Sanctions
I call the shadow Minister.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Sanctions
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Sanctions
Order. We must now take the motion relating to deferred Divisions. DEFERRED DIVISIONS Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motionin the name of Stephen Doughty relating to Sanctions.—(Kate Dearden.) Question agreed to.
- Hansard source
Gaza: UK Assessment
Over the last 18 months, Israel has facilitated 1.7 million tonnes of aid going into Gaza. Very sadly, much of that aid has ended up in warehouses and trucks have been raided by Hamas operatives. The aid has failed to get into the hands of the people who desperately need it. We now have a position whereby the blockade has continued. Will the Minister come up with a credible plan to get the aid in, require the Israel Defence Forces to facilitate the aid going to the people who desperately need it, and prevent Hamas and other terrorists from capturing the aid and preventing the people of Gaza from gaining the aid that they desperately need?
- Hansard source
Equitable Life Policyholders (Compensation)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the paying out of compensation under the Equitable Life (Payments) Act 2010 for persons adversely affected by maladministration in the regulation before December 2001 of the Equitable Life Assurance Society; and for connected purposes. Most Members will know that I have, for the past 15 years, been campaigning for proper compensation for Equitable Life policyholders who lost pension savings because of Government and regulatory maladministration. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton)—a friend is what he is to me—has also campaigned, as have many other friends and colleagues from across the House. This has always been a cross-party campaign for justice; MPs from six political parties support the proposed Bill. For the benefit of Members who may not be familiar with the scandal, it is a sorry saga spanning nearly a quarter of a century. The Equitable Life Assurance Society was considered the gold standard of the retirement savings world. Founded in 1762—the world’s oldest mutual insurer—it was widely respected and considered a safe place to invest a hard-earned pension. However, it turned out that in the 1990s the society was effectively being run as Ponzi scheme. Returns and bonuses were being funded by contributions from new Members. The house of cards eventually collapsed in 2000, following a House of Lords court case, which led to the inescapable conclusion that the society did not have enough money to cover its commitments. The question inevitably arose as to how the collapse of one of the biggest and apparently safest pension companies could possibly have happened. While several inquiries were set up with varying and limited remits, it was not until the parliamentary ombudsman undertook a four-year detailed investigation that we got to the bottom of what actually happened. Although the society was clearly mismanaged, the ombudsman’s 2,800-page report published in 2008—I recommend it to colleagues for bedtime reading—concluded that there had been a decade of serial maladministration by Government Departments and their regulators, whose job it was to oversee the society in the first place. Specifically, the ombudsman concluded that the serial maladministration “resulted in the true financial position of the society being concealed and misrepresented.” The ombudsman further went on to say that “the prudential regulation of the society during the relevant time period failed—and failed comprehensively.” She said that it was not “a system failure, but a failure properly to implement…the system of regulation that Parliament had enacted.” It was the most serious maladministration ever discovered by the parliamentary ombudsman. It is important to emphasise that the maladministration led to a failure of prudential regulation, which Government Departments and their agencies were responsible for. Although the management of the society had failed, the ombudsman was clear that the prudential regulators alone were responsible for scrutinising the society’s financial returns, and verifying its solvency position. They failed to do that to an acceptable standard. As a result, the society was able to continue to take people’s money, while they had no idea of the house of sand into which they were placing their hard-earned savings for those pensions. The ombudsman made five findings of injustice that policyholders suffered because of the maladministration. Three of them were related to financial loss. In proposing redress, the ombudsman called on the Government to, “put those people who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.” In 2010 the incoming Chancellor of the Exchequer formally accepted all the ombudsman’s findings, and apologised to the more than 1 million people affected. He accepted that the financial losses that policyholders had suffered because of the maladministration amounted to £4.3 billion. He subsequently revised that down to £4.1 billion. Despite that, the Chancellor announced that only £1.5 billion compensation would be made available as redress, citing the state of the public finances at the time. Personally, I think that where the state has accepted responsibility for a failure and accepted how much someone has lost because of that, it should provide full compensation. That is the moral, correct thing to do and, to their credit, the current Government are taking that general approach to the blood contamination and Post Office scandals, although there are clearly serious issues about agreeing individual amounts and the speed of payments in individual cases. My Bill, however, is not about the £2.6 billion compensation still owed to those affected by the Equitable Life scandal; it is about the £1.5 billion that has already been allocated. It appears from public information, parliamentary questions, and freedom of information requests that £180 million of the allocated funding is set to be kept by the Treasury and not reach the people to whom it is owed. When the compensation scheme was announced in 2010, the Government decided that of the £1.5 billion made available, 37,000 annuitants would get 100% compensation via an annual top-up payment for life, with £625 million allocated and indexed at that time for that purpose. As a