monarchy has of course been affected in a way that I think is very dangerous for the Head of State, with the wrong, unlawful advice that the Queen was given about the Prorogation of Parliament. Parliament itself has been treated in a most extraordinary way, with the Prime Minister suggesting at various times that he might not obey a vote of no confidence or legislation passed by the House of Commons. His view of Prorogation was the same as that taken by Charles I and we all know what happened to him.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said very properly in his remarkable speech, the tendency has been towards the Executive taking over the powers of the legislature—Henry VIII powers. I noticed some discussion in a newspaper article comparing Boris Johnson to Henry VIII, not to mention Anne Boleyn. With legislation, the effect has increasingly been of the Executive exercising Henry VIII powers to take over prerogative powers.
Parliament has been diminished by the way the referendum has been deemed, quite wrongly, the fount of sovereignty. After all, the referendum—whatever one thinks about the dismal quality of the campaign—was only an advisory mechanism and far too much weight has been imposed on it. It is very fortunate that we have well-meaning citizens such as Gina Miller who have taken up the role of challenging these tendencies in a way that the constitution itself has been unable to do.
We have had attempts to use Parliament or portray it as the enemy or the embodiment of the elite. That is very wrong. In passing, the Civil Service has been undermined and described as no longer being servants of the Crown, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, observed. Instead, war is being waged against it by the phenomenon of Mr Dominic Cummings.
The law at least is powerful. It should be. The rule of law is so essential to the way we live. There were some interesting aspects to the famous Supreme Court case. One was that the court was absolutely unanimous in its judgment that the Prime Minister was wrong and had acted unlawfully. I notice that this view was also taken by Lord Justice Sumption. The constitutional position was stated very clearly and emphasised that judicial review is central to the procedures of the constitution. The judges are not enemies of the people; they are central to our freedoms.
Finally, I totally agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, observed about devolution. Devolution was threatened by the way the EU withdrawal Bill was pushed. It was very dangerous in its effect on Scotland. It also caused great dismay and disappointment in Wales and strengthened the cause of nationalism there.
In all these respects, we need to protect the constitution. It is being partly protected by the courts. Having had the great privilege of serving on the Constitution Committee with some of the distinguished speakers who have spoken, I suggest that the House of Lords and its constitution should remain the guardian of the way we live.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Horam, pointed out that the Minister will have a difficult job responding to 50 speeches on a rather eclectic variety of topics. I note that I appear to come at the end of a small group from Wales. I am not from Wales, but I am originally from Liverpool, so it is close enough. I might touch at the end on a devolved issue, not for Wales, but for Northern Ireland.
Exactly five years ago to the day, I arrived in your Lordships’ House with a mixture of excitement and trepidation, because the then Black Rod had led us to believe that when we were introduced we had to do a whole set of things and that if we started looking round and smiling at our families it would put us on a very dangerous path indeed. No smiling was to be done and no looking up at the Gallery. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, who were introduced today, had a slightly easier and more fulfilling entry into your Lordships’ House. I also hope that at least one of them and I will still be alive in 2040 or 2045. Some of us are slightly below the average age in your Lordships’ House. We might still see a little more of the 21st century than the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, suggested.
However, it never occurred to me when I arrived in your Lordships’ House that four of the last five years would be spent preparing for a referendum on the UK’s relationship with the European Union, having that referendum and trying to deal with its consequences. Far less did I anticipate speaking in a Queen’s Speech debate in October. After all, the expectation was that elections would be once every five years, so the likelihood would have been a Queen’s Speech in May or June this year and another after a general election next year. We are in a very strange time.
I also feel that we had a somewhat unusual Queen’s Speech; perhaps Her Majesty the Queen was reading something that looked a little closer to a Conservative Party manifesto than a standard gracious Speech. In particular, this afternoon when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, made his introductory remarks it felt as if he was trying to read out a Conservative Party manifesto. One of the problems with party manifestos is that it is not wholly clear that they are intended to be read at all. If they are, they are not intended to be read out loud to an audience.
A set of proposals came forward, some of which were quite encouraging and others of which sounded a little worrying, depending on which side of the political spectrum one comes from. In the Prime Minister’s notes to the gracious Speech he asserts that,
“we will seize the opportunities that Brexit will bring to take back control of our borders … and we will pave the way for a new points based immigration system”.
The gracious Speech itself pointed out that Her Majesty’s Government remain,
“committed to ensuring that resident European citizens, who have built their lives in, and contributed so much to, the United Kingdom, have the right to remain”.
That is a very positive statement. It continues:
“The Bill will include measures that reinforce this commitment”.
Could the Minister reassure the House and those millions of EU citizens who have given so much of their lives to this United Kingdom that the legislation really will give them the rights they deserve? Another aspect of the gracious Speech and the accompanying notes was a very clear commitment to ending free movement for EU citizens. How do those two things go together?
Further, while, like my noble friend Lady Pinnock, I am delighted to see the commitment to adult social care and to the NHS, could the Minister reassure the House that the Government have assessed Brexit’s impact on the NHS and, in particular, the care sector, for EU nationals who work in them? A points-based immigration system, intended to bring in the brightest and the best, the most talented and the best educated, does not guarantee to bring in the people the care sector relies upon. There are some very real concerns embedded in the gracious Speech.
Finally, like other noble Lords I looked closely at the gracious Speech and noted the commitment to the United Kingdom, which is very important. Her Majesty announced that:
“The integrity… of the union that binds the four nations of the United Kingdom is of the utmost importance to my Government. My Ministers will bring forward measures to support citizens across all the nations of the United Kingdom”.
Can the Minister who winds up the debate give us examples of such measures? Can she reassure us that when the Prime Minister talked of the need for,
“a new vision for Britain”,
he really meant “this United Kingdom”? Was it just an oversight? I hope so, because the UK and Northern Ireland deserve better.
Lord Astor of Hever (Con)
My Lords, I begin by expressing my support for our Prime Minister, who is facing the Herculean task of ensuring that we leave the EU with a deal. The sooner we can draw a line under this and move forward, the sooner we can return to addressing other important domestic issues that have had to be neglected in the wake of the Brexit debate.
I very much welcomed this sentence in the Queen’s Speech:
“My Government remains committed to working with all parties in Northern Ireland… to address the legacy of the past”.
I pay tribute to all those who helped bring about the Northern Ireland peace process. I am aware of the huge effort and the immensely difficult compromises that this entailed.
However, I regret that there was no clause in the Queen’s Speech initiating a Bill to protect those former soldiers who have served in Northern Ireland. No one is above the law, but there must now be legislation to protect those whose selfless service has been to uphold the law. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to action on this issue. It is quite wrong that our veterans are subjected to the threat of repeated investigations and potential prosecution in connection with historical operations many years after the events in question. When I served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, the article of faith was that if we did the right thing and followed the rules of engagement, the system would always back us up. This was essential in inspiring confidence.
I have raised the case of former Life Guards Corporal Major Dennis Hutchings several times in this House. I declare an interest in that I served with him in this country and overseas, and I can confirm that he was an exemplary soldier. He has been committed for trial in a Crown Court in Belfast on a charge of grievous bodily harm with intent and attempted murder. The Northern Ireland DPP recently permitted the trial by jury of Ivor Bell, accused of an IRA killing, but prevented Dennis from having a jury trial. This cannot be fair.
The Supreme Court has now set a precedent in Dennis’s case. Any future trials of service personnel will take place without a jury. Many members of my regiment, the Life Guards, believe this to be a grave injustice and that scrutiny has been applied to the security forces in a way that has not been insisted on for others. I am also concerned that effective legal help is not being given to all ex-servicemen for non-High Court inquests and coroners cases, as these can lead to prosecution. Do the Government really want to see these loyal former servicemen sent to prison? I cannot believe that they do. In light of these words in the Queen’s Speech:
“My Ministers will honour the Armed Forces Covenant”,
can the Minister give me an assurance that the Government will introduce the comprehensive legislation to protect these ex-servicemen without any further delay?
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I was delighted to see that the gracious Speech included a commitment to publish a White Paper,
“to enable decisions that affect local people to be made at a local level”,
and to unleash regional potential. The word on the street is that we can expect to see that White Paper before Christmas. If we do, it will not be before time, because our current system of governance is close to being dysfunctional. For me, the big question is whether the Government have in mind further tinkering with this dysfunctional system, or whether they have the courage and the capacity to be bold and deliver proposals which genuinely address the flaws in the current arrangements—if not all at once, then over a period of time, and in all, not just some parts, of the country.
Our system is more centralised than that of any other developed country. To change that, the Government will need to reduce the power of Westminster and Whitehall by devolving significant power to localities to prioritise their spending. Are they prepared to do so, or are they only committed to the decentralisation of power to implement decisions which have already been taken at the centre? Maybe civil servants and Ministers still believe that they know better than the people of Gloucestershire, Northumberland, Cornwall or East Anglia. If they do, they should reflect on the fact that many people voted for Brexit because they felt that they had lost the power to shape their own lives. Simply repatriating powers to a sadly discredited centre of government will not be enough to meet their expectations. Instead, as the nine metro mayors urged recently, we should move quickly to a place-based approach to strategy and budgeting, starting with next year’s comprehensive spending review.
We have a system which not only is excessively centralised but has become increasingly fragmented—some might say confused. The landscape of local services encompasses county councils, district councils, mayors, combined authorities, local economic partnerships, police and crime commissioners, separate fire and rescue services, health trusts, clinical commissioning groups, children’s trusts and private sector providers. I could go on. Not surprisingly, citizens are confused and this mass of independent agencies often fail to co-operate and deliver services which make any sense to their clients. If noble Lords doubt this, they should ask any vulnerable, frail old person, fighting to make sense of the different forms, procedures and regulations required by one or other of the bureaucracies whether this all makes sense, because it does not. If merging some of the bodies is a step too far in the short term, we need to look at ways to better incentivise joint working, again perhaps using a place-based budgeting approach.
Inevitably, this level of fragmentation, which we have encouraged, has also led to reduced accountability. Exactly who is responsible for the success or failure of a particular project or service? Even at the National Audit Office, which I chair, we struggle on occasion to answer that question. Sometimes we even think that was the intention. Confused accountability leads to waste and a failure to accept responsibility and learn from mistakes. Any new arrangements need to clarify accountability rather than further obfuscate. There need to be new ways of ensuring that the non-statutory sector, the voluntary groups and the charity and not-for-profit groups, are genuine partners in meeting the needs of local communities. Many of them feel that they are not at the moment, and many feel unable to liberate the talents of their workers and volunteers. If we can do just some of those things, Whitehall civil servants—currently so stretched—will be able to devote their efforts not to the location of street signs but to issues which only national government can resolve, such as immigration, climate, the environment, trade and the productivity catastrophe, where our recent record has been lamentable.
It is 10 years since the then Chief Secretary, on my advice, launched a scheme called Total Place to improve the quality of services and value for money through better joint working between service providers, statutory and non-statutory. It was hugely popular, with more than 100 areas quickly committing to it. Sadly, the coalition failed to grasp its significance—shame on the devolutionists in the Chamber—but could we be on the threshold of a similar place-based approach to local government? Could we be about to revive Total Place—obviously, completely rebranded? I can only dream.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bichard; I much agree with what he has just said. I also associate myself with the remarks of my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, about the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. As a vice-chairman of the Local Government Association, I know how true that its.
I welcome the gracious Speech, its measures on crime and the victims of crime outside and inside the home, on good education and a clean environment, and its strong tone of humane concern for those who are sick and old. This is anything but a programme for an extreme Government.
But, of course, when one listens to a gracious Speech, nothing strikes one more than the voice that reads it—that unique, unforgettable voice; how I dread the day when that should be stilled. It is the voice of serenity above turmoil, dignity above conniving, duty above self-interest, healing above rancour. It is the voice of stability, the voice of the United Kingdom.
The bedrock of our constitution is the Queen in Parliament. For my part, I have been sad in these last days to see the expressed will of the Queen in Parliament impeached and overturned. These are matters to which we must return, the fall-out from past legislation and recent decisions which we must review, but I do not want to dwell on them today.
I am deeply troubled by the tone and conduct of this Parliament. Each passing week, the problem seems more acute and the reputation of Parliament sinks lower, and the gulf between Parliament and much of the public grows wider. Was it not sad that on the one day that many of us had longed for, when people for once took some interest in the proceedings of Parliament when they were televised live to millions, a too-clever-by-half procedural device in the Commons denied the nation resolution and prolonged the agony that has surely rent our social fabric for far too long?
There are aspects of this deal that noble Lords will know I do not much care for, but enough—enough. The Spartans have sheathed their swords; let those on the other side show the same spirit of compromise. Let Fabius the Delayer come down from his high place and lay down his sword. Es ist genug. Let us move on.
Today, for the first time since May 1641 and profoundly mistakenly, we have a law that the House of Commons cannot be dissolved except by its own volition. Untouchability in the Commons did not serve us too well in the 1640s. That House avowed very high ideals, but it executed Ministers without trial, beheaded the Archbishop of Canterbury, committed regicide, abolished your Lordships’ House and dissolved into military dictatorship. I do not of course say that the House protected by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act—in my view, a written antidote to any cry for a written constitution—is capable of such excesses, but a sense of inviolability inevitably has a behavioural effect. The fixed-term Act protects a Commons reckless of past promises and the popular will. That is a view I know some contest, yet, unequivocally, as proved by its own votes, that inviolable House is unwilling to face the general election that Mr Johnson has offered and test the verdict of the people as to whom they trust to carry the nation forward.
Bad cases do not make good laws. The profound crisis provoked by this Parliament’s failure to do what the people by lawful majority asked should not stampede us to more incautious constitutional change. Before that—and how much I agreed with the wise speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—we should examine the harm and conflict flowing from some recent innovations thrust into our long-standing constitutional law and conventions. I do not exclude from that referendums, first or second.
I am an optimist. I believe that we can rebuild conventions, and the common sense and flexibility that convention both encourages and requires. We can treat our opponents with more respect. That should begin with a Prime Minister who backed Mrs May’s compromise and now offers us another, and who has been subjected to a campaign of personal vilification and who is no would-be dictator. Rather, he is a widely read, deeply civil, good humoured, humane and liberal-minded person, whose optimism appealed across all divides as a twice-elected Mayor of London and wishes to do so again.
We politicians cannot heal this nation without seeing in others opposite the sense of duty, decency, principle and concern for the common weal that motivates almost all who turn their hands to the hard, high vocation of public service. Healing cannot come without respect. Agreement cannot come without compromise. Conflict cannot be ended without permitting a 12 year- old boy to walk home with his father without a police escort.
“O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion”.
I beg that we should hear and heed the tone of the gracious voice of the United Kingdom.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I want to acquaint noble Lords with the position on the Urgent Question and Oral Statement. The Statement has not yet started in the House of Commons, so we will have to delay our Question and Oral Statement. Let us say that it will not be before 6.15 pm and hope that they will have started it by then. Otherwise, we will have to be flexible again.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, when the Prime Minister of Britain breaks the law by illegally suspending Parliament and openly pits elected parliamentarians against the people, we are sailing perilously close to a nasty form of authoritarianism that has led to dictatorship in the not-too-distant past. In threatening to circumvent the Benn Act and the law, the Prime Minister is courting the basest form of populism. The UK’s unwritten constitution makes it clear that we are a representative parliamentary democracy and not a one-man banana republic or dictatorship. While it is undeniable that the British people voted by a narrow margin for Brexit, it was never clear what form that might take. Over three years later, it seems reasonable to offer the electorate a say on the form of Brexit now proposed.
As a historian, though not as distinguished a one as many noble Lords in the Chamber today, I will make a couple of historical allusions. First, Boris Johnson should beware of what happened to Charles I when he tried to bypass Parliament and rule from 1629 to 1640 with his eleven years’ tyranny, a historical period mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord True. This led not only to civil war and the execution of Charles I, after his impeachment and trial, but also the trial in Westminster Hall and execution of his chief adviser, the Earl of Strafford. Dominic Cummings should remember that fact when he next advises the PM to bypass Parliament. While I would not press the parallel too far, there is a case for impeaching Cummings and locking him up in the Elizabeth Tower.
My second historical allusion takes me to Russia. In 1991, another Boris, Boris Yeltsin, deliberately orchestrated the disintegration of the USSR, so that he, as President of the Russian Federation, could seize power in the rump of the old Soviet Union. Our own Boris is willing to do the same, taking risks with the union in Scotland and Northern Ireland, in order that he can hang on as PM of a little England with just Wales attached. Furthermore, as is the penchant of our PMs and their advisers, the Queen’s Speech itself repeated an old Soviet slogan. We heard Tony Blair promote Vladimir Ilyich Lenin’s phrase: “Education, education, education”. Boris Johnson’s Queen’s Speech advocates a “new economic policy”. Is he, or his advisers, aware that the “New Economic Policy”, or NEP, was announced by Lenin in 1921, and later abandoned by Stalin in his “great break” with the past, leading to mass collectivisation? Premier Johnson is now promoting his own great break with the EU, at great economic cost to the country. Have I gone to sleep and woken up in the Soviet Union, led by a megalomaniac pursuing policies of economic ruin? Perhaps the PM’s advisers need a bit more “Education, education, education”.
In conclusion, this country’s unwritten constitution, the rule of law and our representative democracy are the envy of the world. Those who seek to undermine it do no service to the British people and the cause of democracy, which we all rightly cherish.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I will speak primarily on the climate emergency. I would have spoken in the debate on Thursday, but I had, in parallel with it, a meeting of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the work of which is needed at present, as the noble Lord, Lord True, reminded the House. I therefore missed the introduction to that debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton, but I was careful to read it and was able to listen to much of the remainder of the debate in the afternoon. Many noble Lords spoke about the need to revolutionise our transport system, the technology of power generation and the lifestyle choices that we make. I will focus on another vital ingredient of tackling the climate emergency which is relevant to today’s subject: the need to tackle carbon reduction in our built environment. That crosses so many ministerial and departmental policy silos that I could have spoken in any debate. I hope that, when she winds up, the Minister will be able to give reassurance on some of my points.
The heating, lighting and powering of buildings is responsible for about one-third of the United Kingdom’s CO2 emissions. That includes our homes, schools, hospitals, care homes, offices, factories and shops. It also includes colleges, universities and civic buildings. I point out to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, that it also includes courts and prisons—we are clearly going to be needing some more prisons. It includes national and local civic buildings and places of entertainment and worship. The typical house emits more carbon dioxide in a year than a typical car. Yet public policy is focused towards cutting emissions from road vehicles, for which significant subsidies are available, with public policy on saving energy for buildings actually going backwards since 2015. I speak as the Minister who was responsible for getting the zero-carbon homes policy ready to go live in 2016, only to share the frustration and anger of the industry when that policy was abandoned by the new Conservative Government in 2015, together with the scrapping of the Green Deal, which aimed at upgrading the performance of existing homes. However, I acknowledge the work of the previous Chancellor, Philip Hammond. His Spring Statement this year gave notice of the future homes standard, aimed at resuming forward progress. I am sure it is completely coincidental that he has since had the Tory Whip removed.
The Government are now consulting on new, higher standards of energy performance for new homes. If they go forward, these would come into force in two stages in 2025. The Government dress up this nine-year delay in reaching the standard that was going to come into play in 2016 as evidence of their being “the greenest Government ever”—I think that comes under the heading of “classic Dom”. We have had a Queen’s Speech with almost nothing to say about the urgent steps needed, in every policy area, to combat the climate emergency. We have got an Environment Bill, and it offers some useful and interesting ideas but, as drafted at the moment, it will make no measurable impact on cutting CO2 emissions. We have a belated consultation on introducing higher standards for newer homes, but that will not be until 2025. There is absolutely nothing planned to raise the energy performance of the 20 million homes that are already built and whose planned life extends beyond 2050. There is nothing about raising new building standards for all the other kinds of buildings, new or existing. There is nothing even about enforcing energy performance certificates for homes, nor displaying them on all the other buildings to which the public have access. That would be the safest of nudge policies, yet the current Government have deliberately allowed them to fall into misuse and no use. I asked a Question about how many of the Government’s buildings actually had a display energy certificate—which, incidentally, is a legal necessity—but they have not got the slightest idea.
The Liberal Democrats have plans to tackle all these things and more and an intention to reach the target of carbon neutrality for our country in 2045, not 2050. The climate emergency requires urgent action on all fronts now. The built environment has to be rapidly moved up the Government’s agenda for action. Sadly, the Queen’s Speech is a feeble and disappointing signal of their intentions.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, the gracious Speech is welcome in identifying a range of measures of domestic importance and not focusing exclusively on Brexit. However, Brexit is the fundamental issue facing the nation. A combination of unique developments has resulted in the debate surrounding Brexit putting our constitutional fabric under intense pressure.
The debate on Brexit is toxic and it is binary. We are used to the politics of justification, with each side able to engage with the other. What we now have is the politics of assertion, with each side shouting at the other and not being interested in the response. The language is stark and often takes the form of accusation and abuse. The nature of the debate is exacerbated by, and contributes to, the tensions that now exist and which pose a serious threat to the Westminster model of government. Those engaging in the debate are so consumed by the moral superiority of their policy goal that they treat our constitutional arrangements as secondary to achieving that goal.
At the heart of the Westminster system is the concept of accountability. There is one body responsible for public policy—the party in government. Collective responsibility ensures that it is a united entity, accountable between elections to Parliament and at elections to electors. Parliament scrutinises and challenges the Government but does not seek to substitute policy of its own. MPs have always privileged party above the interests of the House of Commons. Party, however, has facilitated accountability. We are in an exceptional situation where no one body is accountable. Electors cannot hold themselves to account for the outcome of a referendum. Electors cannot hold to account a transient majority comprising an ad hoc amalgam of parties and independents in the House of Commons.
The position we are in derives from the collision of two concepts of democracy. We had an exercise in direct democracy in the form of a referendum, and an exercise in representative democracy the following year, producing results not clearly compatible one with the other. The House of Commons has sought to wrest control of public policy from the Government. That, as I have argued before, is not “taking back control”: you cannot take back something you did not have in the first place. Because a transient majority cannot be held to account, it is an exercise in power without responsibility.
It is a unique situation and it is important that we do not seek to generalise from an N of one. We need to stand back and make sense of what is happening, not rush to judgment with calls for reform of the constitution. We hear calls for a written, or codified, constitution. It is not clear how, had we had one, the present situation would be any different. It is not so much an answer as a displacement activity.
The gracious Speech has the merit of not rushing to judgment and advancing any constitutional reform. I welcome that. I also caution the Government against listening to those who, in their failure to grasp the principles of our system of government, advocate change to bodies that produce decisions with which they disagree, be they the courts or this House. Perhaps my noble friend Lady Williams will confirm that the Government have no plans for changes to our constitutional framework and that Ministers will comply not only with statutory obligations but with the expectations and moral obligations imposed by conventions of the constitution.
Our system of government is sound, but recent events have undermined popular support, especially for the House of Commons. The most recent Hansard Society Audit of Political Engagement showed that only 25% of those surveyed had confidence in the Members of the House of Commons in handling Brexit; 73% had not very much or no confidence. Furthermore, 42% of those questioned agreed with the statement:
“Many of the country’s problems could be dealt with more effectively if the government didn’t have to worry so much about votes in Parliament”.
That is a remarkable finding, impossible to imagine in earlier years.
The challenge for parliamentarians, especially Members of the other place, is to recognise that the solution lies not with constitutional reform but with their own behaviour. They are part of the problem. They need to become part of the solution. That requires a degree of balance and self-awareness that has been sadly lacking.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, my contribution to this debate on the humble Address considers the forward direction for housing policy in the UK and is Brexit-free. I draw attention to my housing interests in the register. This Queen’s Speech was virtually silent on housing, yet the issue is often cited, particularly by those aged under 40, as their most pressing concern. As the Affordable Housing Commission, which I chair, has found, rents now often absorb well over 40% of a household’s income, leading to arrears, debt and personal problems. From the most affluent suburbs to the most modest council estates, so many young people in their 30s must stay in their childhood homes because the only alternative is a privately rented flat at a rent they cannot afford. Buying a home has become a distant dream, especially in the southern half of England. Rough sleeping is more visible on our streets and acute shortages mean families and children living in temporary accommodation, such as bed and breakfast hotels, on a scale unseen for many years. Housing costs and conditions so often lie behind the other social ills of poverty and ill health.
Your Lordships might expect me to be horrified that no announcements were forthcoming in the Queen’s Speech to address these pressing problems of housing scarcity and affordability, but if the absence of new measures means continuity in the pursuit of policies now in the pipeline—a continuation of a direction of travel set by Mrs May and her Housing Ministers—no news may well be good news. I have paid tribute in this Chamber to the way the previous Prime Minister sought to reshape housing policy during her tenure. In a seminal speech at the end of her period in office, to the September conference of the National Housing Federation, she talked of government becoming the victim of a single-minded drive for home ownership, when the most pressing need was for homes at modest rents.
On Mrs May’s watch, some of the highly unfortunate measures in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 were scrapped or abandoned: an end to the forced sale of the best council housing to pay for an extension of the right to buy; abandoning the horrid “pay to stay”, whereby council tenants would have to pay more if they made a success of their lives and increased their earnings; and scrapping the plan to end secure, lifetime tenancies in the social sector. More positively, the cap on borrowing to build council housing was abolished, which is now leading to an emerging new stream of affordable accommodation. Indeed, we even have a model for what council housing for the 21st century should look like, following the award of the coveted Stirling Prize for architecture to Norwich Council’s new street of 105 energy-efficient, secure, well-designed family homes in a real community setting. As one new tenant there remarked, “I feel like I don’t rent it, I own it”.
This direction of travel has also embraced reforms to private renting, including abolishing agents’ letting fees for tenants, a commitment to end no-fault evictions and the creation of a new ombudsman for private landlords and their tenants. Housing associations have been given access to new funds for social rent, which has started the return to building what is really needed rather than being pushed into letting at rents mistakenly termed affordable, but which are, in so many areas, beyond the reach of people in the lower half of the income range.
All these changes from Mrs May’s Administration —I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Barwell and Lord Bourne, and Toby Lloyd, who advised her—represent steps in absolutely the right direction. They should lead, if undisturbed by any countermeasures, to government acceptance that what is needed is for at least a third of their target of 300,000 homes a year to comprise homes to rent within the means of those on average incomes and below. We all know that this has to mean a significant increase in the levels of grant to social housing landlords, but we also know that investment in affordable new homes pays for itself—unlike, for example, the £1.7 billion a year spent on temporary accommodation for homeless families. Paying grant up front saves far more further down the line, not least in finally reducing the housing benefit bill and in cutting social care and health costs. I add that, while waiting for the payback on capital investment in new homes, social security policy must keep up. Shockingly, benefit freezes and caps mean that increasing numbers of the poorest households are having to make up a shortfall on the payment of rent out of the benefits intended for their living costs.
My question to the Minister is simple: can we take the lack of mention of housing issues in the Queen’s Speech as a positive sign that there will be no turning back from the path chosen by Mrs May? Will the Government take forward her important consumer reforms for the private rented sector and continue to pursue energetically her programme of supporting a new era for council housing, and will the upcoming Budget herald significant extra investment in the development of truly affordable rented homes?
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I wish to concentrate of the Government’s promise to,
“protect the integrity of democracy and the electoral system”.
It has been suggested that their intention is to address only an alleged, tiny and peripheral problem of impersonation at polling stations. I shall come back to that later. Far more important and urgent are a number of reforms which are necessary, and which have been the recommendation of the official bodies that advise Parliament, to make our electoral law fit for purpose.
First, following the Supreme Court judgment last year, election candidates and their agents need the clarity of the recent codes of practice from the Electoral Commission to be approved. Without them, the dividing line between national campaign and constituency campaign expenditure will remain a dangerous legal minefield for all those involved in elections.
Secondly, and similarly, it would be unthinkable to trigger a general election in the next few months without implementing the unanimous recommendation of the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Electoral Commission and the DCMS Select Committee that there must be effective transparency for all online political messages. This should apply especially within the short campaign period for an election and for a referendum, but the law must move on from the analogue age to embrace digital campaigning. Facebook and the other platforms have recognised the need for this, but surely it should not be left to those commercial organisations to protect the integrity of our electoral process.
Thirdly, legislation for a possible people’s vote referendum has already been drafted by the cross-party and non-party group that I convened last year. We were able to demonstrate that the objections of the Brexiteers that it would take too long to implement were unfounded. It could be done in weeks. Indeed, a legal source said today that it could be done in six weeks, as was the case in 1975. The timetable we presented to the Cabinet Office envisaged a one-clause paving Bill to enable the Electoral Commission to begin its consultations immediately, while the fuller Bill would remove the defects of the 2015 Act. The choice would be much simpler than in 2016. The Government’s proposal would have to be clearly stated in a White Paper as an alternative to the equally clear proposition of remaining exactly as we are now. Where there is a political will there must surely be a parliamentary way. If diehard MPs or Members of your Lordships’ House attempted to filibuster, they would surely be exposed as wishing to sabotage the “will of the people”—to use the expression that they themselves like to use.
Fourthly, in its recent report the Electoral Commission highlights the extent to which the register is neither complete or accurate; it should surely be a priority task for government to improve the integrity of the electoral system to make it as easy as possible for all eligible citizens—at home or abroad—to register and then to vote. We should be improving the number of people voting, rather than discouraging them from doing so as active citizens.
The commission chairman highlights that only 71% of young people aged 18 to 34 in Great Britain are correctly registered and that, overall, 17% of eligible voters here are not correctly registered at their current address. These are major defects and they require immediate attention. These issues must be taken alongside the entirely justifiable challenges put before your Lordships this afternoon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, and my noble friend Lord Beith. Our constitutional settlement is very vulnerable.
By contrast, the incidence of fraud at the polling station is minuscule. The additional cost to local authorities of providing the new ID for the millions who have no passports or driving licences should itself be challenged as dubious value for money. More relevant, surely, would be to sort out the problem identified by the RNIB with the “tactile voting device” provided for blind and partially sighted electors. The court judgment that these arrangements are a,
“parody of the electoral process”,
should lead to urgent government action.
I appreciate that the Minister replying to this debate will not be able to answer all these points, but I expect a detailed response from the Cabinet Office Minister in due course—when one is recruited. Apparently, no Cabinet Office Minister is answerable to your Lordships’ House at the moment.
Meanwhile, I make a plea for a much needed change in the level of public discourse. It has fallen to very unsatisfactory depths. Ministers’ talk of “saboteurs”, “the surrender Act” and “the people versus Parliament” may suit the short-term machinations of Mr Cummings, but it is doing long-term damage to our body politic. In the Times on 2 October, Jenni Russell summed it up:
“Talk of betrayal will rebound on the Tories: Distrust is not a genie that can be put back in the bottle once those in power have exploited it”.
My noble friend Lord Paddick referred to the need for trust in our political system, and the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, pointed out recently that his focus groups were horrified by the extent to which people misunderstood what the Government were putting before them. Oversimplified slogans do not help to reinforce trust. Given that the only sure way to avoid years of Brexit bickering—whether with the Johnson deal or even no deal—is to stop Brexit now, the slogan “Get Brexit done” is a recipe for yet more disillusion, alienation and a genuine feeling of betrayal.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the gracious Speech. I will focus on local government in a rural setting, and family law.
I hope the Minister will join me in applauding the initiative of North Yorkshire County Council in setting up what I understand is the first ever rural commission in England to look at issues such as housing, farming and transport to save North Yorkshire’s most rural communities from decline. There is a need for affordable homes in the rural setting—I pay tribute to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Best—particularly to allow older farmers to leave the farm and move into smaller accommodation, allowing the next generation to step into their farming shoes.
At the heart of rural communities lie farms and other rural businesses, as well as market towns, often in remote, isolated areas where transport is sparse and hospitals and GP practices are some distance away. While North Yorkshire is certainly one of the most beautiful counties in England, it is also one of the sparsest of all, with 85% of the county classed as—to use a new term—super sparse. The commission will report in a matter of months and will consider the particular challenges of deeply rural communities and make recommendations to maximise their sustainability with regard to housing, farming, transport, connectivity— such as broadband and mobile phone—and access to public services. I hope that its recommendations will not fall on the deaf ears of urban government, which is represented broadly in London.
Secondly, in the brave new post-Brexit world, the gracious Speech sets the scene for our future. In this regard, the immigration Bill sets out the procedure for ending free movement of people. That is a matter of personal regret to me, as I have enjoyed a number of opportunities, both as a student and having worked elsewhere in the European Union. However, a matter of greater concern and regret is that the position of almost 2 million Britons living in other European Union member states has still not been made clear. I believe that this is a missed opportunity and a great omission in the gracious Speech. What skill level and salary will be set for those from other European countries, or from Commonwealth and other countries? Will those skill sets be swept aside in the points-based system?
Will my noble friend assure the House today that we will continue to attract and make welcome workers from EU countries whom we hope will work on our fruit and vegetable farms and deliver our health and social care? Will the Government commit to increasing the number of those entering under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme? How does my noble friend imagine that the Government will address the current shortage of veterinary surgeons? Without all those workers, our rural economy will grind to a halt.
I welcome the Bills outlined in the Queen’s Speech which will help families. Examples include the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill, which will minimise the impact of divorce on children in particular; and the private international law (implementation of agreements) Bill, affecting judgments handed out where one or other parent lives abroad. I speak with particular interest as co-chairman of the APPG on Child Contact Centres. However, are we seeking unilaterally to amend the Hague conventions which apply in this regard, because that would seem a very odd approach?
Most welcome are the Bills setting out new regimes for agriculture, fisheries and trade, changing measures that have been in effect for more than 40 years. Expectations run high that the Environment Bill will set out the means to protect our environment in the way that European Union policies have protected our waters, rivers and coasts in particular. Can my noble friend assure the House today that the level of protection from the new agency, the organisation for environmental protection, will be at least as strong as that currently exercised in the European Union? Will there be a role for the UK courts, taking up the previous jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice?
Finally, many of the decisions currently taken by the Scottish Parliament and the devolved Assemblies have been passed to Whitehall through the common frameworks. Can my noble friend commit to the House that they will be wound up in four rather than seven years, so that important decisions on fisheries, agriculture and other policies can revert to the devolved Governments?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I want to raise two quite separate issues to the House. I am a member, with two MPs, of the review of sexual exploitation. We heard very disturbing evidence about the border police and the Border Force. There is a difference between entry passengers by air, who are carefully checked, and entry passengers at maritime ports, particularly Dover, where there is little, if any, checking at all. There is a lack of information for border control as to who is travelling. People can just turn up, buy a ticket and get on either the train or the ferry and come to the United Kingdom. There is no advance information.
We were told that Dover was a major route for victims. Albanians are arriving through Holyhead—traffickers and victims—and we know that a number of Albanian gangs are working, very effectively from their point of view, in England. How did they get in? Presumably, by the maritime ports or through St Pancras.
This is a very wide issue, not an EU issue at all. Border control cannot identify those who may be crooks or undesirables without advance information as to who they happen to be. There is a balance between stopping vehicles and interviewing those in cars or lorries and ensuring that queues do not reach for miles and miles. It looks as though the balance is in favour of getting the vehicles through.
There is also a problem with leaving by maritime ports. There are exit checks with the National Border Targeting Centre, but they do not come back in time, and within 45 minutes or so people are on the way to France. As I said, St Pancras is very important for people coming in and going out. There are not necessarily sufficient checks there, although they are better than at the maritime ports. I understand that there was a ministerial oversight team some time last year but, as far as I know, there has been no report and nothing done.
I am co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery, and we are very concerned about the entry for sexual exploitation or forced labour of victims coming through one or other of those ports. The Government are committed to a single entry policy for all immigrants.. Will the new policy pay particular attention to the need to intercept foreign crooks and other undesirables, particularly traffickers and the victims of traffickers across borders?
A foreign-national offenders Bill has been announced. Will the Government consult organisations experienced in the field, including the Human Trafficking Foundation, of which I am a vice-chair, so that work to help victims can be strengthened by renewed government efforts on prevention, which has been seriously overlooked?
My second issue is how best to deal with drug and drink addicts who are repeat offenders. There was reference in the Queen’s Speech to rehabilitation. Serial addicts go in and out of prison. In prison, they have access to drugs. Out of prison, they have no money to feed their addiction, so they end up back inside. There are alternatives. I suggest one to the Government, which is a residential clinic. It should be a requirement of probation that people go back to prison if they do not co-operate and stay, so there would be a tough regime. There would be work on the addiction and we would hope for rehabilitation. We would save a lot of money long term. Up front it would be expensive, but cost effective. Would the Government at least consider a pilot scheme? It would be well worth a trial for the benefit of the courts and prisons, which are both clogged up, and to address the high cost of reoffending.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I want to say something about housing but I first pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for his work as a Minister, particularly in relation to the private rented sector. It was always a pleasure to work with him.
I declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. The Queen’s Speech says very little about housing. Indeed, in the five days of our debate, there is no mention of housing as a topic, despite the Government’s continual claims that they are committed to solving the housing crisis. The truth is that there is an absence of both money and clear policy objectives to solve that crisis. Some extra money was put into reducing homelessness over the summer, but it was insufficient. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, reminded us, at the Housing 2019 conference, the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, said that social housing has been a,
“victim of the single-minded drive for home ownership”.
She was right, but the big new idea of the current Housing Secretary seems to be to extend the right to buy to housing association properties. The problem he needs to solve first is the lack of supply of properties that people can afford to live in. This initiative seems more likely to worsen the housing crisis.
There is rising homelessness caused by the lack of supply of social homes. There are 277,000 people homeless in England today, with 7,000 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation costing £93 million in the past year. There are 62,000 families homeless in England in temporary accommodation. Shelter reports that 3 million social homes are needed over the next 20 years, yet the Government built only 6,500 in the past year. Our waiting lists for social housing have a million people on them and the dream of home ownership is out of reach for many people. So I ask the Minister this specific question: will the Budget due next month start to address this serious lack of resources?
In London in June, the Greater London Authority and the G15 group of housing associations said that the government grant for affordable homes in London needed to increase sevenfold, to £4.9 billion a year. That is evidence of the scale of the problem that the Government need to address. Meanwhile, in the past two years, the 50 biggest housing associations have built more homes for market sale than they have for social rent. Given all the evidence, I conclude that the Government should suspend the right to buy, not extend it.
In this Queen’s Speech, I welcome the building safety standards Bill to improve high-rise safety, in particular, proposals around accountability and the enforcement of compliance. There are suggestions that there could be a Bill on reforming leasehold and commonhold; that would be welcome, as would the further strengthening of regulation in the private rented sector. Regarding the private rented sector, I hope that the Government will proceed with ending the Section 21 “no fault” termination of tenancies at six months. Can the Minister confirm the timings on that?
Today, the average price of a home is eight times average wages. In London and the south-east, it can be 12 to 15 times. Only 38% of people under the age of 34 own their own home. Thirty years ago, it was two-thirds. Generation Rent has pointed out that four in 10 young people live in the private rented sector. Twenty years ago, it was just one in 10. I conclude that the priority should be increasing the supply of new housing and doing so sufficiently to make housing genuinely affordable for those on average and low incomes.
Today, there is a welcome increase in the building programmes of local councils but we need much more. That means greater leadership and finance from the Government now that they claim that austerity is over. It needs a willingness to capture more of the rising value of land with planning permission for community benefit. It means an increase in capital investment in social housing to reduce the high levels of housing benefit going into the private rented sector, which now has to provide accommodation for one in five households.
As we work towards housing costs not exceeding a third of a person’s income, we need to stop calling homes affordable; self-evidently, the Government should not call homes affordable when they are simply not for so many people.
Brexit
(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 shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given in the other place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, notice of the withdrawal agreement Bill was given to the House on Saturday. The Bill was handed to the House yesterday, as agreed with the House authorities. It will be introduced for First Reading at the start of main business today.