contingency, in case those individuals lived longer than expected, the Treasury held back £100 million. The rest—£775 million—was allocated to 895,000 non-annuitants via one-off payment, effectively giving them 22.4% of their acknowledged losses. Of that latter group, more than 100,000 people were never traced, contributing to a £24 million underspend of their allocation. In addition, the data shows that the annual compensation payments to annuitants have been running significantly below forecast, by some £54 million from the most recent figures I have seen. That means that the £100 million contingency reserve will never be spent. In total, around £180 million—over 10% of the money allocated to compensate people for their losses—is set to be kept by the Treasury, unless something is done. The Bill that I propose would require the Treasury to pay the full value of the £1.5 billion allocated for compensation to those affected. In doing so, I would prioritise around 10,000 of the most elderly annuitants who were, in my view, unfairly excluded from compensation simply because they bought an annuity prior to the Government-imposed cut-off date of September 1992—I have never understood why that date was chosen. The reality is that those annuitants suffered the same consequences as others: reduced pension payments because of maladministration and the failure of prudential regulation. Through campaigning by Members of this House and the Equitable Members Action Group, the Government announced an ex gratia payment to that cohort in 2013, which was welcome in so far as it went. However, that cohort should be treated the same as other annuitants. According to EMAG, ensuring that would cost around £108 million, after deducting the cost of the ex gratia payments that the cohort received. This group represents the most elderly and vulnerable policyholders. Those who are still alive are in their 80s and 90s. Many will be veterans who served and risked their life for this country, and who we have so recently celebrated and thanked. Many others worked in our national health service and other services. They should be treated fairly, in line with other annuitants. Payments can be calculated simply and quickly. The Government, the Treasury and the Prudential, which took over their policies, know who they are and where they live. As we might imagine, the people who saved responsibly for their retirement find it difficult to understand why they have not had full redress, when the state has accepted responsibility for the failure that led to their financial losses, which have been calculated and accepted by the state. In the absence of full redress, it must surely be right that the money that has been allocated for compensation actually reaches those affected. It must also be right to prioritise the most elderly and vulnerable. That is what the Bill seeks to do, and I hope that the House will give leave for it to be introduced. It is supported by MPs from six political parties and, I am sure, by many other colleagues. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Bob Blackman, Christine Jardine, Fabian Hamilton, Sir Desmond Swayne, Siân Berry, Jim Shannon, Stephen Flynn and Andrew Rosindell present the Bill. Bob Blackman accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 242).
- Hansard source
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak briefly in support of this important Bill, which addresses some long-standing and deeply concerning issues around the welfare of animals brought into the UK. As someone who has run a veterinary business and is married to a vet, I have seen at first hand, and heard about from colleagues over the years, the serious impact on animal health and welfare—and, indeed, the risks to human health—of puppy smuggling. Sadly, we have seen too many cases in which puppies and cats arrive in the UK from countries with lower welfare standards, often in very poor condition. Many suffer from diseases and parasites, and some have been bred irresponsibly, resulting in painful and lifelong conditions—orthopaedic problems, breathing difficulties and eye defects, to name just a few. It is not just animals that are at risk. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, diseases such as Brucella canis, which is endemic in countries such as Romania and Ukraine, pose a real threat to humans—especially those caring for the dogs, including veterinary surgeons and nurses. In the most serious cases, the infection can cause miscarriage. While responsible breeders may carry out appropriate testing, those involved in illegal smuggling often do not. That makes the Bill not only a matter of animal welfare, but one of public health. Irresponsible and illegal breeders have exploited loopholes in existing legislation to treat animals with complete disregard and reduce them to mere commodities. It is absolutely right that we seek to close those gaps through the Bill. I therefore welcome the provisions in clause 1(3) and (4) to prohibit the importation of dogs and cats under six months of age. That is particularly important in the case of very young puppies, whose age can be difficulty to verify. As a result, they may be taken from their mothers too soon and imported at far too young an age, before receiving essential vaccinations, such as for rabies, putting both animals and humans at risk. I also welcome the vital prohibition on importing heavily pregnant dogs and cats—those more than 42 days pregnant. The stress of a long journey can impact the health of both the mother and her unborn young. Heavily pregnant animals require more frequent toilet breaks and are at higher risk of overheating, and the physical stress can compromise their respiratory health. I fully welcome the prohibition on importing animals that have been subject to mutilations such as cropped ears, docked tails or declawing, which are harmful and unnecessary practices. We should not allow our high UK welfare standards to be undermined by those who seek to profit through cruelty. This is no way to treat animals. As a country that is rightly proud of our standards in animal welfare and biosecurity, we must continue to lead by example, so the Bill is both necessary and welcome. I also acknowledge the important work of charities including the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, which have consistently championed these issues and called for stronger protections.