The publication of the withdrawal agreement Bill is therefore now being delayed by the leader of the Opposition because he has tabled an Urgent Question requesting the publication of the withdrawal agreement Bill—genius. The withdrawal agreement Bill could not be finalised until the European Council on Thursday 17 October. Then followed a historic meeting of this House on Saturday 19 October. It has then been introduced on the following sitting day; as you said just a moment ago, Mr Speaker, in response to a point of order, ‘What could be shorter than the next sitting day?’ The sooner this Urgent Question and the next are concluded, the sooner the Bill will be available to Members.
In respect of the Prime Minister’s letter of 19 October to President Tusk, this was sent in compliance with Section 1 of the Benn Act. The President of the European Council has accepted the request as valid, and indicated that he is considering it and consulting with member states”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Well, my Lords, what an extraordinary response.
On Saturday, MPs from all parties voted to seek an extension to ensure that the necessary legislation will be passed prior to Brexit day. The Prime Minister maintains that his deal, and its enabling legislation, must be delivered by 31 October, yet your Lordships’ House has always said that such a self-imposed deadline runs the risk of either not completing the legislation and crashing out or making serious errors in haste.
The Letwin amendment provides insurance against “no deal by default” as the legislation must be in place first—a perfectly reasonable approach. The new Bill is likely to run to around 100 pages or more, about the size of the document I am holding, and will include arrangements for the new border down the Irish Sea, a range of vital protections for EU citizens and a range of broad delegated powers. It will probably include Henry VIII powers; perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is the case. It will also amend or repeal parts of the original withdrawal Act, to which your Lordships’ House devoted something like 150 hours of consideration. This is significant and complex legislation, which will need proportionate scrutiny. To seek to force a Bill of this complexity through both Houses of Parliament in a little over a week is irresponsible.
Mr Johnson’s response on Saturday was like the tantrum of a naughty child. Yes, he sent the letter, but he did so in the most contemptuous way possible. He has shown no respect for the second withdrawal Act, so perhaps we should not be surprised that he shows such disdain for the normal scrutiny processes of Parliament. I have two questions for the Minister on top of my question about Henry VIII powers. Can he confirm that this House and its committees will have an appropriate amount of time to scrutinise the legislation? Secondly, will all supporting documentation, including impact assessments, be published alongside the Bill?
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. On her first point, the deadline is not self-imposed; 31 October is the legal default. I must say, I am delighted to hear her new-found enthusiasm for parliamentary scrutiny; it seemed a little absent when we were told that we had to push the Benn Act through all its stages in this House in less than a day. Of course, the usual channels will discuss the appropriate scrutiny provisions for the Bill with third parties and others.
We have been talking about these issues for three years. I have lost track of the countless hours that I have stood at this Dispatch Box and answered questions on a range of such issues. If the House is willing and able, we need to give the Bill proper scrutiny but we need to pass it so that we can get this done by 31 October.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, the lack of dignity displayed by the Prime Minister in writing to the European Council on Saturday perhaps underlines why he attracts such little trust in Parliament. The Prime Minister described his deal as a great deal but few of its benefits have been set out since it was announced, apart from the fact that it implements the will of the people and gets things done. When the Government publish their Bill, will they publish an impact study on the deal’s economic benefits? Or can we assume from their not publishing it that people will be poorer that they would have been under Mrs May’s deal—and certainly poorer than under the deal we currently have?
Lord Callanan
We will publish an impact assessment on the Bill. It is hard to do so because so much depends on the future relationship and the details of the future trade agreement that will be negotiated.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, if the Bill gets a Second Reading tomorrow, will that count as a meaningful vote?
Lord Callanan
I think my noble friend is getting somewhat ahead of himself. We will wait to see what happens in the other place, but until those provisions are changed or altered by statute, the provisions for the meaningful vote under both Section 13 of the EU withdrawal Act and the Benn Act remain in place.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that while we have debated Brexit for many hours in this House, what was agreed at the European Council last week is a fundamental change from anything we have considered up to now in two crucial respects? The first is the constitutional implications for Northern Ireland. No one ever contemplated that we would go for some version of the Northern Ireland backstop that would be permanent and have serious constitutional implications for the whole of the country. Secondly, I believe that in the political declaration, the economic policy and the ambition for the trading relationship are fundamentally different from what Mrs May suggested and would be terribly damaging, particularly to workers and companies in the manufacturing sector, as virtually all the trade associations in the sector have said. Is it not time that we made sure that these proposals, which could have profound impacts for decades to come, are properly considered, rather than the Government attempting to rush them through before we know what they actually mean?
Lord Callanan
It is always important that we in this House scrutinise these matters carefully, and that the House of Commons does so as well. However, I have to say to the noble Lord that I remember sitting here when Members were solemnly telling us how vital it was to rush through all the various stages of the Benn Bill. I recall thinking, “I’ll remind them of this when it comes to future legislation”.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend clarify that the withdrawal agreement Bill will take out the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act and override them?
Lord Callanan
I cannot say that that would be definite but it is important that we abide by the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. Of course, the House passing a statute provides the appropriate coverage for doing that.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, in view of the Minister’s reference to the fact that the border in the Irish Sea will have implications, can he give an assurance that the contents of this Bill have been discussed with the Government of Wales?
Lord Callanan
Yes, we have certainly discussed many aspects of it with the Government of Wales.
Lord Beith (LD)
How will it be possible for Select Committees of the House, such as those dealing with the constitution and statutory instruments, to examine the Bill to ensure that broad powers are not being given to Ministers which may extend even beyond Brexit?
Lord Callanan
We await the publication of the Bill later this evening. I am sure that the various organs of the House that wish to do so will have the opportunity to look at the provisions.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord said that the Government will publish an economic assessment alongside the Bill. Why has the Chancellor refused to give the economic assessment that the Government have produced to the Treasury Select Committee?
Lord Callanan
I said that we will publish an impact assessment. As I said in response to an earlier question, it is difficult to model the precise economic impact, bearing in mind how difficult it has been to model economic impacts over a number of years anyway. That is because so much of this depends on the future relationship in the political declaration. The withdrawal agreement Bill itself discusses those areas we have talked about previously, including citizens’ rights, money, the implementation period and the Northern Ireland protocol. The big economic impacts will of course be in the details of the free trade arrangements.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, on the question of business management, is it true that we will be asked to sit on Saturday and Sunday?
Lord Callanan
These are of course matters that the usual channels will wish to discuss.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I am confused by the answer given by the noble Lord to my noble friend on the Bench in front of me. I think the Minister said that the Government would publish an impact assessment, but I think he also said that it was very difficult to publish such an impact assessment. Can he tell the House whether there is an impact assessment, will it be published and when? Could he also respond to the question of why it was not made available to the Treasury Select Committee?
Lord Callanan
I said that we will publish an impact assessment but that the economic impact of the Bill is very difficult to assess because it depends on the negotiations for a future free trade arrangement. I am sure that when it comes to the discussion, noble Lords will wish to look at that in detail. I would have thought that there will almost certainly be differences of opinion over what that future arrangement should consist of. One of the commitments we are giving is that we will involve Parliament fully in the discussions about that future economic relationship.
Brexit: Preparations
(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 shall repeat a Statement made today in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a further Statement on our preparations to leave the European Union on 31 October. Before I do so, perhaps I may underline the gratitude of Members on all sides of the House for the efforts of not only the House authorities but also those of the police on Saturday. I also thank Opposition Members, including the Members for Manchester Central and for Brent North, for their kind words on behalf of all Members of the House.
The Government are determined to do everything they can to leave the EU with a deal, and the agreement the Prime Minister concluded at last week’s European Council gives this House the opportunity to honour the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU on time and in an orderly fashion. Parliament had the opportunity on Saturday to support a meaningful vote which would have allowed us to proceed smoothly to ratification of our deal and exit on 31 October, but the House instead voted in such a way as to put an orderly exit on that date in doubt. I appreciate and understand the honest intentions and genuinely sincere motives of many of those who voted for the amendment which stood in the name of my right honourable friend the Member for West Dorset. Perhaps I may place once more on the record the very high personal regard in which I hold him, because I know that he always acts in what he believes to be the national interest and I deeply deprecate the personal criticisms directed towards him.
But the House’s decision to request that a letter seeking an extension to Article 50 be sent unfortunately creates no certainty about our exit in an orderly fashion on 31 October. Before Saturday’s proceedings in the House, European leaders, including the President of the European Commission, the President of France and the Taoiseach, deliberately and explicitly explained that Members should not cast their vote on the assumption that the EU Council will offer an extension. There is no certainty in this matter. Furthermore, no formal response from the EU has yet been received to the two letters sent by the Prime Minister on the evening of Saturday 19 October: the first requesting an extension to the 31 October deadline as required under the terms of the EU (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act; the second setting out the Government’s position that we believe that a delay to Brexit would be corrosive—a view shared by the EU 27 leaders.
With no clear agreement yet in this House to ratify our withdrawal agreement and no certainty that an extension will be granted by 31 October, I fear that I must now take appropriate steps to prepare for the increased possibility that the legal default position will follow and we will leave on 31 October without a deal. The clear advice to me from officials is that we must now intensify contingency arrangements. That is why the Cabinet’s XO committee met yesterday to agree that the Government’s Brexit preparations now move into their final and most intensive phase and that Operation Yellowhammer be triggered.
Let me be clear: no one would be happier than me to turn off those preparations and stand down planning for no deal. I do not think that anyone in this House can doubt my desire to see a deal concluded. But if we are to be certain to avoid a no-deal outcome on 31 October, we have to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal. We must ensure that the vessel which brings certainty passes expeditiously through this Parliament and avoid any attempts to delay, capsize or hole it below the waterline. In that spirit, I thank the many parliamentarians across the House who have indicated that they will be backing the Prime Minister’s deal, which, until he brought it home, many people thought would be impossible to negotiate. This deal ensures that we can leave the EU. It is entirely consistent with the Belfast agreement and all our other domestic and international obligations.
I also underline that once a withdrawal agreement has been ratified, this whole House will be involved in agreeing the mandate for negotiations on our future partnership arrangements with the EU, and we will work particularly closely with all parties to ensure that vital protections for workers and the environment are secure.
In underlining the vital role all MPs will play in securing a strong future partnership, I also emphasise that we want business, trade unions and civil society to help us shape a bright future outside the EU. It is striking how organisations, from the UK Chemical Industries Association and UK Finance to the Country Land and Business Association and the Federation of Small Businesses, have welcomed progress on the deal and asked parliamentarians to end the uncertainty by supporting an agreement.
But, as I have explained, in the absence of that certainty, preparations for the risk of no deal have to be intensified. We will now accelerate our efforts to help businesses and individuals mitigate any dislocation and disruption that may ensue. From today, the Government’s XO committee will meet seven days a week to provide strong ministerial focus across government. Hundreds of public servants across the UK will have to be redeployed. They will transfer to work in operations centres, ready to identify challenges, work together to resolve problems swiftly and implement contingency plans. Government, local resilience bodies and operational partners will be working together, ready to respond 24 hours a day according to need. We are also finalising the latest update of our reasonable worst-case planning assumptions and will share these with the House very shortly.
We must maintain our public information campaign. From tomorrow, this will reflect our renewed urgency of preparation. The advice will help businesses and individuals appreciate what they must do to prepare, given the uncertainty that unfortunately still prevails. I again urge everyone to check the information relevant to their situation on GOV.UK and the comprehensive summary of actions to take, which are contained in the Government’s No-Deal Readiness Report published on 8 October.
We are complementing this information campaign with hands-on advice and assistance. The Department for Transport is continuing to give personal advice to hauliers at sites across the UK and the European Union, and working with local resilience forums to finalise traffic-management plans, particularly making sure we have a smooth flow of people and goods across the short straits. To supplement that, on 11 October 2019 it was announced that four operators—Brittany Ferries, DFDS, P&O Ferries and Stena Line—had been successful in their bids to deliver freight capacity for a six-month period from 31 October to 30 April. They will operate over 13 routes from eight ports in England: Teesport, Hull, Killingholme, Felixstowe, Harwich, Tilbury, Poole and Portsmouth.
Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs is stepping up work to deliver its export webinar programme to thousands of firms. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is distributing a Brexit farming advice guide to agriculture businesses. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is reaching hundreds of companies at readiness roadshows. Key departments are ensuring they have help-desk capacity in place, with advisers ready to give the direct support required. This will build on the estimated 850 recorded engagements with large businesses by DExEU and regular forums with over 70 trade associations conducted so far. We are taking note of comments and feedback left on GOV.UK by people seeking advice, and passing on details of issues and concerns to the relevant government departments.
We are also accelerating our programmes of key policy and legislative decisions to ensure full readiness, including making and laying secondary legislation. We will be laying the final SIs to ensure that all critical Brexit-related legislation necessary for day one is in force by 31 October. This includes the legislation for the new temporary tariff regime, for customs and for avoiding a border in Northern Ireland.
It remains the case that Northern Ireland would face unique challenges in a no-deal Brexit, and we will need to take steps to ensure effective governance and give directions to the Northern Ireland Civil Service. For the past two years, in the absence of devolved government—today’s session being a rare exception—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made alternative arrangements for governance. Legislation and guidance have been introduced to empower Northern Ireland’s civil servants to continue to take decisions in the public interest. I pass on my gratitude. While this arrangement has been sustainable to date, leaving without a deal would represent a formidable challenge to the current position. In that case, we would have to start formal engagement with the Irish Government about further arrangements for providing strengthened decision-making. That would include the real possibility of restoring a form of direct rule. We would, of course, do everything to ensure that the interests of all communities across Ireland were safeguarded in any arrangements. We all must recognise that this would be a grave step from which, experience shows us, it would be hard to return, particularly in the context of leaving without a deal.
Even as we prepare for the challenges of no deal, we will make the case in every forum we can for leaving with a good deal. Parliament has previously shown determination and a focused resolve to pass laws expeditiously when the occasion warrants. The deal we have secured honours the referendum mandate this House pledged to uphold, allows the UK to leave the EU whole and entire and puts in place the pathway to a new partnership with the EU based on free trade and friendly co-operation. That is why I again urge my colleagues in this House, all of us democrats first and foremost, now to support the Prime Minister’s deal. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister, back again after his long stint on Saturday—and no doubt looking forward to the XO committee, which I believe he serves on, meeting seven days a week—for repeating the Statement.
However, I have to question the underlying assumption, and indeed perhaps even the legality, of these preparations. If Mr Gove is so confident that we will leave on 31 October with a deal, how come he lacks the confidence to put Yellowhammer aside? More importantly, why are the Government continuing to work against the decision of the Commons? He surely does not actually think we will not get an extension from the EU.
On Saturday, the Minister attempted to throw back at me the claim I had made that,
“there is no desire for a deal. It is all a ruse”,—[Official Report, 19/10/19; col. 360.]
by saying—and I paraphrase—“Aha! Here we are: we’ve got a deal”. The truth is that, for all the claims that the withdrawal deal was miraculously reopened by the brilliance of the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills, not only was it reopened only to make it worse and to add a new tariff, VAT and standards border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain—as the Statement says, posing “unique challenges” to Northern Ireland, as well as the possibility of direct rule—but it actually is a ruse. The Government are continuing to plan for a no-deal outcome; if not next Thursday, I think that is what the Government contemplate for the end of 2020. No wonder the Government are still determined to be ready for no deal. It is not simply the legal default; it is becoming clear that it is the desired outcome.
For all the talk of providing certainty, especially for business, this continued no-deal work is unsettling the financial, manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. As Ian Wright of the Food and Drink Federation said, while we might all be “exhausted” by Brexit, this does not,
“mean we sleepwalk into mistakes that will haunt the UK economy for a generation … The most urgent priority for the … industry has been to prevent a no-deal exit”.
He also pleads for sufficient time in the implementation period after the legislation,
“for businesses to fully adapt”,
warning of,
“the damaging loss of frictionless trade and regulatory divergence with the EU that the new deal heralds”.
Similarly, on Saturday my honourable friend Madeleine Moon MP reported:
“Ford is leaving Bridgend, where it has 1,700 jobs—with 12,000 jobs across the south Wales economy—because it was worried about a no-deal Brexit”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/19; col. 615.]
She also fears that even the new deal risks the end of just-in-time manufacturing. What are we doing preparing for an outcome that could devastate our valleys, our industrial heartlands, jobs and the economy?
The pretence that we need to make urgent preparations for a no-deal exit, which the Commons has voted against, is all for show. I do not know whether other noble Lords were as angry as I was when, late on Saturday night, I read in the PM’s billet-doux to Donald Tusk of the,
“corrosive impact of the long delay in delivering”,
Brexit—as if it had nothing to do with him. Who was in Government and then resigned in July last year at the time of the Chequers deal? Who refused to support the original deal in November, causing further delay? Who has now manufactured the totem of 31 October as his own virility test, at enormous expense to Parliament’s ability to scrutinise legislation, business’s ability to prepare and increased uncertainty? It was of course Boris Johnson, who has got what he wanted out of it: he is now Prime Minister. It is now time that, as Prime Minister, he put the national interest first. He should put aside this shroud-waving of 31 October and Yellowhammer and turn his attention to ensuring that the UK’s trading links with the EU are strengthened, that such trade is frictionless as well as growing, and that UK citizens across the EU can have some certainty about their future.
Before I finish, I want to say two positive things. There is one really welcome statement in what we have just heard: that the Commons will be involved in agreeing the mandate for negotiations on our future partnership arrangements with the EU—effectively, I think, the Monks-Lea amendment that we put to the 2018 Bill, and which sadly did not survive in the Commons, and the Trade Bill amendment passed in your Lordships’ House. We have yet to see the withdrawal agreement Bill; we will see it later this evening. If, once we have seen it, that commitment to the prior approval of the negotiating mandate is included in the Bill, we on this side will at least cheer that.
I absolutely concur with what the Minister said on behalf of the other House, and what we should also say here, about the incredible work across the House to enable us to meet on Saturday. If I heard my noble friend right earlier, I fear that they may be requested to do it again, in which case it may have to be a “please” as well as a “thank you”.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I will follow on seamlessly from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I have not had the advantage of seeing the Statement before the Minister repeated it, and so I am responding very much on the hoof.
I note that the Secretary of State suggested that it would have just been for the House of Commons to have voted in favour of this deal to honour the will of 17.4 million people. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, pointed out, there were many opportunities: three times, a previous deal was voted down, and one of those who kept voting against the previous deal was the man who is now Prime Minister. The idea that somehow the House of Commons could have, on Saturday, ensured leaving on time is an interesting concept. I understood leaving on time to mean leaving by 29 March 2019. Theresa May, as Prime Minister, said 109 times that we were leaving on 29 March. The idea that, on Saturday, MPs somehow prevented us leaving on time is a little misleading.
If we are to leave the European Union, it ought of course to be done in an orderly way. Preparations for a no-deal scenario make sense. But if preparations for no deal, or to leave at all, were so important, how unfortunate it was that David Cameron prevented the Civil Service even preparing for the eventuality of a vote to leave. How unfortunate that the preparations for a no-deal scenario, which we are led to believe were made in advance of 29 March, were ripped up.
The Minister repeated that freight capacity will be increased from 31 October and that four operators have been contracted for six months to deal with freight. I seem to recall that we spent quite a lot of time earlier in the year asking questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, about the contracts that had been let and subsequently set aside for the previous no-deal arrangements. Will the Minister tell us how much these new contracts cost and what will happen in the event that we do have a deal? Are we contracted to four freight operators for six months whether we need them or not?
It is clearly important to have effective arrangements for a no-deal scenario. Yet it seems that, in the last weeks, the person who has done the most work is Michael Gove. He and his office have been preparing actively for no deal. He is now talking about working seven days a week. How much effort has been put into ensuring that there is sufficient time in the event that a deal is agreed? How much time is being put in place to ensure that Parliament can do its duty? It cannot go forgotten that the Prime Minister tried to prevent Parliament carrying out its scrutiny duty for five weeks by attempting a Prorogation, which was then deemed null and of no validity. That was precisely the time when Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place could have been scrutinising both the prospect of a deal and no deal. That time was wasted.