- Hansard source
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
Ear cropping in dogs is a cruel and clinically unnecessary procedure, and is illegal in the UK. The shadow Minister has long campaigned to raise awareness of that. Does he agree that images of dogs with cropped ears have been normalised, and that many owners are still unaware of the cruelty of the practice, so we must continue to highlight its impact?
- Hansard source
Future of Public Libraries
The hon. Member was leader of Redbridge council, which neighbours my borough of Havering, and I congratulate him on managing to keep the libraries in Ilford open. Will he explain, however, why the Labour and Havering Residents Association-run council that neighbours Redbridge has not managed to do the same, such that Gidea Park library, South Hornchurch library and Harold Wood library are closing? Surely we should make libraries community hubs and keep them alive for everyone to use and enjoy.
- Hansard source
Great British Energy Bill
On 25 March, when we last debated amendments to the Bill, the Minister assured us that the mechanisms for preventing modern slavery in supply chains were adequate, and that the Procurement Act 2023 would provide adequate protection against technology that could have been manufactured using slave labour being deployed in the UK. He confirmed that in the coming weeks, he would convene cross-departmental meetings on that matter, and said that a broad strategy would be developed, through work with the solar taskforce and other Government Departments. Then we had the incredible sight of Labour MPs trooping through the Lobby, being whipped to vote against an amendment that would have prevented Great British Energy from investing in supply chains in which links to modern slavery were proven. The offshoring of our emissions, our manufacturing base and our skilled jobs is understood and acknowledged to be the result of Labour’s energy policies, but on that day, we also saw the offshoring of Labour’s moral compass. We saw its narrow-minded, ideological obsession with achieving the unachievable: clean power by 2030, at any price and any cost, delivered through solar panels made by slave labour and with coal power in the People’s Republic of China. Following all that, though, a screeching U-turn took place. Literally weeks after the Government whipped their MPs to vote against the modern slavery amendment the last time the Bill was debated, the Government conceded what we all knew to be the case—that the mechanisms cited by the Minister in this House were simply not up to the job. However, we sincerely welcome the acknowledgement that the UK must take a principled stand. The Procurement Act 2023 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 were groundbreaking when they were introduced, but it is evident that more needs to be done today to prevent goods tainted by slavery from entering UK supply chains.