This afternoon in the other place, quite a lot of time was spent discussing how much time it will have to debate and scrutinise the withdrawal agreement Bill, which, as I understand it, nobody has yet seen. I know that the Minister will throw the Benn Act back at us and say, “Ah! But noble Lords wanted a truncated process”. But the Benn Act was a short and relatively simple piece of legislation. The withdrawal agreement Bill cannot be a short and simple piece of legislation. We are talking about enacting an agreement of over 500 pages. The withdrawal Act of 2018 is extremely detailed legislation. If there is a withdrawal agreement, the Act to bring it into play and to amend the withdrawal Act of 2018 will inevitably be deeply complex. The idea that we can do that within 10 days seems incredible.
Lest the Minister and others on the Government Benches wish to say that this is our own fault, I ask this: how much time are the Government proposing to allow Parliament to sit? Would it not be sensible, as the Father of the House of Commons has suggested, that the Commons sit later into the night and on Friday? It is little use to suggest simply that your Lordships’ House sit on Friday and Saturday. What about ensuring that the democratically elected Chamber has the time to do the job that it is meant to do?
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, talked about a ruse. I wonder too whether there was not a ruse. Are we being told that we must prepare for no deal to make the hysteria so great that MPs feel the need to adopt this deal—any deal—simply to avoid no deal? Surely that is not good decision-making.
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Baronesses for their comments and questions. I will turn first to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.
It is important to point out that, in these matters, we are acting on the appropriate official advice. Not to act on that advice would be the irresponsible thing to do. The noble Baroness made the quite incredible statement in her introduction that an extension was guaranteed and that surely we did not have to worry about it. I assume that she has not seen the statements of the President of France, the Taoiseach of Ireland or the President of the European Commission, who all said that an extension was by no means guaranteed. A number of other commentators in Europe have spoken against an extension—so not to prepare would be the irresponsible thing to do.
I repeat that no deal is not our desired outcome. We have negotiated a deal precisely because we want to see it agreed. However, in its absence, 31 October remains the legal default. That was the extension granted previously by the European Union, and of course the solution is in its hands. As I have repeatedly said, if Labour is so keen to avoid a no-deal exit, there is a deal on the table for it to vote for. There was a deal on the table for it to vote for several months ago and it decided not to do so. If it wants to avoid a no-deal exit, the best thing to do is to vote for a deal. However, the suspicion remains that it is not a no-deal exit that Labour is against but an exit at all. It is against Brexit.
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, if she did not get a copy of the Statement in advance. It is very difficult to respond to these matters if one has not seen them beforehand, so she has my sympathy. She also has my thanks, because she was one of the few Liberal Democrats who originally said that the referendum result should be respected—although I think she has changed her mind recently.
As to the freight contracts, these are framework contingency plans. We hope that they will not be required, but they are contingency plans in case there is severe disruption to make sure that we can still get category 1 goods—medical supplies et cetera—into the country. It is our hope and expectation that, with all the mitigations and the extensive and expensive planning that we have put in place with the various local resilience forums, the contingency contracts will not be required.
The noble Baroness made her own point about time for parliamentary scrutiny. She is quite right. I was going to throw the Benn Act back at her. However, I do not need to talk about the hypocrisy of that, because I have already made that point. Again, to be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they have been clear that they are against Brexit at all and not just a no-deal Brexit. However, I am sure that they will want to play their part in the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has made great play of inviting us to agree the deal that will be before the House in this Bill. However, the likelihood of no deal being deferred to December 2020 is the greater now because my understanding is that the Government are going away from the original proposal of dynamically aligned regulation towards equivalent regulations and a free trade agreement as the future relationship. My noble friend Lord True agrees with me that there is a stronger likelihood now of merely deferring no deal until December 2020. Does the Minister not agree that that is totally unacceptable?
Lord Callanan
The noble Baroness is correct that we want to see a best-in-class free trade agreement. That should be relatively straightforward to negotiate, and we believe that it can be done before the end of 2020. We want to see that done and in place so that we can move on to the next phase of our relationship.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, given that the Minister has told us in no uncertain terms that we could be 10 days away from a no-deal exit from the European Union, can he now assure the House that steps have been taken to ensure that the data this country requires to protect itself from terrorism has been protected so that it will not be diminished after 31 October? Can he also assure us that steps have been taken to ensure that what we will lose from leaving the European arrest warrant has been substituted by improving the sometimes difficult measures that are applied by Interpol?
Lord Callanan
I can certainly assure the noble Lord that we have had extensive discussions and that planning has taken place with the security services to ensure that they have all the data available to them to enable them to do their job. It is the case, of course, in terms of national security, that many of these discussions go on outside the European Union, and those good relationships will continue. With regard to law enforcement data, we are putting mitigation steps in place to make sure that we can still take full advantage of the procedures.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, given the serial inability of the House of Commons to reach a constructive conclusion on Brexit even when presented with this deal, which reasonable people should surely be able to compromise on and agree with, and given the very real possibility that the EU Council—fed up with the dithering and indecision of our Parliament—will decide that it has had enough and refuse to grant us an extension, is it not mere common sense that the Government should redouble their efforts to prepare for the contingency that we leave the European Union without a deal on 31 October? In these circumstances, would it not also be appropriate for this House to express its appreciation of all those officials who are straining every sinew to make sure that we are adequately prepared for such an eventuality?
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. It is indeed common sense that we prepare for that eventuality. It seems to be a common sense that escapes a number of Members in this Chamber, but it is the sensible thing to do. I indeed want to pay tribute to the many officials who are working extremely hard, up and down the country, seven days a week. As I walked into a meeting in the Cabinet Office on Sunday morning to discuss these matters, I thought of that very fact.
Baroness Janke (LD)
Many of us in this House, and the Minister’s good self, will be aware that, whatever happens with regard to leaving the EU, with or without a deal, there are many years ahead of negotiations, work and reaching resolutions of problems after 40 years of being in the EU. Does the Minister feel that the “Let’s get Brexit done” slogan of his party at the moment gives the right impression to the public? Does he not think that, as we have many years of negotiations ahead, members of the public will again feel that they have been lied to and misled and that the idea of bringing the country together and moving on will be fiction after all?
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I cannot believe that I am being lectured about sloganeering by the Liberal Democrats. I would repeat the slogan that they gave us on Brexit, but it would probably be unparliamentary language, so I had better not. We should indeed get Brexit done.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is it correct that it would take up to 33 weeks—more than half a year—to organise properly another referendum?
Lord Callanan
It is extremely difficult to say. However, the noble Lord is well experienced in parliamentary matters. The previous referendum, I think I am correct in saying, took about seven or eight months in total to get through the various Houses and their procedures and to take place. That was with a Government with a majority and a manifesto commitment to do it, so we can draw our own conclusions as to how long it would take to get referendum legislation through when this Government will manifestly not introduce that legislation. There is clearly no majority in either House for it and no agreement on what the question should be, or the franchise or the rules governing it. Many Members who are much more experienced in the workings of the House of Commons than I am have estimated that it could take even longer than that.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, paragraph 10 of the Statement repeated by the Minister reads as follows:
“Furthermore, no formal response from the EU has yet been received to the two letters sent by the Prime Minister on the evening of Saturday 19 October”.
Is the Minister surprised that there has been no formal response to these two letters, which say opposite things? One of the letters is not signed, and that is the view of Parliament. The other letter is signed by the Prime Minister. It says that the EU can ignore the first letter, which is unsigned, because it is only the view of Parliament. Is the Minister surprised that in a parliamentary democracy it should be so surprising that the European Union, in all its manifestations, has not replied to these two letters on the grounds, first, of the strange constitutional concept behind them and, secondly, that they say totally opposite things?
Lord Callanan
What the Minister is surprised about is that the noble Lord clearly has not read the letters. We do not say in the second letter that the first one could be ignored. We were complying with the terms of the Act. We were sending the letter as required by the Benn Act but making clear what the policy of the Prime Minister and the Government is. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other legal commentators have said that that is perfectly within the law.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend said about decision-making powers in Northern Ireland, which a number of us raised with him a fortnight ago. Can he confirm that while there might be obligations on Her Majesty’s Government to consult the Irish Government under the terms of the 1998 British-Irish agreement, the decision to introduce direct rule is a matter for Her Majesty’s Government and this Parliament alone?
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for his question. I know the close interest he takes in this matter, which he asked me about a couple of weeks ago. I hope he will understand why I was not able fully to answer his question then. It would indeed be a matter for legislation in this country although, given the terms of the Good Friday agreement, we would want to consult closely with the Irish Government.
Lord Wigley (PC)
The Minister said that the European authorities should not ignore the first letter that was sent, and I am sure we would all concur with that. Assuming they do not ignore it, and that they respond to it over the next seven days, will he give an assurance that the tremendous waste of resources in this preparation exercise will immediately be suspended and the extension will be taken full advantage of in order to get an orderly Brexit—if Brexit has to happen?
Lord Callanan
The President of the European Council tweeted to say that the request was valid, and he had accepted it. Of course, the legal default remains in place, but as soon as this Parliament agrees a deal and the EU agrees a deal or an extension is granted, we will want to discontinue the arrangements for leaving on 31 October. But many of the preparations we are undertaking will be required on our eventual exit anyway.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the timing of this Statement today is a trifle odd? It seems at the very least to show an absence of confidence in the communication the Government transmitted to Brussels on Saturday evening asking for an extension. Are the Government so sure that that will fail that they need the added expense of this action today? It is very odd timing. Before we hear all the quotations about the views of the President of France, the Taoiseach and others, might it be wise to remember that only 10 days ago the Prime Minister was calling those who communicated with such people collaborationists?
Lord Callanan
I repeat the answer I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. It is not odd at all—it remains the legal default. The irresponsible thing to do would be not to prepare, because we cannot be sure that the extension will be granted, as a number of European leaders have made clear. The noble Lord has occupied senior positions in the Civil Service. In his previous career I am sure he would have regarded it as highly irresponsible not to prepare for something that was the legal default, the outcome of which we had no certainty about.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, may I take the Minister back to the answer he gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, on the Liberal Democrat Benches? I do not disagree that nobody has a monopoly on the use of slogans, but is it his belief that if we leave on 31 October, with or without a deal, Brexit will be done? That is not a view widely held anywhere else, no matter what side of the argument anybody might be on. Does he agree that, whether we like it or not, the process of detaching the United Kingdom from the European Union will be complicated, long, drawn out and not, as he said earlier in respect of negotiating trade deals, relatively straightforward? Nothing about this process has been relatively, or even a bit, straightforward. Does he therefore not agree that it is really not in the interest of sensible debate here today or in future to continue to say that we need to get Brexit done? We do, but it will not be done on 31 October.
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I suppose we are getting into the semantics of what “done” means here. It will be done in the terms that we will have left the European Union, but if she accepts that concession, I will be happy to agree with her that of course discussions will need to take place and agreements will have to be made across a range of areas. I have many times said across this Dispatch Box that discussions will take place before we leave and, I hope, discussions will take place after we leave. We have to have agreements with the European Union in a range of areas. I have never resiled from that. We will need to agree a number of different policy areas with the EU.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Will my noble friend spell out to us exactly what is in the gift of the other place or your Lordships’ House in terms of amending this legislation? Surely, we are talking about an international treaty that has been agreed with the EU. What happens if we make substantial amendments to it? Are we expected to go back to the EU and say that the agreement we have already made has to be amended? Surely, what we can do in the Bill that will be presented to us will be very restricted.
Lord Callanan
My noble friend asks some good questions. The answer is complicated. If the terms of the withdrawal agreement itself were to be altered by amendment, the effect would be that we could not ratify the treaty and therefore there would be no deal. Of course, there are other elements that could be amended, which would affect operations in the domestic sphere but would not affect our ratification of the treaty.
Lord Beith (LD)
The material that is most likely to cause disagreement between the two Houses concerns the powers that the Bill might give to Ministers and the extent to which they can act without parliamentary approval. We will not know how extensive they are until we see the Bill. Would it not be a good idea to have a contingency plan to make use of any extension which is offered to ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny is given rather than sounding, as bits of the Statement do, like Captain Mainwaring declaring martial law?
Lord Callanan
After my experience with Commissioner Timmermans, I do not think I am going to get into “Dad’s Army” analogies any further. We want to get Brexit done by 31 October. We have spoken about these issues and debated them endlessly and it really is time to get on with it.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It was said in the Statement and repeated in answer to a question that, following the advice of officials, this preparation should go ahead. I think I have the wording right. Will the Minister confirm whether that is simply the advice of civil servants, whom I respect greatly, or the legal advice the Government have been given?
Lord Callanan
My noble and learned friend Lord Keen in not in his place, but he would be telling me that I am unable to comment on legal advice that the Government are given, but it certainly follows a range of advice from officials and government.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, really detailed scrutiny is needed to take account of the long-term consequences, in whatever form they take, for decades to come.
Lord Callanan
The long-term consequences will flow partly from the withdrawal agreement but also from the political declaration and the future arrangements. We have committed to involving Parliament fully in the detailed negotiating mandates for the future arrangements. I am sure there will be lots of happy hours for all of us, endlessly discussing these matters for a long time to come.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Will the Minister elaborate a bit on the context in which this Statement was made? At the beginning, I think I heard assurances that the Government are committed to securing environmental protections. So will the Minister tell us why non-regression on European environmental standards was removed from the binding element—the withdrawal agreement—and relegated to the non-binding element—the political declaration—thus leaving environmental standards to the mercies of the negotiation of the trade agreement? Will the Minister admit that that is asking us all to buy a bit of a pig in a poke, in that we do not know what the deal on environmental standards will be as a result of the negotiations on the free trade agreements? Will he tell me that this is the reason why members of the ERG are going around with broad smiles on their faces, laughing in the face of the environmental movement? They are notably flat earthers and climate change deniers.
Lord Callanan
The noble Baroness demeans herself with some of those statements. The original level playing field provisions were in the Irish protocol, which has been abolished and replaced with entirely new arrangements. We have committed to provisions in the political declaration, and she will know from her experience that our environmental standards go much further than many in the European Union. Only last week we announced legislation on the new environmental protection bodies, and we have announced legislation on single-use plastics which is far in advance of legislation from the European Union. We are proud of our environmental record and will continue with it.
Queen’s Speech
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, we return to the Queen’s Speech and I shall concentrate my remarks on the criminal justice aspects of it. My interests are well known and listed in the register: I was the co-founder of Catch22, of which I remain a vice-president; I was the chairman of Crime Concern for 15 years; and I am a regular prison visitor.
When the Prime Minister became Prime Minister and appointed the Home Secretary, the two of them were to be found rushing around the country with popular newspapers in tow seeking to grab as many headlines as possible about being savage and unkind to prisoners. It sounds like a good piece of election rhetoric to inflict as much injudicious pain as possible on those whose crimes are well known, but it is very petty policy. It is intended to reassure the public that the Government are tough on the nasty people but it comes from a nasty place. It comes from wanting to make us, in effect, more fearful and therefore to trust government institutions.
We do not need to spend more time in this House or over any part of the years to come on the subject of building new prisons and adding more prison places. We all know that our system is broken and does not work effectively. We incarcerate far too many people, we lock them up for far too long, and we ensure, by the bad manner in which we hold them behind bars, that very few are effectively rehabilitated and that they do not return to society as sound citizens. Our rehabilitation rates are poor and the return-to-prison rates far too high. What we really required in the gracious Speech was the recognition that we need to learn from other parts of the European Union and Latin America that are closing prisons, reducing the number of offenders who go to prison and moving towards civilising and supporting individuals with their mental capacity, their ability to learn and educate, and the option to contribute, again, as responsible citizens.
One thing that I have learned in my now extensive and very regular prison visits in the south of England, particularly in Kent, is that after a few years many of the men locked away for extensive periods learn the hard lessons of their foolishness and victimisation. However, under our system we are committed to retain them behind bars for maybe 20 or 30 years, paying an extensive cost, estimated to be between £48,000 and £50,000 a year—more than it costs to send a child to Eton—and, for young offender institutions, between £80,000 and £120,000, which, again, is a multiple of what it costs to send a child to the most expensive and some of the best private schools in the country.
Therefore, this multibillion pound system, which is piling on more people and more young offenders and regularly returning many more to prison, is simply not delivering success, opportunity, fairness or justice. It is not good policy to go around beating up those who are already destitute by their own failure and, on many occasions, are very highly repentant and determined to be responsible citizens of the future. Instead, we need policies committed to returning them safely to society and we need their support, as taxpayers, as contributors to the strong society that we all need.
I hope that the Minister will consider, and maybe reply, on the thought that it is about time that we had a royal commission to consider the nature of sentences, particularly for serious crimes, the length of those sentences and how the rehabilitative process should be better undertaken, learning the lessons of countries—especially Nordic countries—that have moved to much more open prison policies and offer educational and emotional support, dealing with fundamentals such as drug abuse and mental pressure issues, and taking the savagery out of a system that is not delivering us a safe society.
The comment in the briefing provided to us by the Library from Frances Crook, the chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, could not say it better:
“This is not about protecting victims. This is not making communities safer … it adds to increasingly punitive rhetoric emanating from government. The tenor of the debate on crime and punishment seeps into the public discourse insidiously. At a time when the nation is already divided and increasingly angry, adding this fuel to the fire is irresponsible”.
Therefore, we need a royal commission to at last open up this question and stop fearing the tabloid headlines, which just want to say, “Push them away more firmly”. I noted the Prime Minister’s visit with the Home Secretary to a prison in, I think, Leeds, where they rushed along the corridors and did not talk to any prisoners in an attempt to understand the reality of their lives, instead standing with prison officers and pointing out how dreadful the people behind bars were. They are citizens—members of our communities—and they will return to our communities. If we do not deal with them properly, they will repeat their crimes at great public cost. We have to learn from the pattern of failure.
I want to make a quick comment on the stop and search extension proposed under the legislation. I have said many times in this House that it is downright folly. Coming from one of the ethnic minority communities—a black community—and knowing many young men who have been stopped and searched, I can tell your Lordships that this does not drive an effective approach to safety or policing; it builds phenomenal resentment and causes additional unhappiness and crime, and of course it is an inappropriate way to handle young men.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful that the gracious Speech indicates that the Government intend to put more resource into the criminal justice system and the police. The difficulty is that I am not convinced by the strategy and am rather more with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. However, I do not support the idea of a royal commission, simply because it would recommend only what it thought was politically possible. I think that people like me and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, need to push for much more drastic reform.
During a recent debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, I told the House that I have spent the last two years, among other things, taking a very close look at the UK’s prison system. I also said that I have concluded that the system is hopelessly and fundamentally flawed.
Your Lordships know perfectly well that minor offenders can sometimes go on to commit very serious offences unless the pattern of behaviour is halted early. For these younger prisoners—those younger than 26 to 30—it is essential that the causes of their offending are addressed. Very often these are illiteracy and innumeracy, coupled with a lack of hope, pride and self-discipline. That is why I proposed a new sentence of being “Detained for Training” at Her Majesty’s pleasure, or DFT for short. Release would depend on achieving the required standard of literacy, numeracy, trade training and personal conduct as an alternative to being incarcerated for a set period predetermined by the court—something that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, touched on.
Offenders on DFT would not necessarily be accommodated in a classic prison building, and I suspect that I share some thinking with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Furthermore, the term “personal conduct” would include abstention from substance abuse. There would have to be a cap of, say, five years for those who still did not want to comply.
Some outside this Chamber have queried the economics of my DFT proposal and the possible views of the Treasury. The latter, as noble Lords know well, is always a problem with any new policy. I am neither equipped nor qualified to lay out exactly how to run a DFT system, nor can I say how much it would cost to run, other than to observe that the current system is a very expensive way of achieving very little with prolific minor offenders.
I fully take on board the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, keeps making about the need for the current and any future system to be properly managed and led. The most obvious need is to keep operations separate from policy determination and accept that mistakes will be made and things will go wrong. I should like to make it clear that I do not believe that the problem with our current penal system lies with either the prison governors, at all levels, or prison officers. The problem is what we tell them to do with the prisoners.