- Hansard source
Great British Energy Bill
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: over the past decade and more, a cross-party consensus was reached in this House about the pernicious nature of modern slavery and the work we must do together to drive it out of supply chains that could be contributing to, or investing in, the United Kingdom. I think we all believe that we have to achieve that. Now that the Government have acknowledged that the mechanisms in the Bill were not up to the job, as we said at the time, I hope that we can revert to cross-party working on this incredibly important issue. The transition to clean power must be just, as we have said before and as the Minister has said many times, but it is clear that there is no justice where there is slave labour in supply chains, so we are glad that the Government have listened not just to the official Opposition, but to Members from across both Houses. However, there is a serious question: what does this mean for the clean power 2030 mission? If the route to decarbonisation relies on importing technology from China made with slave labour, surely there should be a rethink of whether that mission is conducive to good policy. We are pleased that the Minister has rowed back from the position that the Great British Energy Bill needed no extra provisions to exclude slave labour from supply chains, and have accepted an amendment that safeguards against slavery and human trafficking. While we welcome the Government’s change of heart, it would be remiss of me not to reiterate for the record that the official Opposition remain resolutely opposed to the creation of Great British Energy, which is not great, not British, and will not produce any energy. The Minister often cites my constituency in Aberdeenshire in these debates because of the location of GB Energy’s headquarters, but I say to him in all sincerity that the people and businesses of north-east Scotland do not want more government. They want government to get out of the way and let them get on with what they do best: extracting oil and gas from the North sea, keeping the lights on and homes warm in our country. Instead of wasting time on this wasteful vanity project, the Government should lift the ban on licences and work faster on replacing the energy profits levy. That would really create jobs—indeed, it would save jobs—and drive investment in Aberdeen, unlike this Bill. High industrial energy costs are pushing energy-intensive industries such as ceramics and petrochemicals overseas. The impact of those costs is real for industrial communities, and we need to see a real plan that shows that the Government understand that and will act on it. We are grateful to the Minister for heeding our calls—and, indeed, those of other right hon. and hon. Members—for provisions on slave labour to be included in the Bill, and for listening to the arguments made by Members from all Benches in both Houses. Today, we welcome a small victory, the acceptance of an amendment that seeks to prevent modern slavery in our energy supply chains. That is a positive change to the legislation—legislation that should not exist, but a positive change none the less.
- Hansard source
Engagements
My constituent Victor Franklin was made severely disabled after a savage dog attack left him with multiple amputations. Will the Prime Minister explain why pensioners, such as Victor, who become severely disabled after retirement are excluded from claiming personal independence payment and are instead limited to the lesser support of attendance allowance, and will he commit to reviewing that unfair rule?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Labour has cancelled Britain’s new national supercomputer at the University of Edinburgh, damaging our research capability and economic growth. That project was fully funded by the Conservatives, and the university says that it will be a disaster if the cancellation is not reversed, so will the Government reinstate that supercomputer, or will it be another victim of the Chancellor’s failed economic experiment?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
That project was fully funded, and the Secretary of State knows it. While Labour cancels our tech investment, our competitors—the US, Germany and Japan—are all increasing theirs. Next month, the Chancellor will cut the Department’s budget in real terms, so can the Secretary of State tell us today whether he will allow the Treasury to cancel more investment in Britain’s future, or will he finally speak up for Britain’s vital tech sector?
- Hansard source
Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks. I welcome this opportunity to debate sanctions on Syria and this measure that the Government have introduced, but before we get into the substance of the matter, may I raise with the Minister a point relating to the process? Will he explain why the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office press release announcing the relaxation of sanctions was issued on 24 April and the legislation was signed by the Minister on 23 April, but it took a week for a written ministerial statement to be laid to Parliament announcing these changes, on 30 April? Can he explain why this discourtesy was shown to the House, and give an assurance that statements on changes to sanctions will in future be made to the House first whenever possible, and certainly in a timelier manner? As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has said in the House on multiple occasions, the Opposition are of the view that we need to exercise extreme caution when it comes to lifting sanctions on Syria. Syria is at a fork in the road, and there is still no guarantee which path it will take. The situation is very fragile and remains volatile, as clearly demonstrated by the appalling clashes between the pro-Government and Druze communities in recent days. Millions of Syrians remain displaced, facing hardship and suffering, while the security situation on the ground is volatile, with the country still vulnerable to criminal gangs smuggling weapons, drugs and people; still at risk of continuing to be exploited by terrorists; and still exposed to the malign influence of Iran. Few will shed tears for the end of the vile, tyrannical Assad regime, which bore responsibility for repression, torture and death on a truly horrific scale and, infamously, the use of chemical weapons against its own people. However, there