The current economic model with regard to the prolific minor offender is that, after several community sentences, we spend, say, £40,000 on his—the vast majority are male—first sentence to immediate custody. We totally fail to address his weaknesses in literacy, numeracy and personal conduct. All noble Lords are aware of the 60% reconviction rate within 12 months, and that figure is flattered by those who are extremely unlikely to reoffend post-release. So we spend another £40,000 on the next relatively short prison sentence, as observed by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. Surely, if we properly sorted out the offender the first time round, even if it meant spending £60,000, we could avoid the cost of the second and subsequent prison sentences and all the associated harm to the community they entail.
I am not convinced by the new policy of increasing sentences for serious offences even further. The exception is the provision for deported foreign offenders, which is welcome. We know that our sentences are much longer than those of comparable states and, as a result, our incarceration rate is very high. I fear that one driver of this is that policymakers and the general public take a middle-class view of deterrence. For instance, I never use my handheld mobile phone while driving because I know that I risk having an accident and, most importantly, a prison sentence. A prolific minor offender simply does not care. I really do not think that the actual length of the possible prison sentence matters to a very serious offender at all. What really matters is the probability of being caught and being sentenced to prison, as observed by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The most important thing is to be effective in steering youngsters away from a life of crime.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interest in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I also join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for the great work he did as a Minister and his co-operative way of working on local government and inclusion, which was welcomed across the House.
This debate is taking place at a time of great strain for the fabric of the areas and regions of the United Kingdom, but I suggest that Brexit is a symptom, not the cause, of these strains. It is not the European Union that causes some of us in parts of the United Kingdom to take Pacer trains that are more like garden sheds on wheels; that has over many years created the imbalance in regional investment across the country—in fact, the EU has actually helped at times with regional funds—that has seen a lack of investment in helping businesses equally in this country in terms of IT and other infrastructure; that has been responsible for lack of skills or focus on skills in certain parts of the country; or that has been responsible for the lack or imbalance of regional productivity across the country.
The cause of all this has been a lack of effective—or any—regional policy over the last 30 to 40 years, and Governments of all colours have to take some responsibility for this. When it comes to investment, life chances, life expectancy, job opportunities and a lack of hope, the real causes, as I have said, are the divided country, divided nations and divided regions. If you want to “get on with it” and bring this country together, I suggest that we need to focus on devolution and regional policy. If the Government spend a 10th of the time on this that they do on preparing for a no-deal Brexit, we could start to deal with the real causes of the divides and strains in our nation.
Welcome as the Government’s lines on devolution in the Queen’s Speech are, they are scant on detail. Devolution is not a slogan such as “northern powerhouse”; it is not one person such as a metro mayor; it is not decentralisation from an out-of-date way of doing governance from a central Victorian Government. It is fundamental and systematic change of how our country is governed, where power lies and how power and responsibilities can be used—a much more federal model, pulling down the pillars of a bureaucratic, London-centric model.
It starts here in London. Devolution never talks about what needs to change at the central level. It talks about how you give crumbs or parts of decentralisation from here down to the regions or areas, all of which are predetermined by Government and importantly—and we need to get away from this—the shadow and heavy hand of the Treasury, which blocks based on what it thinks is right from its economically London-centric view of what is needed for the regions, areas and countries of the UK.
We need to talk about a different way of governing centrally. We need a Cabinet member for regional vibrancy and economic performance and a real ministry for devolution and economic policy, pulling in powers from different ministries so that they are not arguing in silos about who is responsible. We must also do away with them being responsible to the Treasury. The Treasury stops and stalls. We need to start here, before we start talking about what I call “devolution by default”. Unless there is a national security or strategic reason for keeping them central, the models and powers of devolution should be decided by the area. It does not have to be a metro mayor or a pick-and-mix approach to what is needed on devolution. It should be down to each region.
Can the Minister therefore say what central changes will be made in government to make devolution work? Will we move away from a pick-and-mix model of devolution where you can pick and mix only certain things that have been predetermined by the centre, which would not bring around the true approach to dealing with this? What new funding models will be available for devolution? Local taxation and finance-raising powers are needed. It should be down to local people to decide through the ballot box whether something is right or wrong, not someone at the Dispatch Box here to say that it is not in the interest of local regions.
If we are serious about bringing our country together and dealing with the strains and issues that have caused Brexit, we need a different and more devolved way and better regional and local policies to do so. That has to start with a very different and radical approach to what we wish to do.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president and former chair of the Local Government Association.
The Queen’s Speech has set an ambitious agenda, and quite rightly so. Life in the communities of this country continues irrespective of the trials and tribulations of the Brexit issue. There is much in the Queen’s Speech that I welcome, as many of the proposals are signs of progress. As we implement these changes, we must ensure that we listen to the needs of our local communities. Because time is short, I will focus on only two issues which I believe my insight into local government leaves me well equipped to talk about: the Domestic Abuse Bill and the devolution White Paper.
Domestic abuse is a hugely important issue, one which I know we all take very seriously. The LGA and others have long supported the need for a domestic abuse Bill. This Bill is a legislative landmark. It will provide the first definition of domestic abuse that is not limited to violence. Women’s Aid has said that it has the potential to create a step change in the national response. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that this is promising.
The creation of a domestic abuse commissioner will also help to raise the profile of this issue and ensure that the momentum behind it continues. For their part, councils will work collaboratively with the commissioner to support good practice across the country. However, I want to highlight that there also needs to be a greater focus on prevention and early intervention, to tackle the root causes of domestic abuse in the first place. Councils are best placed to lead on this agenda, but their ability to provide support services is currently limited by significant budgetary pressures. The Government must ensure that councils, and their partners, are given the resources they need.
Ahead of the Queen’s Speech, the LGA also called for a new devolution settlement. Across the board, services can be delivered better when councils have the freedoms and funding to make local decisions. Devolution is the key to progress for local communities. The Prime Minister has shown his commitment to the devolution agenda and I welcome the Government’s proposed White Paper. It is particularly important as there have been no new devolution areas agreed in the last two years. When deals have been agreed, we have seen a focus on cities and individual negotiations. With this White Paper, we must go further. The mayoral combined authorities have already begun to demonstrate the real, tangible benefits of devolution, but that model does not suit everyone. We cannot continue to leave the rest of the country behind.
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, refer to Total Place. Having been involved in discussions on Total Place and its early stages, I support his desire to see it being reconsidered and brought forward. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who believes that the Treasury does not deal well with local government, might find that Total Place could be part of a good solution to that issue. As the White Paper is developed, I hope that national and local government can work in partnership to ensure that they work for all local areas. We need to move towards a package of sustainably funded devolved powers, available to all English local government. This in turn will ensure prosperity and growth across our country.
I conclude by once again welcoming this Queen’s Speech. Its proposals will allow us to work together to protect our most vulnerable residents and ensure our long-term success and prosperity as a nation. For this to happen, the Government must work with local leaders, who are best placed to understand our communities and the challenges they face. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on a new collaborative approach. Together we can continue to make a difference for people across England.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, with the prospect of one or more general elections looming, I want to grasp the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her excellent work as a Minister in the last, long, two-year Session. She has been courteous, consultative, listening, inclusive and responsive, and I hope she will continue to be a Minister for a long time to come. That is not just cupboard love in the hope that I get a good response to the comments I am about to make.
My first point is about Brexit and national security. A few minutes ago, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that every effort is being made and discussions are taking place to ensure that national security is not affected. I am afraid I do not accept that matters have gone beyond those discussions. The Minister and the Government should be ready to come to Parliament if they need more legislation to ensure that the security services and the police can command the data they need and have new treaty guarantees to strengthen our relationship with the not-always-successful Interpol, to replace the loss of European Union institutions.
My second issue relates to imprisonment generally, and I broadly agree with the very eloquent comments of my noble friend Lord Hastings and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I am a former president of the Howard League for Penal Reform, an interest I should have mentioned earlier. Generations of research demonstrate that longer sentences, fuller prisons, reduced parole opportunities, diminished prison education and other cuts are absolutely no way to relieve the tensions caused by crime. I urge the Government to develop a mature and considered prison policy rather than one founded on soundbites prepared ahead of an election, as we have started to hear.
My third point relates to the youth courts. In 2014, a committee of parliamentarians assisted by the Michael Sieff Foundation and others produced a report on the youth courts. I had the privilege of chairing the committee. A significant colleague in our unanimous recommendations was one Robert Buckland, now the Lord Chancellor. Our conclusions were welcomed by the then Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove, and the signs of support from the Youth Justice Board were encouraging. However, repeated ministerial changes have left a frustrating sense of stasis. To focus on just one example of our many recommendations, we identified a lack of relevant experience in representation offered in youth justice at both police stations and courts. The cases themselves are often uncomplicated, but the defendants are usually very complicated indeed, with multiple co-morbidity of social problems, mental health problems and, sometimes, physical health problems. I would welcome an indication that these cases—which almost always occur at a key stage in young lives—can be given the priority they deserve. A good starting point would be the funding to commence training programmes and a fit-for-purpose accreditation frame- work for the lawyers who appear in those courts. Too often, the most junior lawyer in a firm of solicitors or a barristers’ chambers is sent to the youth court, with practically no information. It will not do, and it is time we moved on.
My final point is entirely different. It relates to the private security industry, which we now see protecting the public in many parts of our major cities, including this building. Private security is regulated by the Security Industry Authority, the SIA. Over 360,000 individuals hold SIA licences, and this area is becoming a more crucial part of law enforcement, justice and the protection of the public every single day. The SIA has the power to license individuals but not companies, and it cannot delicense companies as it can individuals. Some pretty bad people, as well as some pretty good people, work in the private security industry. In my view, there is now an imperative for business as well as individual licensing, to ensure that the small number of bad providers can be dealt with effectively, for example by ensuring that the tax liabilities they owe to HMRC are met without the companies becoming insolvent and then re-emerging—through the so-called phoenix syndrome—with a new name a few days later. Taken together, a national strategy combined with the SIA’s desire to upskill the profession and to regulate at both business and individual level will enhance public protection.
I hope that the Minister can offer some comfort on the four issues I have raised.
Lord Kirkham (Con)
My Lords, there is undoubtedly a great deal to welcome and to commend in the domestic agenda set out in Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech, though so far it has all been sadly overshadowed by the vexed question of Brexit. I am, above all, a unionist—not a trade unionist nor an Ulster unionist, but a simple believer in the almost universally popular proverb and motto “Unity is strength”. Clearly there is strength in numbers, and we are better and stronger together. That is principally why I was a remainer on the European question, and why I hope against hope that the resolution of that question will not further drive to divide Scotland from the United Kingdom, weaken the ties between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and encourage separatist tendencies in Wales or even Yorkshire.
But it is not just the devolved nations that demand our attention. Let us not be mesmerised by the last three years of agonising and divisive debate about our future direction as a nation. I think we can all agree that there is now a need to come together. To bring the nation back together through their legislative programme, I believe that the Government should maintain a strong focus on healing the divide in this country—England—between north and south. This is not solely an English issue. If I may, I shall co-opt the devolved nations for these purposes as honorary northerners, which, in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland, certainly corresponds to geographical reality.
There is a clear divide between the north and the prosperous, powerful region in which we sit, London and the south-east, that erodes loyalties, nourishes resentment, is the enemy of prosperity and stifles the potential of far too many of our people. We hear encouraging noises about the northern powerhouse, but we need so much more than platitudes, promises without timelines or faster trains—yes, more even than HS2. We have created a patchwork of city regions, some with elected mayors, yet we do not seem to have managed to create a unifying voice or purpose that would engage and unleash the latent power of the north.
I am immensely proud to be a northerner, born, bred and resident to this day. But I am also ashamed that the north continues to suffer from a long and complex list of disadvantages, including but by no means restricted to lower incomes, worse job prospects, vastly poorer infrastructure, cultural sparsity, inferior health outcomes and even lower life expectancy.
The metropolitan media has spent three long years wringing their hands over the fact that in most parts of the north—here I clearly exclude Scotland—a convincing majority cast their votes for leave. Was this maybe because they were not sufficiently educated? No, more likely it was because the north felt left behind—neglected, like a poor relation, insufficiently cared for. Maybe it was its way of trying to make politicians sit up and take notice. Well, we should.
I would like the acid test of all domestic legislation in the current Session to be: does it treat the north fairly—by that I mean does it treat the north equally? Does it help to draw the nation together? If we are to make our way in the world as an independent country, it is absolutely vital that we harness the talent and energies of all our citizens, from every single area and diverse region of our land. We will achieve that only if we invest in the north—not just select cities or other parts of the north where the impact of our neglect is far too embarrassing to ignore, but the north as a whole. Nurture it, care for it, seek to reduce the hurtful inequalities between north and south, and improve understanding of each other’s needs across the length and breadth of the nation. Surely we have had enough of division, bitterness and unfairness. As Churchill famously put it,
“let us go forward together with our united strength”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/1940; col. 1502.]
Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to be the fifth northerner in a row in this House to speak. I have looked at the Queen’s Speech and sliced it into three: details of the expected damage that the Government intend to do to the United Kingdom; what they remain committed to; and measures that will be introduced—I suspect that means Bills, laws and our thorough involvement.
I come first to damage, on a day when I suspect no damage is being done. The only time I have spoken on the Brexit issue was in a debate on 2 October. I referred to the changes that had taken place since the referendum on 23 June. I said then that 39 months had elapsed; well, now it is 40. The electorate has changed. Many people have changed their minds. The people outside have had one vote; Peers and MPs have had 280 votes on Brexit. Many people have died and there have been 40 months of people becoming 18.
Yesterday, I met a woman who told me that, in her family circle, her father and her aunt had died in the past three years—and they voted leave. She has four nieces and nephews who have attained the age of 18 in the last 40 months. They would have voted remain and would vote remain if there were to be a referendum. I wonder for how long the present Government believe a dated referendum result will still be valid.
I will now look at measures to be introduced. I will speak to a sentence on page 91 of the background briefing:
“A White Paper will be published to set out my Government’s ambitions for unleashing regional potential in England, and to enable decisions that affect local people to be made at a local level”.
There is a bit more information—but not much. I welcome the use of the word “regional”. It is not a word that Conservatives have used; they have shied away from it. Liberal Democrats, being federal minded, have often used it. Indeed, it is part and parcel of our policies.
The northern powerhouse has been referred to. It seems to be a regional project, but it is still difficult to understand. Does the pending White Paper suggest that the northern powerhouse shall be subject to any form of legislation? As I understand it, it is just a couple of words, like the “American dream”. I do not think it really means too much. It is a concept that the last Chancellor of the Exchequer but one introduced because he represented a constituency in the north of England.
My noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned Wales not being referred to. I find, looking in detail, that north Wales is part of the northern powerhouse. That seems a strange concept, but there we are. I do not think that the northern powerhouse is what is meant by “regional”, but I would like to bottom it out. If you want to contact it, you will find that it is part and parcel of the department of communities. It does not have a board of directors, a finance chief or a balance sheet. It does not exist in that sense; it is just a strange concept.
However, on the English devolution that may be referred to, I would like to know whether it is going to be for a “one Yorkshire”? If they introduce a “one Yorkshire” as part of the devolution concept, they will find that it is quite popular. In Greetland, where I live, in Elland nearby, in the Calder Valley and in Halifax, we do not relate to anything called “the Leeds city region”, or the combined authority, but we do relate to Yorkshire. I look forward to the White Paper, and indeed, with some hope—but not necessarily expectation —to the Government’s conversion to a “one Yorkshire”.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, the designated subjects for today range widely. Other noble Lords have focused on home affairs and justice. I could have talked of the 20,000 new police officers we are promised by 2023, or the £2.5 billion to be spent on new prisons, but that would have taken me into economic territory. I listened to the gracious Speech, and I marvelled as the monarch read out that the Government’s,
“new economic plan will be underpinned by a responsible fiscal strategy, investing in economic growth while maintaining the sustainability of the public finances”.
If the barrage of spending policies that have been made by this Government amount to a responsible fiscal strategy, then Henry VIII had a responsible attitude towards marriage. We should all be alarmed when a former head of the Treasury says, as the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, did in this Chamber last week, that the Government are pursuing,
“a policy of fiscal incontinence”.—[Official Report, 14/10/19; col. 183.]
So I will not dwell on the plans for more police and more prisons. Instead, I will talk about constitutional matters, particularly how we run our elections and the danger that poses to our constitution.
As other noble Lords have said, our unwritten constitution feels to be in a precarious position. Last week in a very powerful speech the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve, spoke of her concerns about how disinformation campaigning is influencing elections and referenda. Here, I must declare my interest as a director of the People’s Vote media hub. I believe that it is only right that the public should be asked to give their informed consent to the outcome of the Brexit process. I want that referendum, when it comes, to be fought fairly, without the intervention of what she referred to as “cyber troops”. The gracious Speech promised an electoral law Bill, but this seems to be a relatively narrow piece of legislation, dealing with the identification and direct intimidation of voters. This would not impact on the efforts of those organisations that are prepared to put significant resources into secretly influencing the results of votes. These may be wealthy individuals, special interest groups or foreign Governments. While the Government have voiced their commitment to protecting our electoral process from interference from abroad, nothing has been done to temper that. It cannot be right that those with access to large sums of money can buy the services of cyber troops to influence the outcomes of our elections. What steps will the Government undertake to protect the integrity of our electoral processes?
I would go further than dealing with the cyber effects of so much money. We have seen how our politicians have been subject to online abuse, particularly for the stance many of them have taken over Brexit. In the worst cases, the police have taken action but online comments do not have to be death threats to be very intimidating and, perhaps, to influence what politicians dare to say and how they behave. Many of us will have been on the receiving end of online abuse, which very often is anonymous. Not so long ago, an anonymous letter was considered an outrage. The recipient would have headed straight to the police. Any such missive would have had the inhabitants of St Mary Mead heading immediately for the service of Miss Marple. Now, anonymous communications are normal. Anonymity online does not equate to freedom of speech—often, it is a direct deterrent to it—and I believe it should be curtailed. In June last year the then Digital Minister, Margot James, said that freedom to be anonymous online has been abused,
“in such a substantial way, with such damaging effects”,
that curbs are being considered. Earlier this year, the DCMS published a White Paper on online harms, but it did not confront the basic issue of anonymity. In countries with extreme regimes and vicious censorship, there can be a genuine need for anonymity, but not in a healthy democracy. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said earlier,
“the public discourse has been dangerously coarsened, and I believe has now become so intimidating that it poses a genuine threat to democracy”.
Anonymity online has to be curbed.
Lord Green of Deddington (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare a non-financial interest as president of Migration Watch, and remind the House that Migration Watch speaks for 30 million adults in the UK who wish to see immigration reduced. Eighteen million of them wish to see it reduced “by a lot”. For comparison, only about 5.5 million wish to see an increase, so they are outnumbered by rather more than five to one. The views of this very large majority are seldom represented in this House, so I shall focus on that very subject.
The critical test for the immigration Bill foreshadowed in the Queen’s Speech is whether it will achieve a serious reduction in the currently excessive levels of immigration. It is common ground that immigration on a modest scale is a welcome part of an open economy and society. I concur of course with the contributions earlier of the noble Lords, Lord Horam and Lord Hodgson. However, at its present level, immigration is adding, directly and indirectly, 1 million to the population of the UK every three years. One effect of this is to generate a need for 240 homes in England every day. These are extraordinarily large numbers which are not given enough attention.
Yet, despite the scale of immigration, there is no convincing evidence that immigration has increased the UK’s GDP per head, nor that it has increased productivity, which, as noble Lords will know, has been pretty flat for 10 years despite massive levels of immigration.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, told us today that the Government would deliver on the points-based system which has been promised for many years. Actually, although he does not seem to know it, we have had such a system since 2009. Unfortunately, it failed to ensure that so-called highly skilled workers went into highly skilled jobs. It also led to massive abuse of study visas. Noble Lords will remember that just part of the clean-up operation took several years and involved the closure of nearly 1,000 bogus colleges—this was an extraordinary degree of incompetence. Noble Lords may also have noted the remarks made by Mrs Theresa May in the other place last week, when she urged the new Home Secretary to look carefully at the lessons that have been learned about points-based systems. She should know.
What is this new system? The Government have been coy about the details, but they seem to have chosen the label “Australian” because it sounds tough and is therefore popular with focus groups. However, they will now have discovered that the Australian system is very complex and—whisper it—depends heavily on caps on all work-related routes, yet no mention of a cap has passed the lips of the Home Office.
It seems that the Government intend to build on the White Paper which they slipped out just before Christmas. That envisaged reducing the skill level from degree to A-level and “consulting” on the present salary level of £30,000. However, as the consultation is almost entirely with industry—surprise, surprise—a figure as low as £21,000 might emerge. According to our calculations, a salary level of that kind would expose up to 9 million UK jobs to new or increased international competition. That changes according to the level of salary that one puts in, but they are the kind of numbers we are talking about.
Cue an astonishing silence from Labour, the party of the workers, and from the trade unions, which one might think would be interested in looking out for the interests of potential recruits from the UK. Meanwhile—no surprise—businesses are on the warpath to achieve the lowest possible requirements and the largest possible flow.
Finally, will this system pass the test of achieving a serious reduction? It almost certainly will not. I am not sure it is even intended. This Government must pause and think. Their proposed immigration policy could very well lead to yet further increases in net migration. We are currently at a 10-year average of a quarter of a million a year; it has even touched in the past a third of a million. Under these proposals, it might very well go even higher.
I conclude with this thought: if, for whatever reason, Brexit does not turn out well—perish the thought—and if that is followed by continued mass immigration, the Conservative Party will have dealt its own future a massive blow.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. I compliment him on his most interesting and thought-provoking speech.
I had intended to speak in the debate last week, concerned principally with Brexit, trade, foreign affairs and defence, but was committed to be away. Since today’s debate covers constitutional affairs, I should like to make virtually the same remarks as I would have made last week. Brexit, after all, brings about the most momentous change in our constitutional affairs since we joined the EEC in 1973 and, additionally, has ramifications for justice, devolved affairs and much else besides.
I congratulate the Prime Minister and his negotiating team on achieving what was said to be impossible: reopening the withdrawal agreement and making significant changes to the Irish backstop. His deal is sufficiently good to be preferable to no deal, although I do not think that a no-deal departure would be anywhere near as catastrophic or cataclysmic as the architects of Project Fear have suggested. I saw Sir Oliver Letwin on The Andrew Marr Show; he seemed to be saying that he supported the agreement reached by the Prime Minister with the EU. Yet he is one of the architects of the Benn—or “surrender”—Act, Section 1(4) of which, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay pointed out on Saturday, required the Prime Minister to seek an extension specifically and only to pass a Bill to implement Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement, not the one that the Prime Minister reached last Thursday. Does the Minister agree that the Benn Act is, therefore, ineffective?
The gracious Speech shows the Government’s intention to protect the integrity of our democracy. I am not a lawyer, but I was surprised that the learned justices of the Supreme Court ruled as they did on the attempted Prorogation of Parliament in July. It seems to me that they have changed the constitution by their decision that the Prime Minister’s use of his prerogative powers in advising the Queen to prorogue Parliament was justiciable, contrary to the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. It is also most surprising that the Supreme Court justices decided this unanimously. Their justification seems to be based on their opinion that the effect of Prorogation on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. However, Prorogation would have reduced the number of sitting days by only three days from what was anyway scheduled. Furthermore, both your Lordships’ House and another place had clearly passed the decision on Brexit to the people in the referendum, promising to carry out their decision. Many of those who supported the passage of the Benn Act have had a much more extreme effect on our democracy.
David Cameron is said to be sorry that he arranged for the people to decide the question of our EU membership by referendum. He is quite wrong to apologise; history will recognise him as the Prime Minister who finally accepted the inevitable. We have always been more reluctant than any other member state to see powers transferred to Brussels. Opinion polls have consistently shown that a much higher proportion of people in Britain support the return of powers from the Union to the member states than in any other member state. The fact that Mr Cameron failed to persuade the EU to offer us continued membership on a basis which at least partly restored our lost sovereignty is what persuaded me that we could no longer remain uncomfortable passengers on the European train and that we would do better to get off.
It is nonsense to argue that we are too small or weak to exist without the umbrella of the EU. I have spent many years of my business life working for British firms in Japan and for Japanese firms in the UK. I do not think our EU membership has helped or strengthened our standing in the world whatever. It is rather the opposite; our soft power has been restricted by our EU membership. Brexit is not about becoming little Englanders and looking in on ourselves. It is about gaining our freedom from the tentacles of the EU bureaucracy and resuming our role on the world stage as an independent trading nation and a strong advocate of rules-based free trade and competition, underpinned by proportionate regulation which does not stifle innovation. The gracious Speech indicates the Government’s intention to work towards a new partnership with the EU, based on free trade and friendly co-operation. We should be able to negotiate an FTA that offers as near to frictionless trade as possible. I am excited by the UK’s prospects of entering into mutually beneficial FTAs with many of our important trading partners and of accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Finally, I entirely agree with the brilliant speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I trust—and ask the Minister to confirm—that the reference to the protection of the integrity of democracy and the electoral system, contained in the gracious Speech, can be read as an indication that the Government intend to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, whose unintended consequences have caused so much damage to our democracy.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I will restrict my comments to the police and criminal justice parts of the Queen’s Speech. I will first deal briefly with three issues that have come up in this debate. The first is longer sentences for violent and sexual offences. People may imagine that I would naturally support these, and I do support long sentences for serious offences. However, there has been sentence drift upwards, and parole reduction, over the last 20 years. The consequence has been a prison population, now, of around 85,000. There is a serious risk that that is too many. It is possible that we need to look seriously at that—if we allow it to continue, we will have worse problems, not less crime. In particular, we need to be more honest in our sentencing. If we were able to say, “You will go to prison for six years, but you will stay in prison for 10 should you not behave in prison or show that you have reformed your ways”, I think people would understand that but at the moment the reverse is true. Therefore, I think there is something more to do about sentencing—not necessarily making sentences longer.
My second point concerns the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, based on the case of Helen McCourt, a young woman of 22 who was murdered in 1988 in Merseyside, an area I used to police. Her mother, Marie, has conducted an incredible campaign, for good reason, to try to identify the place where her daughter’s body was disposed of, but I am not sure that the remedy put forward is the correct one. There is a danger when, if someone cannot or will not admit where they disposed of a body, they will have a longer sentence. I propose that they should have a discount for providing the location of the body, because there is the danger my noble and learned friend described of somebody who is not guilty being trapped in prison for far longer than they should be if there is a miscarriage of justice.
My final, simple point is that I profoundly support the suggested sobriety tagging system. We started one in the Met about four years ago and it was effective. It came from a scheme in South Dakota in America and can make a profound difference where someone’s offending pattern is based on their alcohol intake and they cannot stop. The electronic tagging of people with that problem can produce a strategic difference, but not if we run only pilot schemes; we must have a UK-wide—certainly an England and Wales-wide—solution.
I want to confine my main remarks to the proposals in the Queen’s Speech about the police, the majority of which I welcome. The confirmation of the replacement of the 20,000 police officers lost is a good thing. It will take a few years, but it is appropriate. As a result of the banking crisis of 2007 we saw large cuts in public spending. I was never of the view that the police were singled out for worse treatment, but I think the cuts went too far and that they should have been remedied earlier. Even now, it will take at least until 2022 before we see police numbers return to the levels we saw back in 2009, but it is a good thing and we should celebrate it. We have to be careful not to worship police officer numbers, but there will always be a need for a critical mass of people to provide a police service, particularly, as we have heard, with a growing population and growing demands of different types, be it online or on the streets. There will be a period when those on the front line are overrepresented by the least experienced. This is a logical consequence of rapid recruitment and its effects must be mitigated, but I cannot see how they can be avoided, because it is essential that we get those officers back out on the street.
I also welcome the plan to enhance the police covenant. Apart from its direct benefits, it will also build trust between this Government and the police service. For too long there has been a suspicion among those on the front line that they have not had the Government’s support. Whether that is true or not is a different question, but that perception has certainly been there, and the enhancing of the police covenant will help to remedy a lack of trust. The proof will be in how it develops in the coming years.
I am sorry that the proposals on policing do not touch on three big areas which I think are vital to consider for the coming years. The first—it will be no surprise to the Minister to hear me say this—is that the structure of policing remains an enigma. We have a National Health Service and a British Army; we have a Security Service and we have 43 police forces. The criminals do not quite respect those boundaries. It seems to me that our investments have been fragmented in the development of policing over the years and they will only continue to be fragmented if we allow that structure to continue. We have maximised localism, which accounts for a huge amount of inconsistency and, I fear, a sad lack of development over the years.
There is no discussion in the Speech about making prevention a strategic priority of the police in the way that has allowed massive progress in the fire service and the health service. In my view, a cross-government approach to the design of place and things—alcohol control, drug control and drug policy, self-education to help people reduce the chance of being a victim and a strategy that concentrates on young people—will have profound effects. I am afraid I have seen no clear explanation of that.
Finally, there is a need to prioritise improvement in police technology. I agree that we need people—I have already said that I support the huge increase in the number of police officers. However, the use of good technology that will enhance artificial intelligence, such as facial recognition—used properly and respecting privacy—is vital to improving the police, as well as the service they provide.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, today I wish to focus on constitutional affairs, justice, family law and wider family policy—or rather the lack of it.
In the gracious Speech there was a commitment to,
“protect the integrity of democracy and the electoral system in the United Kingdom”.
Democracy’s integrity rests on freedom of speech. We must keep resisting “no-platforming” in our universities and expose the deceitfulness of the term “safe space”. Settings where ideas or beliefs with no inclination towards terrorism cannot be discussed are dangerous spaces, because they have become sound-proofed against the reality of other people’s opinions. When religious groups have no freedom of expression, democracy is defied. Thomas Jefferson said that,
“religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God … the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions”.
Yet Christians in this country can lose their livelihood as a result of free and courteous expression of their faith.
Past Conservative Governments have been assiduous defenders of free speech, regardless of whether they shared the views provoking controversy. Mrs Thatcher’s Government condemned the fatwa against Salman Rushdie as,
“an attack … on the fundamental freedoms for which our society stands”,—[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/89; col. 839.]
despite the chasm between them and Rushdie. He tried to galvanise an intellectual fightback against Thatcherism and was perceived to be sympathetic to terrorism. Defending him undermined British interests abroad. Yet for Thatcher:
“Whether or not we have any sympathy with Rushdie’s views is not the point”.
The rule of law and the basic freedoms of all British citizens were her Government’s guiding principles. They must be ours.
Secondly, our democracy is being eroded by egregious imbalances in constituency size, and we have a “boundaries limbo”. Current constituencies, based on the early 2000s, have widely divergent sizes of electorates. All four national Boundary Commissions submitted their seventh general review reports, reducing 650 constituencies to 600, over a year ago. This Government’s 2017 manifesto commitment to equal seats can and should be delivered, with a new set of constituencies in place for the next general election, halting the slide into 21st-century rotten boroughs, as should repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which prevented the current Prime Minister delivering a de facto referendum on his handling of negotiations with Europe.
Turning to justice, the Government will strengthen,
“public confidence in the criminal justice system … improve safety and security,
and strengthen rehabilitation. For rehabilitation to be strengthened, it has to be based on evidence. The Ministry of Justice found that men and women in prison who receive family visits are 39% less likely to reoffend than those who do not. When prisoners are required and enabled to maintain their family responsibilities, this can lead to profound change and improve safety and security. The Government needs to keep their foot down hard on the accelerator of progress so every prison fulfils its duty of care to the men and women it holds, and to their families and friends who visit. At best, they partner with the prison to ensure that those who have served their sentence do not return. Helping prisoners have healthy and supportive relationships is not being soft on crime. Reduced reoffending means fewer victims, lower criminal justice and welfare costs, higher tax revenues when ex-prisoners find work—and fewer children growing up with absent parents.
Children’s welfare is paramount in family law. However, it can be used to justify superficially attractive policies which may do them more harm than good. The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill referred to in the gracious Speech intends to,
“minimise the impact of divorce, particularly on children”.
Removing fault from divorce is unlikely to lead to the more harmonious post-separation world that Ministers predict. Solicitors say that much conflict is actually focused on who gets the children and for how long, and on finances. Evidence contradicting government assertions that de jure unilateral divorce would not impact on marriage or longer-term divorce rates was ignored, as was the large volume of contrary responses to consultation.
That, last week’s backtracking on internet safety and the lack of family measures in proposed legislation tempts me to cynicism about the Prime Minister’s declaration that this country will become,
“the best place to start a family and send your kids to school”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/19; col. 19.]
Family breakdown is the elephant in the room of social policy. In 2016, the DWP’s family stability indicator found that only 58% of all 16 year-olds still live with both birth parents. The proportion was much lower in low income households. Three-quarters of all children in middle to high-income households live with both birth parents, compared to less than half in poor households. Despite family breakdown being both a driver and result of income poverty, the DWP has stopped collecting that data.
We need a rich tapestry of family strengthening policies, not threadbare rhetoric. The Prime Minister can allay my cynicism by appointing a Cabinet-level Minister to co-ordinate family policy across government and constituting the Cabinet committee repeatedly called for since the of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on the appalling death of Victoria Climbié almost 17 years ago.
A cross-party consensus is growing that social sustainability is as threatening as environmental sustainability. I cannot be as patient as the noble Lord, Lord Laming. I am not convinced that I have another 17 years ahead of me, and I am not inclined to glue myself to the roof of a Tube train. However, I can and will continue to press the Government hard for the family-strengthening policies we urgently need.
Lord Heseltine (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I hope that it will be some help to my noble friend if I say that I am not looking for any response from her tonight. I look forward to the promised White Paper on devolution, which I hope will contain the answers that so many of your Lordships have requested.
This has been an immensely wide-ranging debate, and a whole galaxy of contemporary problems have been paraded for the Minister to give us the benefit of her advice on in a flash of lightning. Well, the Government are going to get rid of the course of British history in the course of a week, so I suppose the Minister can be expected to deal with our complaints in an equally short timescale. We have had it all: housing, education, infrastructure, family breakdown, deprived children and crime. I put it to your Lordships that those are not separate issues, they are all part of a social and economic phenomenon for which we do not have in this country the local mechanisms and decision-making powers to see the interrelationship of all these issues and apply a common policy to their eradication. There is nothing new in any of this. I first came into active politics at a time when Redcliffe-Maud had looked at this issue, analysed the causes and the opportunities and said in the clearest possible language that we needed 60 unitary authorities with real devolved powers. All my life, Government after Government have edged their way in that direction. Every step of the journey has been a fudge.
I await the White Paper with such interest because I hope that the crisis of Brexit has highlighted the urgency of this matter. Brexit did not create the problem. Brexit merely highlights the scale of the challenge facing this country and indicates, as your Lordships have clearly done, that we need change to mobilise the country at local as well as national level to challenge these issues. We must find a way to make effective local communities reflecting real local economies and empowerment. So, first, I hope that the White Paper will include a Cabinet Minister responsible for devolution to English local authorities. Whitehall is its own power structure and is totally divided on all these issues; each Minister has his own pet scheme. We need a Minister to grip Whitehall and force it into the devolution agenda.
The second step is that the Government must create agencies close to the areas where people are now expected to design social and industrial policies. That is a process of widespread decision-making. The Government are quite incapable of responding to that sort of thinking because their thinking is compartmentalised in the baronies of Whitehall. The local representation of officials who are close to the communities that we are trying to enhance and empower is an important part of the process.
The next step, which is of course to be welcomed, is the Government levelling up the powers that have already been given to the elected mayors. That is much to be admired, but other powers must be added to the list. The first must concern education and skills. You cannot divorce housing and social policies from the education of the kids living in those circumstances. You cannot have an industrial policy that does not prepare children in local communities with the skills and aptitude that will make them appropriate recruits to those industrial strategies.
Fourthly, the boundaries of our existing mayoral authorities are a nonsense. They are the result of a fudge, a compromise: give a little, take a little. A boundary commission is an important means of putting that situation right. Next, there are four major conurbations without mayoral authorities. If we are to get national buy-in and balance, it is critical that Leeds, Nottingham, Derby, South Hampshire and, probably, Plymouth must come over the line.
Fifthly, we have heard echoed in the Chamber today reference to the countryside somehow being different—that, once you have done the big areas, you must not have the same system. I reject that concern continually. If you want really to empower the countryside and enrich it, it must be enjoined with the wealth-creating centres that it surrounds. So, I very much hope that we will see a drive to unitary counties with mayors, not just the present compromises in the local government structure.
Finally, I turn to money. The talk is of the prosperity fund. That fund is merely a recycling of the present European funds. It is totally inadequate for the job. The real lacuna in government policy is that George Osborne’s visionary idea of a single pot, in which money was distributed as a result of strategic bidding processes—with substantial additional funds coming from the third sector, academia and the private sector to enhance greatly what the taxpayer could afford—has more or less bitten the dust with the power-grabbing of central government departments getting their money back.
I have a phrase written down: “Get the job done”. I say this to the Minister: let us get the real job done.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, Friday 18 October marked Anti-Slavery Day—a day to raise awareness of the terrible crime of human trafficking and modern slavery. Today, the enormous scale of modern slavery is terrifying. The United Nations estimates that this global trade in human beings is worth about $32 billion a year, which is second only to the illegal drugs trade. This is not a crime to which the United Kingdom is immune. The Home Office estimates that there are between 10,000 and 13,000 potential victims of modern slavery in the country, but the National Crime Agency says that it believes that is just the tip of the iceberg. The Global Slavery Index estimates that there are in fact 136,000 victims in the UK.
The Modern Slavery Act 2015, which was informed to some degree by my own Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill, was a milestone for the United Kingdom, setting the agenda on tackling the heinous crime of slavery. Far-sighted in many ways, its main area of weakness was victim support. In order to tackle modern slavery successfully, it is essential to provide the rescued victims with the support they need to rebuild their lives and truly escape the clutches of their traffickers. In its final report, published in May this year, the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 stressed the need for improved victim support:
“It cannot be right that the Government provides no standardised post-NRM support offer for victims, who are often still incredibly vulnerable, and this can increase their vulnerability to being re-trafficked and re-exploited”.
In this Session I will bring before the House again my modern slavery (victim support) Bill with the support of the Bill’s sponsor in another place, the former Conservative Party leader, lain Duncan Smith. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for his splendid support and his very humorous way of influencing people. My Bill will give all confirmed victims of trafficking a minimum of 12 months’ support and assistance to help them restart their lives after falling victim to such a heinous crime. Two years have passed since I first introduced the Bill and I am bringing it forward again because not enough has changed. My primary concern in bringing it forward was the need to help victims on to a pathway to recovery. Quite apart from being the right thing to do by the victims, it is also manifestly in our own interest to do this.
In the first instance, if victims are left without adequate support during the 12 months following their confirmation as victims of modern slavery, they will be vulnerable to re-trafficking. This is not only a terrible trauma for them but costly to the state in terms of needing to rescue them and place them in the national referral mechanism again. In the second instance, supporting victims towards recovery is central to a successful criminal justice response. If we want to see more successful investigations of and convictions for these offences, we need to help victims feel safe and secure enough to tell the police what they know and to give evidence in court. Victims are unlikely to be able to participate in such proceedings if they are destitute or homeless. This will not help the Government to achieve their stated objective of seeking to increase the conviction rate of human traffickers.
During the summer, the Home Office settled a case brought for judicial review which challenged the new policy of providing victims with a fixed period of 40 days’ support after they have been confirmed as victims by the national referral mechanism. As part of the settlement, the Government agreed to develop a needs-based process for providing support to victims beyond the NRM process. I recommend that the Government should respond to this judicial review by taking up my Bill. It now offers a minimum period of 12 months’ support, while the provisions extending support beyond the initial 12-month period have been strengthened by making it mandatory to consider whether support should be continued. Moreover, the decision has to take place not less than four weeks prior to the end of the 12-month support period. If necessary, this would allow victims to receive further support and assistance depending on their personal situation.