is still an onus on Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham to prove that it is serious about putting Syria on the path to a future that is materially different and better than that under the monstrous tyranny of the Assads, including when it comes to the protection of all communities, groups and minorities. With that in mind, we need to judge HTS and the transitional Government solely on the basis of action, not words or statements about a future vision. Will the Minister give his latest assessment of the number of groups and militias operating in Syria, and say how he will ensure that this relaxation in sanctions benefits the people of Syria? Co-ordination of course is also important, so I will take the opportunity to ask the Minister what co-ordination, if any, he has undertaken with both the US and European allies on the approach to sanctions. The last Conservative Government helped to lead a co-ordinated approach when it came to Syria, but the UK does not appear to be trying to lead efforts on sanctions policy in the post-Assad period. We see key players in the international community now taking different approaches to the lifting of sanctions, when what we really need is consistency of message. We understand that the US is seeking to impose conditions on the lifting of sanctions, including over the removal of chemical weapons and counter-terrorism measures—indeed, there have been reports of letters being exchanged on these matters as the US seeks assurances—but it appears that the UK is not doing so. Will the Minister explain why he does not want to apply conditions? On what basis has he made the decision not to row in behind the US approach? We recognise that regulation 5 of these regulations contains a list of high-level and laudable purposes for the UK’s decisions, but that is not the same as a concrete condition. On this point, the Minister will be aware that page 2 of the explanatory memorandum summarises the purposes of the regulations as being, “to promote the peace, stability and security of Syria…to promote respect for democracy, the rule of law and good governance in Syria, including in particular promoting the successful completion of Syria’s transition to a democratic country…to discourage actions, policies or activities which repress the civilian population in Syria”. Will the Minister explain what direct discussions have taken place with HTS about the requirements that we expect it to be able to fulfil? If he has not placed conditions on this decision, will he explain why he has not done so? The Minister will be aware that the shadow Foreign Secretary tabled a written parliamentary question on 24 February on “conditions he”— the Foreign Secretary— “plans to apply to the Government of Syria in relation to the relaxation of sanctions.” The Minister who answered on 24 March did not give a direct response to that part of the question, so I would like to give this Minister the opportunity now to give a direct answer. Is this relaxation of sanctions directly linked to a clear set of conditions placed on the transitional Government, and will any future relaxation of sanctions be directly linked to conditions too? It is also important for the Minister to explain what assurances, if any, he has been directly given by the transitional Government of Syria on adhering to the standards that we expect of them. What measures will be put in place to ensure that this relaxation of sanctions does not lead to investments and resources being abused? Syria remains a fragmented country, with different groups and militias exercising control, and conflict and violence still taking place. How often will the Minister review the impact of the relaxation of sanctions, and will he commit to putting sanctions on entities and people in Syria if the standards that we expect in relation to protecting rights are not met? I ask that because section 10 of the explanatory memorandum gives some details on the Government’s approach to monitoring and reviewing this legislation, but seems to suggest that the Government will look only at the effectiveness of maintaining or relaxing the sanctions regime, rather than tightening it up, and that a specific review provision is not needed. The relevant section asks, “What is the approach to monitoring and reviewing this legislation?” and section 10.1 states: “If His Majesty’s Government determined that…it was no longer appropriate to maintain a sanctions regime or specific sanctions measures, that regime would be removed or amended accordingly. In the case of the 2019 Regulations, that would include the measures introduced by this instrument. As such, the Minister does not consider that a review clause in this instrument is appropriate. Will the Minister clarify his approach to reviewing and monitoring, which is important? If the transitional Government or other entities in Syria are not acting in an appropriate way to deliver stability to Syria and protect rights, will the current sanctions regime be amended, or will the Government consider introducing a new bespoke sanctions regime and set of regulations? Will the Minister commit to giving a regular update and statement to the House on the status of Syria and the progress, or lack of progress, being made, and whether he is considering any further amendments to sanctions? Does he expect to make any further amendments this year? On monitoring the impact, what criteria will the Minister use to judge whether the lifting of sanctions has had the effect he desires, including on the security front, which will also be important? Turning to more specific provisions, on 25 April the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation at HM Treasury issued a financial sanctions notice that updated references to the 310 individuals and 39 entities to which sanctions apply. With the Assad regime over, can the Minister confirm whether any of those individuals are still in Syria, or have all fled? We know that Assad is in Russia, but does the Minister know the whereabouts of other individuals? Will the Government still consider adding names of individuals and entities to the list, should evidence emerge of the complicity in Assad’s crimes and the repression of Syria by those either currently in Syria or elsewhere? We agree those sanctions must remain in place, and those responsible for heinous acts be held to account. Will the Minister give details on the work under way with international partners and the transitional Government in Syria to bring those responsible to face justice? Will he give an update on his assessment of compliance with sanctions in place? I now turn to the impact of the amendment. Section 9.2 of the explanatory memorandum states: “The lifting of sanctions creates trade and investment opportunities for the UK. The impact on UK growth is expected to be positive but negligible, due to the small size of the Syrian economy. Any such trade and investment with Syria will remain subject to other existing legal regulation including international sanctions.” Does the Minister have an estimate of the impact this would have on UK businesses? Will support and assistance be provided to any UK businesses looking to invest in Syria as a result of these changes, to ensure safe operations? How will he monitor new investments in Syria, to ensure that they are for the benefit of the Syrian people and are not making their way into the hands of those who will undermine our objectives in Syria? With regard to regulation 6 of the 2019 regulations, headed “Designation criteria: meaning of ‘involved person’”, the amendments would add references to the regulation applying to activities during the period of the Assad regime, which is defined in the regulations as the period ending on 8 December 2024. They state that those designated will be persons involved in a range of abhorrent activities, including “repressing the civilian population in Syria” and “the commission of, or obstruction of an independent investigation into a serious human rights violation or abuse in Syria.” Can the Minister confirm whether that will mean that anyone who may obstruct investigations into human rights abuses that happened under the Assad regime but where the obstructive actions took place after 8 December 2024, will not be covered by that provision? Ensuring that evidence is secured is vital to bringing criminal cases against those responsible. Anything that could compromise that must surely be a concern. In the 2019 regulations, regulation 6 defines “prohibited activities related to chemical weapons” and regulation 7 lists “stockpiling or retaining chemical weapons” as actions that can lead to sanctions being applied. Will the Minister confirm whether those aspects of the regulations will apply to anyone who has been maintaining chemical weapons, or obstructing any efforts to investigate and dispose of chemical weapons held in Syria currently, since the fall of the Assad regime? Or does the measure apply only to persons involved in those activities up to 8 December 2024? I am sure that the Minister will share our concerns about the risks of chemical weapons not being secured and disposed of. Can he give an update on the international efforts to deal with chemical weapons in Syria and any progress that the transitional Government are making on that issue? Finally, only an appropriate and inclusive constitutional future will ultimately guarantee peace and stability for Syria, so we should make sure that our policy on Syria’s economic recovery, of which sanctions are of course a part, is not decoupled from ensuring that the right governance structures are in place. On that basis, what is the Minister’s latest assessment of transitional Government’s progress and the plans that they have laid out? We seek assurances on all those points, and I trust that the Minister will give full answers to all those questions when he sums up.
- Hansard source
Humanitarian Aid: Educational Programmes
We know that education can make a real difference to a girl’s life chances, which is why the last Conservative Government committed to ensuring that every girl has access to quality education. However, we will now be spending less on development, so can the Minister give clarity on the commitments that the Government are making to support women and girls over the next few years? Which programmes will be kept and which will be cut, and how much will be invested in those programmes?
- Hansard source
Mansion House Accord
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the Mansion House accord.
- Hansard source
Mansion House Accord
May I start by associating myself with the very fine tributes made to Sir Roy Stone? My condolences go to his family. No response from the Chancellor, we see, but I thank the Minister for his statement. The retirement incomes of millions of UK savers rely on the careful management of pension funds. Those pension providers have a fiduciary duty to act in the best financial interests of their members. We on the Conservative Benches support efforts to ensure pension funds are investing in assets that can both increase UK productivity and growth, and deliver stronger, stable returns for investors and savers. Indeed, that was the purpose of the first Mansion House compact, which was brokered by the last Conservative Government. As we well know, Labour Ministers have a habit of thinking they know best what to do with other people’s money, but it should ultimately be the responsibility of the providers, which have been entrusted by savers with their money, to make investment decisions. Reports that the Government intend to take new powers to mandate pension funds to allocate minimum amounts to specific classes of assets should be a matter of great concern to this House. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to take such legislative powers in the pensions Bill later this year? If he cannot rule out making such a move, can he explain what it would mean for the existing fiduciary duties set out in legislation? Major players in the industry, including Scottish Widows, have reportedly refused to take part in the latest iteration of the Mansion House compact. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why that is, what discussions he and other Ministers have had with Scottish Widows and others that have chosen not to take part, and what concerns they have raised? Let me be clear: we on the Conservative Benches want a pensions industry that is investing in growing UK businesses, infrastructure, housing and all those elements that drive a healthier economy, but it also has to be for the benefit of savers. Of course, the risks in this case would be borne entirely by private sector workers, while public sector workers would be protected. Finally, we are clear that pension savings should never be there to dig a Chancellor out of the economic hole that she has made.