Giving victims 12 months’ support was recommended by the Work and Pensions Committee, which in 2015 produced an important report entitled Victims of Modern Slavery. It strongly recommended a personal recovery plan for victims with the ability to stay in the UK for up to 12 months. Most recently the British Red Cross, in its July 2019 report Hope for the Future: Support for Survivors of Trafficking After the National Referral Mechanism, repeated these same proposals. On top of this, a coalition of 26 leading charities and civil society organisations, the Free for Good campaign, supports my modern slavery (victim support) Bill and believes that 12 months’ support for victims is a crucial part of the fight against modern slavery.
During the summer, the University of Nottingham published a revealing cost-benefit analysis of my Bill. The report concluded that providing 12 months of support and assistance to all confirmed victims after the NRM process could produce direct net financial savings of between £1 million and £7 million and indirect benefits of more than £25 million.
I very much hope the Government will support my Bill or bring forward other legislation to give victims the support they really need.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, in his wonderful speech, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, talked about being wide-ranging. I will literally be wide-ranging, because I am talking about the creative industries. Culture is the subject for debate tomorrow, but unfortunately I am not able to be present.
We are a creative nation—always have been—and the creative industries are of huge benefit to the economy. Indeed, according to a report published by the Office for National Statistics a couple of weeks ago, we did not go into recession in the last quarter in large and significant part because of our creative industries.
Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities starts:
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”.
If I had more time I would quote more, because the opening of that novel is so pertinent. That is how I feel at the moment. We live in a golden age of British art and creativity, but Brexit, attacks on our essential PSBs from streaming services and, I am afraid, our own Government are lurking. Cuts to cultural funding, particularly at local level, are happening. There are other reasons for concern, such as a leaking talent pipeline that will lead to problems if not addressed.
Arts and culture lead to urban regeneration, as I have seen at first hand as a trustee of the Lowry in Salford. They offer a platform that reflects the diversity of the people of the UK. Participation promotes well-being and aids both physical and mental health, so supporting and protecting this vital, vibrant sector is of paramount importance. This starts with education.
I am sure the Minister will agree with the Durham commission report published this week on creativity in education, which said that creative thinking should run through all school life. However, the report confirms a 28% decline in the uptake of creative subjects since 2014—a decline that we on these Benches have been drawing attention to, and the Department for Education denying, for a long time.
The fact is that the introduction of the EBacc has had a significant negative impact on the offer of arts and culture in schools, resulting, as the report says, in,
“a serious imbalance in the all-round education of students”.
No less a person than Andrew Lloyd Webber castigated the Government a couple of weeks ago for cutting arts and music budgets in schools. He said the cuts are,
“the stupidest thing that could ever have happened”.
Lord Bethell (Con)
May I just remind noble Lords about the subject of today’s debate? We would be very grateful if noble Lords could stick to that, please.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
Does the Minister not agree that every child should have access to arts and culture? Access to the arts is access to our national life and, on a day when home affairs are being debated, I argue that it is also a social justice issue.
We welcome changes to the Ofsted inspection framework, which acknowledges the need for schools to develop a strategy for teaching creativity, but this is mealy-mouthed. We should be talking not about acknowledgement but, as the Durham commission recommends, the championing of schools that successfully nurture creativity. Does the Minister not agree that a category of outstanding from Ofsted must mean that the school offers arts-rich education? The independent sector does. The growing inequality between provision in the independent and state sectors is resulting in the neglect and exclusion of youngsters from diverse and disadvantaged backgrounds.
The EBacc is all about STEM and what we need is STEAM. The Government need to answer Rufus Norris, artistic director of the National Theatre, who asks:
“What … explanation can there be for the baffling disconnect”—
this goes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said—
“between its industrial strategy, which prizes the creative industries as a priority sector, and an education policy that is deliberately squeezing creativity out of our children’s learning?”
There is also the matter of career advancement post school. Unfortunately, the apprenticeship levy has failed the creative industries. Its inflexibility leaves significant amounts of money unspent which could otherwise help. Will the Government respond to the concerns of the industry?
Then there is Brexit. Crucially, the creative industries rely on the ability of people to move freely across Europe; they rely on the free movement of instruments, equipment and samples without expensive tariffs and border checks; they rely on a digital single market that protects our IP; they rely on investment from EU funds; and they rely on country of origin rules, whereby the mutual recognition of broadcasting licences between the UK and the EU has led to this country being the leading hub in Europe.
On the matter of broadcasting, the UK’s unique mix underpins our creative industries. Central to this are our PSBs, and in particular the BBC. When he was Foreign Secretary, our now PM described the BBC as the single greatest and most effective ambassador for our culture and our values. Well the Government must value it. Does the Minister not agree with former Tory Culture Minister Ed Vaizey, on the matter of free TV licences for the over 75s, that,
“looking back … it was wrong to impose on the BBC what was effectively a welfare policy and then to ask them to take responsibility for it”?
Of particular concern is the Government’s position on immigration, as mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. Even before Brexit, there are several creative roles on the Government’s shortage occupation list. But the Government still insist on defining those who earn under £30,000 as unskilled. As I have said before, to another Minister, I am mystified as to where this came from. It certainly did not come from anyone who works in the creative sector. In a recent Creative Industries Federation survey, 81% of those who responded said that they would face challenges if unable to hire workers on salaries below this level. Perhaps this Minister can enlighten me.
I will finish here. Liberal Democrats have consistently made the case for remaining in the EU because we know that there is no deal better than the deal we have as members of the EU—certainly not for the creative industries.
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register, in particular in relation to the Prison Reform Trust, of which I am life president and for whose briefing I am grateful.
This is the second debate this month in which the state of our criminal justice system is examined. The earlier debate was initiated by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham and took place on 3 October. My noble friend and I were in complete agreement that what is required for our criminal justice system is a fundamental review.
Many of the contributions today, following the wise contribution of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, have emphasised the constitutional nature of the prison issues raised. How we treat our victims of crime reflects on the quality of our unwritten constitution, but so does how we treat those the state sends to prison. Sir Winston Churchill was right when he made his now well-known statement in the Commons that the first principle to guide anyone trying to establish a good system of prisons should be to prevent as many people as possible getting there at all. He later importantly added that it is a society’s attitude to its prisoners that measures,
“the stored-up strength of a nation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/1910; cols. 1354.]
The Queen’s Speech outlined a raft of criminal justice measures, in particular the new Sentencing Bill increasing the period of sentence served in custody from half to two-thirds for the most serious offences. This has been accompanied by what the Prime Minister announced on 11 August, namely, an urgent review,
“to consider whether changes in legislation are needed to lock criminals up for longer”.
The Prison Reform Trust believes the review was not worthy of that name because the time available was clearly inadequate to enable the subject to be properly considered. However, it is already clear, it can be safely said, that among the main problems the justice system faces is chronic overcrowding. This undoubtedly undermines one of the purposes of punishment: the rehabilitation of offenders.
For many years now it has been accepted that overcrowding in prisons is a scourge, making rehabilitation impossible for those the courts send to prison. In view of this, I ask the Minister to identify the evidence that present sentences are too short. I know of no such evidence. All the evidence of which I am aware shows that there has been a dramatic inflation in the level of sentencing over the past 20 years. For example, the present sentences for violent sexual offending have gone up substantially. More than two and a half times as many people were sentenced to 10 years in 2016 than were in 2006. On average, those serving a mandatory life sentence spend 17 years in custody, up from 13 years in 2001, when I was a judge dealing with these matters. The average minimum term for murder has increased from 12.5 years in 2003 to 21.3 years in 2016.
It is important to remember that criminal justice is different from civil justice in that it is not conducted between two or more individuals but between the Crown and the defendant. It should be a process which conforms to the highest standards of justice. After all, in the majority of cases it involves the freedom of the citizen.
Still, it is obviously important that the interests of victims of crime are not ignored. After all, the primary purpose of prison is to protect the public. However, while the interests of victims must be taken into account, there are limits to the extent that their interests can be paramount. Inflation in sentencing constantly causes the victim to look for higher and higher sentences because often they cannot be expected to know the tariff. Also, in many cases, no sentence will be long enough to undo the harm that has been done. Thus, it is generally the judge who has to get the sentence right, based on his experience and the guidance available to him. Is not a danger of what is proposed that it takes away the judge’s discretion, which can be so important in doing justice?
Prisons have responsibility for keeping both prisoners and prison staff secure, but violence at present is endemic. We should not make the job of the prison staff more difficult by increasing the overcrowding. The present state of prisons is, unfortunately, one of which we should be ashamed.
The effectiveness of the Bar and the probation service has also been undermined. Legal aid, where it is available, inadequately compensates members of the profession for the work they have to do. The problems in prisons are accompanied by a serious deterioration in the effectiveness and morale of the probation service. The need to change is recognised on all sides.
However, as was repeated in the gracious Speech, the Government are embarking on a programme which, far from improving the situation, will, if it is carried out, exacerbate it. They are proposing to lengthen sentences for the most serious offences. This has the danger of encouraging the public to think that sentences as they are now composed are too short. In fact, they are not.
Far from being the overall re-examination of the situation required, the changes proposed are dealing with the problem piecemeal and do not take advantage of the admirable reports available.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in bringing to an end this comprehensive debate. It will not surprise your Lordships that my brief contribution to the debate on the Address and the gracious Speech is in relation to home affairs—in particular, policing.
The House will be aware that when an arrest is made by a police officer for an offence, an important decision has to be made about whether, once the preliminaries of identification and evidence collection are completed, the suspect is further detained or released pending further inquiries. In my day the normal practice, if there was no requirement to detain the suspect, would be to grant police bail. This could, of course, be with or without conditions and could require the suspect to return to the police station at a future date to be charged or released. If inquiries were not complete, the bail could be extended. As workloads increased and police numbers fell, it became common for bail to be extended for weeks or months, thereby attracting the rightful criticism that justice delayed was justice denied for both the suspect and the victim. In an attempt to rectify this, the law was changed by the Policing and Crime Act 2017, limiting police bail to 28 days and introducing the concept of being released under investigation without any conditions.
Since then, the law of unintended consequences has kicked in and matters appear to have been made worse. It is clear that, since the changes, thousands of serious crime suspects are being released by police without any restrictions or conditions. Under the previous regime, a suspect could have had bail conditions preventing him contacting the complainant, making him attend regularly at a police station or subjecting him to a curfew under pain of arrest. Recent figures published in a Law Society briefing show that the number of suspects on bail has dropped dramatically across the country from 216,000 in 2016-17 to 44,000 in 2017-18 and that, in that year, some 193,000 suspects were released under investigation with no conditions or restrictions.
This has led to serious consequences. For example, Kay Richardson was murdered by her estranged husband, Alan Martin, in Sunderland last year after police released him under investigation. He had a history of domestic abuse, and she had reported him for rape. Under the previous legal position, Martin could have had bail conditions preventing him from contacting the complainant, making him report regularly to a police station or subjecting him to a curfew.
Why has this situation come about? Quite honestly, it is another consequence of the loss over recent years of 20,000 police officers from the streets of this country, and it cannot be allowed to continue. This from a Government who a few years ago accused police officers attending a Police Federation conference of crying wolf and said that increasing crime had little to do with the number of police officers on the streets. That was patent nonsense to any sensible streetwise person who felt the insecurity caused by a reduced police presence, a lack of response to calls and the ever-increasing delays in the justice system, which impact every victim in the land.
It is good that the present Government have now announced a programme of increasing the recruitment of officers by 20,000, but this should be done as quickly as possible and should not be hamstrung by insisting on introducing a graduate entry system at constable level for all recruits. That would cost an arm and a leg and reduce the pool of potential excellent police officers who simply want to do what I did half an century ago with no aspiration for promotion: to join the police, don a uniform and serve the public. I am not sure that the new system has worked in nursing. These are the men and women we see day in, day out, running towards danger when everyone else, quite rightly, is running towards safety.
In conclusion, I simply say to the Minister two things. First, recruit quickly and sensibly. Give the recruits good-quality, professional training and do not ask them to jump through some additional academic hoop. Stiffen the thin blue line in the communities of Britain which are crying out for a sense of reassurance, which has been lost. Secondly, address the recent bail changes, which at present leave victims uncertain of how long an investigation will take and living in fear of being confronted by the accused, with no conditions or restrictions on where they can live, whom they can visit or when they can be out on the streets. That is particularly pertinent to domestic and sexual abuse cases and seems to go totally against the grain of the Domestic Abuse Bill, which is currently before Parliament and to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, referred. In my view, these are matters of great importance, and I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will address them with great urgency.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will permit me a moment or two to speak in the gap. I had put my name down to speak tomorrow, Tuesday, but then found that I could not. I decided to switch my name to today’s debate but found that the list had closed. Therefore, my only recourse was to speak now, in the gap, and I hope that the House will permit me a few moments to do so.
The gracious Speech mentioned a Bill to protect the integrity of the electoral system and democracy in the United Kingdom. Earlier this year, the High Court held that current methods for making ballot papers accessible to blind and partially sighted voters—the tactile voting device and ballot papers in large print—were not effective in enabling blind and partially sighted people to vote independently and in secret. The tactile voting device helps a blind or partially sighted voter to find the boxes on the ballot paper but it does not tell them the names of the candidates or the parties they represent. Blind and partially sighted voters are therefore dependent on assistance from a family member, friend or a member of polling station staff.
The RNIB’s 2017 report, Turned Out—I declare my interest as a vice-president of the RNIB—found that only one in four blind and partially sighted voters felt that the current system let them vote independently and in secret. Fifty-four per cent of blind and partially sighted respondents felt that new accessible ways to vote, such as by telephone or via electronic or online voting systems, were needed. Only 4% felt that no changes to the current system were needed.
Therefore, the Government need to replace the current tactile voting device with a new accessible voting system that guarantees that blind and partially sighted voters can exercise their democratic right without any assistance, just as their sighted peers do. The replacement device must allow voters with sight loss to review the candidates on the ballot paper, reliably find and mark their chosen candidate on the ballot paper, and cast their vote independently and in secret.
The Government need to say when a replacement for the tactile voting device will be available. They need to give an assurance that the next general election will be the last to use the present inappropriate device and that any replacement for the tactile voting device will be introduced only following extensive consultation with visually impaired people and their organisations. They also need to ensure that a voter with sight loss can use their smartphone or magnifier to view their ballot paper at the next general election.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I shall concentrate in winding up primarily on justice issues. As an example, I welcome the Government’s commitment to addressing violent crime. Increasing violent crime, particularly knife crime, threatens public safety and confidence, but changes in the criminal justice system can only ever be part of the answer. Youth services in particular have been severely cut over recent years, when they needed to be increased and improved.
The promises in the Queen’s Speech include commitments to locking people up for longer. I am afraid this populist approach reflects the Prime Minister’s tone, yet it is more directed to the readership of the Daily Mail than to responding to serious evidence. Many of us, along with noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, remember the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on 3 October. Members there demonstrated to a very high standard that long prison sentences do not reduce crime. They stressed our need for better, more humane and more effective prisons with better physical conditions; prisons that are less overcrowded and better staffed, with more opportunity for education, training, sport and employment; and in which violence is brought back under control and health issues and drug and alcohol addiction are addressed.
Rehabilitation must be the central purpose of imprisonment: during custodial sentences, in preparation for release and during supervision following release. These points were well made in the debate by my noble friend Lord Dholakia, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Woolf, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lords, Lord Hastings, Lord Carlile, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Farmer. My noble friend Lord Beith added that prison is not only ineffective but extremely expensive.
The proposed Sentencing Bill will commit to strengthening community orders, addressing offenders’ behaviour, mental health and alcohol or drug misuse needs, but achieving this will require better and properly resourced community sentences when the contracts of the disastrous “community rehabilitation companies” are replaced. It is right that victims should receive more support, but the Government should start with the proposals in my noble friend Lady Brinton’s Bill to improve and strengthen the rights in the victims’ code.
The proposals for no-fault divorce are important. The time has long gone when a precondition for divorce should be the attribution of blame to the other party. Divorce should be a conciliatory process managed for the benefit of the parties, but still more for their innocent children.
We welcome back the Domestic Abuse Bill, initially a casualty of the unlawful Prorogation attempt. It will strengthen support for victims and define domestic abuse more broadly. It benefited greatly from pre-legislative scrutiny, and it is important that the changes proposed by the committee should not be watered down and be properly resourced.
The proposed new points-based immigration system was considered by my noble friends Lord Paddick and Lady Smith and the noble Lords, Lord Horam and Lord Green. I would add two warnings. First, a points system can be sclerotic in failing to respond to rapid changes in the labour market’s need for different skills. Secondly, a system that relates the right to come and work here to earnings risks excluding many of those on lower earnings whom we really need.
Had my noble friend Lady Hamwee been able to be here, she would have raised the issue of rendition. The chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee has said that the UK,
“tolerated actions, and took others, that we regard as inexcusable”.
There remains a cohort of individuals subjected to rendition and torture in which the UK Government were complicit. They have suffered reputational damage, immigration problems and stops at international ports, with no means of defending themselves or their families, who are of course also affected. Will the Government implement a durable solution to their immigration status and direct a new judge-led inquiry into the UK’s actions?
We note that the police are to be,
“awarded the power to arrest individuals who are wanted by trusted international partners”,
in an extradition and provisional arrest Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, pointed out, it is ironic that this coincides with our possible loss of the very successful European arrest warrant. It is principally directed to mitigating its loss.
I regard the measures to,
“improve the justice system’s response to foreign national offenders”,
as largely a red herring. Deportation is already available in respect of serious offenders, but the Home Office’s record of deporting offenders is abysmal. It is far more important to implement existing deportation orders effectively than to rely on new measures to deter the return of those who have been deported.
We are promised a new regulator to scrutinise environmental policy and law, investigate complaints and take enforcement action. That would ring less hollow if the Government had not been repeatedly found in breach of the Aarhus convention for failing to comply with our commitments on environmental justice.
Strangely, we are offered a Bill on the implementation of agreements in private international law, to produce an agreed international mechanism for co-operation in justice matters. The Government hope to retain or replicate the advantages we currently enjoy in the civil justice system from a network of regulations and conventions between EU countries, at present monitored and overseen by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
However, it is pie in the sky to suggest that this can be achieved by domestic legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, hinted at. These are international agreements: the Brussels I Regulation on jurisdiction, registration and enforcement of judgments; Brussels II, on family law issues; Rome I, on governing law in contract; Rome II, on conflicts of law in non-contractual obligations; and the Hague conventions, including on child abduction. They are additional to the benefits of European co-operation in criminal justice matters, which were discussed by my noble friend Lord Paddick and go far beyond the benefits achieved from the European arrest warrant, substantial as those are. We have Europol, which is a massive improvement over Interpol in terms of efficient co-operation and speed; Eurojust, which allows co-operation between judges and courts; and access to the Schengen database of information to protect national security, border control and law enforcement.
The answer the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, gave to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on these points was wholly inadequate. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, amplified the point in his speech, but even he did not meet the point that all these benefits depend on multilateral agreement between nations. They are a major benefit of EU membership—a binding system monitored by the CJEU. It was an absurd red line that we should lose so much in international co-operation in order to reject the involvement of a court to which no one can identify a single, solid, practical objection; to which United Kingdom judges have contributed so much; and in which we could negotiate continued involvement in areas of continuing co-operation.
We should all remember the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on the operation of the constitution and his warning that,
“if you mess about with the constitution it will bite back”.
The House heard impressive speeches on devolution to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. My noble friends Lady Humphreys and Lord Scriven, the noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Heseltine, and many others contributed to that debate. There is, however, a hollowness that positively rattles in the Government’s protestation:
“The integrity and prosperity of the union that binds the four nations of the United Kingdom is of the utmost importance”,
to the Government. Brexit poses a massive threat to the union, yet the Government ignore the threat of Scottish independence and the fact that the form of Brexit that might be implemented could be the most inimical possible to Scotland’s economic interests.
The Government seem prepared to threaten the union with Northern Ireland in their desperation to get Brexit done against an artificial and politically imposed deadline, seeking to reconcile the clearly conflicting goals of leaving the customs union, honouring the Good Friday agreement with no border between the Republic and Northern Ireland, and treating Northern Ireland as an intrinsic part of the UK. Yet the benefits of leaving the customs union are illusory, largely based on a view of President Trump that is unrealistic to the point of being fantastical.
Finally, I support my noble friend Lord Tyler’s call for transparency and reform of election and referendum expenditure, and for greater accuracy and completeness of our electoral registers, and the call from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for protection from interference and abuse. Our democracy is under real threat from injustices, anomalies—including the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Low, in the gap—inefficiencies and the risks inherent in our present electoral arrangements. We on these Benches will seek to uphold the integrity of our democracy, whatever the outcome of present conflicts.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, we have had thought-provoking contributions in this debate, as one would have expected. There is certainly no way that I can refer to more than a handful. I apologise in advance for making no reference to so many speeches made during the debate.
My noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark referred to the pending White Paper on English devolution and the tinkering —an issue on which the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, spoke with considerable passion.
My noble friend also spoke about pending legislation on serious violence. He referred to the need to involve all relevant agencies and to ensure that they have the resources, including financial resources, to help address the level of serious violence. That is an important issue, since there has just been a 7% rise in knife offences across England and Wales, now amounting to more than 47,000 such offences in a 12-month period.
My noble friend also referred to the Government’s approach to stop-gap increases in resources for social care, which are being financed by increases in the regressive council tax, rather than through government grants from taxation. Is it the Government’s intention to finance increases in resources for other areas of key local government activity in the same way as they currently approach increases in resources—presumably temporarily—for social care?
It is not just rising knife crime that needs to be addressed; the criminal justice system has been particularly badly hit by austerity. There are many examples, but one is the percentage of reported rapes reaching even charging stage, which is below 2%. Yet the number of police officers has been reduced by more than 20,000 in the last nine years. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to police numbers and pointed out that there would be a need to recruit, I think he said, more than 42,000 officers over three years to take account of current officer resignation rates, as well as the 20,000 extra police—a level that would be higher than recent recruitment rates, as well as involving significant additional costs, including on matters such as training. We await the Government’s answer on the practicality and cost of achieving their figure of an additional 20,000 police officers. There is also the reality that the number of police community support officers and special officers has declined. This does not appear to be an area which the Government intend to address. If I am wrong, no doubt they will correct me in their response.
There is also the question of the adverse impact on security of our withdrawal from the European Union, to which reference has been made in this debate. Can the Government give an undertaking that the present security and intelligence arrangements will remain after Brexit in relation to the European arrest warrant, extradition and exchange of information? I think the answer must be no, but no doubt they will want to give their own answer, rather than me trying to give it for them.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, contrasted the entry checks through our airports and the weaker checks through our maritime ports and St Pancras International. What is the Government’s response to her points, and do they agree with them?
Concern has also been expressed by more than one noble Lord that the emphasis in the gracious Speech is solely on the punishment of offenders, with proposals that even the Government accept will increase the prison population by 3,000, when we already have more people in prison than other western European countries. It seems that rehabilitation and measures to reduce the incidence of offending in the first place are going to take a relative back seat, even though that is potentially where the big savings lie and where the greatest benefits for achieving a safer society can be realised.
The Domestic Abuse Bill, which we welcome, is an opportunity to change domestic abuse from a criminal justice issue to one that is everyone’s business, tackled by health and social care, housing, education and employers, but insecure immigration status is often a tool of control used by perpetrators to abuse their partners and threaten them with deportation. Migrant women often face severe barriers to reporting and seeking help. We need safe reporting mechanisms, ensuring immigration enforcement is kept separate from the response to domestic abuse.
Domestic violence follows women into the workplace. Around one in five victims in the UK have to take time off work because of domestic abuse, and three-quarters of people who endure domestic violence are also targeted at work. I think I am right in saying that the Philippines, a number of states in the United States and, most recently, New Zealand, have all passed laws requiring employers to provide paid leave to enable survivors time and space to sort out issues such as housing, schooling and appointments with outside agencies, including the police.
My noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark raised the issue of domestic abuse victims in some parts of the country being charged by GPs for letters confirming their injuries and that they have been victims. I hope that the Government can respond.
The Government’s immigration Bill seeks to repeal EU free movement laws, so that the UK can bring in a more restrictive immigration and social security system for EU citizens after Brexit. Can I, too, ask when free movement will end if the Prime Minister’s deal is agreed? The immigration Bill would undermine the UK’s ability to get a good Brexit outcome, as it would end the free movement rules which are a requirement of the single market membership that many feel is crucial to protect rights and jobs. Ending free movement rights, impacting on the right to access healthcare or draw a pension for EU citizens, also increases the risk that EU countries will remove the rights for UK citizens.
This Bill also increases the risk of exploitation, as it paves the way for the Government to introduce their plans for low-skill visas for EU workers that allow workers to stay for only a short period in the UK. Workers on such visas are likely to be employed in sectors where there is a low coverage of collective agreements and thus more likely to be subject to poorer conditions and low pay. Bad employers may be tempted to use workers’ insecure immigration status to force them to accept poor conditions.
A number of noble Lords spoke about immigration, including the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. In my view, the Government have always sought to back both horses on immigration. The hostile environment policy and the aspiration to bring net migration down to the tens of thousands were designed to garner the support and votes of those who are fearful of people of different colour or culture coming into this country—this allegedly crowded country with certainly not allegedly struggling public services as a result of excessive austerity. On the other hand, the same Government continue to agree to as many people from outside the EU, whose number they can control, coming into the country as from within the EU, in respect of whom they say they need withdrawal from the EU to regain control of our borders. I think I am right in saying that, since the referendum, net migration from the EU, which the Government say they cannot control, has been lower than net migration from outside the EU, which they can control.
No doubt the Government privately recognise the value and benefits of migration to this country, but as a result of that recognition, what they have actually done since 2010 has been at odds with what they have said to the people of this country about bringing net migration down to below 100,000. The Government could under EU law, within the general principles of freedom of movement, have registered migrant workers as they arrive or imposed a time limit on any stay without work. I suspect that those who believe that, following Brexit, the Government will reduce net migration will be disappointed, even though the Government will no doubt continue to try to give the impression that that is the objective that they are pursuing.
The noble Lord, Lord Horam, spoke about Brexit enabling us to reset policies on immigration and mentioned the policy—or was it an aspiration?—of reducing net migration to tens of thousands a year. He raised a point about the composition and focus of the Migration Advisory Committee. I hope that we will hear a government response to that. I am not sure that the Government agree that we are a crowded country. No doubt we will find out shortly in their response. I have heard them argue that the percentage of land in this country that has been developed is very low and that housebuilding densities in our cities are lower than in many other major European cities. Certainly, the Government’s proposals for speeding up and shortening the planning application process, which will put more pressure on understaffed local authorities, do not suggest that they think we need to keep a close watch on and control over future building development.
My noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett raised concerns over the position of EU citizens, settled status, asylum seekers and fees in respect of children. No doubt the Government will respond to the points raised by her, including her question about benefits being index linked.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, gave a fascinating speech setting out his case for saying that our unwritten constitution was shifting on to softer sands. He pitched into the decisions of more than one Government, referring to the Brexit referendum, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, the change in the position and status of the Lord Chancellor and recent tax laws transferring powers from the Commons to Ministers and officials. The noble and learned Lord referred to the appointment of a Minister for the Constitution, who is not in the Cabinet, and asked whether that individual had been consulted on the Prime Minister’s Prorogation of Parliament. I wait to see whether the Government give an answer on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, also spoke on constitutional issues, in particular on the need to protect our electoral processes and democracy from the impact and effect of anonymity online. I hope that the Government will respond to her concerns, which I suspect are widely shared.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about the serious financial position of local government, which was not mentioned in the gracious Speech, despite the role that it plays in our lives. The noble Baroness argued for reform of local government financing, with devolution of responsibility and funding, and referred to the crisis in funding for social care. No doubt the Government will respond to her question about the timetable for the publication of a White Paper with proposals to resolve this issue.
What can be achieved towards improving public services diminished by austerity will be influenced by the outcome of Brexit. It is a sobering thought that MPs were asked to make a decision with huge consequences less than 48 hours after the deal had been unveiled, and in the face of a government refusal to publish any analysis of its economic impact. Assurances on workers’ rights and environmental standards have been moved out of the binding withdrawal agreement and into the non-binding political declaration. The former Cabinet Minister, David Gauke, has pointed out the damage that would result from abandoning around 70 trade agreements we already have via our membership of the EU. For every pound gained to the UK by being able to enter new free trade agreements that we might negotiate with non-EU third countries, we will see a loss up to 30 times higher. If leaving the customs union and the single market goes ahead, it will make our economy a lot poorer than it would otherwise have been. Even the Government think that losses of around 6% to 8% of gross domestic product would occur. This debate has not been specifically about Brexit, but the reality is that what we will be able to afford to do to address many of the issues and problems which have been debated today will be influenced by the outcome of Brexit and its impact on our economy and society.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. I looked with horror as she spoke about the debate that is taking place tomorrow. She is, of course, absolutely entitled to do that but I will not respond to her points today. I also join noble Lords in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Bourne. Fulsome tributes have been paid to him today. He succeeded me at MHCLG—boy, did he succeed. I was recently at a service to mark National Hate Crime Awareness Week when someone came up to me and asked, a bit put out: “Where is Lord Bourne?” When I said that he was no longer a Minister they were quite disappointed. They waxed lyrical about how wonderful he was and how he will be missed. I will be among others who will miss him.
I will start with my favourite subject, devolution, which was the subject of the first Bill that I brought in as a Minister and which, as my noble friend Lord Heseltine said, is about everything that has been talked about this evening. It is about effective local communities and skills. When I was in local government, and when my noble friend and I went round the country, I found out how important local leadership was in the prospects for devolution. It was no surprise to me that Greater Manchester got the first devolution deal. It knew exactly where it was going and what it needed to achieve. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, asked what the northern powerhouse means and whether we need legislation for it. To me, the northern powerhouse was all about the Government’s articulation of growing the areas outside London to allow them to play their economic part.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Exactly—balancing the economy outside London and the south-east. I have the platform and can now unburden. When people say that we need regional rail more than we need HS2, or vice versa, I say that we need it all in the north. It is about time that we started to connect people to jobs more easily. My noble friend Lord Heseltine asks how we can differentiate rural and urban: actually, we all need to access skills and education and bring places of work nearer to us.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Does the Minister think that the northern powerhouse could be rather fragile if there is no legislation through which it is embraced?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I could agree with that, but I give the noble Lord the example of Wythenshawe in Greater Manchester, which has the largest council housing estate in Europe. It had one intervention, to bring the tram through it. The houses are still not worth very much, but in percentage terms they have had the greatest increase in value in Greater Manchester. That is an example of where strategic intervention really helps places to grow without particular legislation. Like everyone else, I look forward to the White Paper and contributing to it. As the Prime Minister said in Rotherham recently, we are going to do devolution properly: I know my noble friend Lord Heseltine will have great hope. We are going to maximise the power of the north, with more mayors across the whole of the north.
The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, raised Yorkshire. The Prime Minister also welcomed the establishment of a Yorkshire committee as a practical step facilitating greater collaboration on a Yorkshire-wide basis. I echo that and the bespoke ongoing discussions across Yorkshire to ensure the most appropriate arrangements. I have the scars on my back from some of the earlier discussions in Yorkshire. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lord Heseltine talked about the shared prosperity fund. We recognise the importance of reassuring local areas on the future of local growth funding once we have left the EU and providing clarity on the SPF. We will consult on the fund, alongside the White Paper, so that people have an opportunity to contribute their views on its design and priorities.
There is a lot of support in your Lordships’ House for the Domestic Abuse Bill. It came first from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, but I think most noble Lords mentioned it. One thing he brought up—and I look forward to discussing it with noble Lords—was GPs charging fees to victims for providing a letter evidencing abuse. I did not know that that was the situation; I am really appalled to hear about it and I can advise him that the department of health is working with a range of other departments and agencies, including the Ministry of Justice and the British Medical Association, to assess the scale of the problem and find out how many GPs currently charge for this service and how much. Gathering the evidence is the first necessary step, but I deplore the fact that it is going on.
On equalities, my noble friend Lord Bourne talked about the Race Disparity Audit. He knows that it is to drive change by publishing authoritative data and analysis about ethnic disparities, differences of treatment or outcome affecting people of different ethnicities. The website “Ethnicity facts and figures” now covers 176 different topics across education, healthcare, criminal justice and the economy. The Government are committed to acting on the data provided. He also talked about Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. At that hate crime service there was a commemoration of a boy in Liverpool who was killed because he was a Traveller. He is absolutely right that the Race Disparity Audit shows that people from Irish Traveller and Gypsy Roma groups have the highest rates of temporary and permanent exclusions. In response, the Government commissioned the Timpson Review of School Exclusion, published earlier this year. The report stressed action to ensure that permanent exclusions are only used as a last resort, and made 30 recommendations which are currently being considered.
The noble Lord also talked about the definition of Islamophobia. As he knows, the APPG definition would create practical and legal challenges. It is absolutely vital that we get it right and that any definition reflects the experiences of those who have experienced anti-Muslim hatred. That is why we are appointing advisers to lead a review on the definition of Islamophobia. As he knows, the first of the advisers, Imam Qari Asim, was appointed on 23 July.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about the reform of the adult social care system. We have given government access to £1.5 billion of additional funding for adult and children’s social care next year, and we will set out proposals to fix the crisis in social care in due course. I am sorry to say that there is no consensus on the best way to reform the system, but we need to get it right. I am afraid I cannot commit to a timeline at this point.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering talked about the Hague convention. We are committed to continued co-operation with the EU in cross-border, civil and family cases after Brexit. In particular, we are keen to ensure that there are clear rules on which court should hear a cross-border case and that UK legal decisions can be recognised and enforced in the EU. We will work with our European partners to establish the exact nature of a future agreement.
On policing, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, gave his support, and I am pleased that other Peers also welcomed the commitment to policing through the recruitment of an additional 20,000 officers over the next three years. We are also committed to wider support and protection as part of the police covenant, which I was pleased to hear the noble Lord welcome. The Home Secretary has made it clear that she will give the police the tools they need, as evidenced by the recent pledge of £10 million to equip police officers with Tasers.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about the recruitment of BME officers in the 20,000 uplift. There has never been a more important time to ensure that we increase the diversity of people joining the police so that the police look like the diverse community they serve. Of course, we want to attract talent from the widest possible pool. As of March this year, we have the highest proportion of BME and female officers since records began. There is further to go, but this is a promising step towards reflecting the community that the police serve. Work by police forces is already under way to ensure that they have a more representative workforce than ever before.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about extending welfare mitigations to Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does not have the power to instruct the Northern Ireland Civil Service; I am afraid that any legislation to extend welfare mitigations would have to be for a restored Executive.
She also talked about breakfast club funding; the Government are investing up to £26 million in the breakfast club programme, using funds from the soft drinks and industry levy revenues. The contract was awarded to Family Action in March 2018 and will run until March 2020. Family Action, in partnership with Magic Breakfast, have both been named as the leading charities responsible for running the breakfast club programme. Family Action is distributing the appropriate funding to participating schools that meet the eligibility criteria. The noble Baroness shakes her head.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to intervene, but my question was: what will happen after March 2020? The evidence from the charities was that it is very successful but they are anxious about what will happen.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Perhaps I can follow that question up for the noble Baroness. It may have something to do with spending reviews—obviously, I cannot commit on those—but I will follow that one up for her.
My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever brought up the important issue of the legacy in Northern Ireland, particularly as it related to former servicemen. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will work with the Attorney-General and the Defence Secretary, and they are collectively determined to find a solution that works for Northern Ireland and which treats everyone fairly. I will at this point voice everyone’s appreciation for the work of our service men and women in Northern Ireland in incredibly difficult circumstances.
I turn to sentencing and rehabilitation, which several noble Lords mentioned. The Government have been very clear that violent and sexual offenders must serve sentences that truly reflect the severity of their crime, which help to protect the public and give victims confidence that justice has been served. I take the point made by several noble Lords, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that sentences for certain offences have almost doubled in the past few years. Other noble Lords said that there is no point in short sentences. I am sure that we will have much discussion about that.
I think it is fair to say that punishment and rehabilitation are not opposites. We must do both. I totally agree with noble Lords who have made the point that we need to improve rehabilitation in prison and support our probation services in supervising former prisoners. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, asked me for the evidence that longer sentences work. Also on that point, we need sentences that properly reflect the severity of crimes that people have committed. As a society, I think we have no choice but to insist on proper sentencing, but sentencing in which we have rehabilitation and some of the basics which noble Lords have talked about today. I have seen at first hand the lack of numeracy, literacy and any basic skills within the prison population—particularly, perhaps I may say as a woman, among women prisoners.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, talked about youth sentencing. The Government think that sentencing should allow children to get the support they need to improve their lives. During the passage of the then Offensive Weapons Bill, we talked about not criminalising children at an early age when they could find a path to a far more productive life. We have sentences specifically for under-18s which provide the court with a range of community options to address offending behaviours, and, as we talked about during the passage of that Bill, custody should be not a first but a last resort, and the sentence length should be appropriate and proportionate.
Many noble Lords talked about offender health in prison—not just physical but mental health and the effect that substance abuse has. In October this year, health and justice partners confirmed to the Health and Social Care Select Committee their commitment to providing a standard of healthcare in prison at least equivalent to that available in their community. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, talked about the alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirements. As part of the review, we have looked at changes to sentencing for the most prolific offenders who could help to break that cycle of reoffending through these monitoring requirements he talked about, which start across England and Wales in 2020. More specifically, we think that the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector should have an important role in helping to shape and deliver public services to make a real difference to their communities. The MoJ and HM Prison and Probation Service facilitate a wide and varied range of opportunities for the VCSE sector to work with offenders in prisons and in the community.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and other noble Lords mentioned the current prison population. In August, the PM announced investment of up to £2.5 billion to transform the prison estate and provide 10,000 additional prison places on top of the 3,360 places already being delivered at Wellingborough and Glen Parva. However, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, we need decent, clean and humane prisons. A new national standard has been produced to assist in providing assurance through the management line and drive improvement.
Quite a few points were made on the constitution. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral talked about a written constitution. There has been lively debate on the benefits of a codified constitution. The Government welcome that debate but have no plans at this time to introduce a codified or written constitution for the United Kingdom.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who has been the speaker of sensible points over the past few days, talked about the Minister for the Constitution. Together with Cabinet Office ministerial colleagues, that Minister maintains oversight of constitutional issues across the Government, including for the union. Apparently, that oversight does not rest with one Minister or department, and the Prime Minister retains ultimate oversight of the constitution. The noble and learned Lord asked the question that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, thought I might not answer—but I will— about whether the Minister for the Constitution was consulted on the Prorogation. That is a matter for the Prime Minister to advise on; unusually, of course, the reasons for his decision have been made a matter of public record in the documents that were submitted to the courts and subsequently published. I can safely say that most of my family did not know the meaning of “Prorogation” until a few weeks ago; now, the entire world knows it.
I hope that noble Lords will indulge me for a few minutes longer. The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, talked about the United Kingdom. We are absolutely committed to the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. Our union is strongest when each of our constituent parts work together. We remain focused on ensuring that the interests of all the devolved nations are fully represented within our union and on continuing to deliver a strong and sustainable devolution settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, talked about judicial independence and appointments. Our judges are selected following a transparent, rigorous and independent merit-based process, which is key to maintaining the quality, integrity and independence of our world-class judiciary.
My noble friend Lord Bourne, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, talked about affordable housing, which remains a government priority. We are investing more than £9 billion in affordable housing to support the delivery of approximately 250,000 affordable homes, including homes for social rent. I take the point about the phrase “affordable housing” from whichever noble Lord made it, but I remember making exactly the same point 15 years ago and yet house prices are higher and higher.
I will write to noble Lords on the subject of immigration because I have a pile of papers here and I have been speaking for almost 22 minutes. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for that.