- Hansard source
Speaker’s Statement
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In his role in the usual channels, Sir Roy Stone had a unique influence in this place, as we have heard, working for decades for the Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the Opposition, providing advice to both and protecting the confidences of both, but answering honestly to each. Those in the usual channels hold the only role in government that means working for both the Government and the Opposition; Roy managed the Whips Offices for both. The British public see adversarial politics and parties in this Chamber, but for decades, Roy and his teams organised and co-ordinated legislation, debates, recesses, statements and urgent questions and managed the relationship between the parties. Woe betide any Chief Whip who tried to change Roy’s recess schedule, which was almost always in tandem with the Kent school holiday breaks. Every political science course in the country should have dedicated modules on the usual channels and Sir Roy Stone. Roy’s dominance of this behind-the-scenes role made him one of the most impactful and consequential civil servants of his time. Despite being fair to all sides, he was political to his core, not least during the hung Parliament and Brexit. During that time, he was passionate about and focused on supporting the Government to deliver on the referendum, and was increasingly frustrated with us politicians, and in particular me, for failing to deliver a meaningful vote. Roy loved his central role in this place, and had the respect, if not always the agreement, of everyone, politician and civil servant alike. Despite all the stresses and strains in that most demanding period of parliamentary history, which is when I worked with him, what shone out was the love for and commitment to his family: his brother, who was ill with cancer during the Brexit years; and his wife Dawn and children Hannah and Elliott. In particular, there was pride in Elliott’s commitment to the RAF, in which he was a cadet, and of which he is now a full-time member. A patriot at work, a patriot at home. Rest in peace, Sir Roy Stone.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Is a pattern emerging where the Trump Administration take initially extreme positions on international trade and foreign policy and then quickly re-adjust to more realistic and sensible policies? What opportunities does that give for British diplomacy?
- Hansard source
Mansion House Accord
At a time when we have been commemorating a significant anniversary of VE Day, does the Minister share my concern that certain large pension firms are refusing to invest in profitable defence industries on spurious ethical grounds? Is that something that his pensions investment review might care to investigate?
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
rose—
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The last time we exchanged comments in the Chamber, I think they were about Asquith, but I cannot match that today. The right hon. Gentleman is making some sensible points about trusted traders and easing barriers at the border, but he will know, when he speaks of safety and security, that our key security relationship is the Five Eyes relationship: with America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Of course we co-operate with Europe, but any changes to our relationship around security with Europe would endanger the security of this country, if we compromised that core relationship. In particular, given that those Euro-enthusiasts on the continent have always wanted a pan-European army and a pan-European security policy, will he talk a bit about defence and defence procurement?
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
I assume the hon. Gentleman is not advocating returning to the common fisheries policy, which, with its ludicrous quotas and equivalence, was bad for fish, which were discarded live, and bad for fishermen, who were limited by quotas. It was a disaster that had a detrimental effect on the fishing industry across this country. Surely he does not want a return to that.
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
The hon. Gentleman will know that thousands of young people—perhaps not in Chelsea but in most of the country—are NEETs, meaning they are not in education, employment or training, and that number is growing. Why should those young people, who are desperately seeking access to education or jobs, have to compete with large numbers of people from abroad? Is that what the people in Chelsea and Fulham really want for the people who live in the rest of Britain?
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
Since we are straying into political ideas and philosophy, is not the point that the democratic legitimacy we enjoy in this place is on the basis of popular consent, and there is no more direct expression of popular consent than a referendum, which is why its result has to be honoured?
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
My hon. Friend makes a profound argument. He highlights the EU, which sees itself as a supranational body, and NATO, which, by nature, is anything but that, in that it is a confederation of sovereign nations. That tension lies at the heart of the EU’s ill-concealed and now evident disdain for NATO. I do not know whether the Government are careless or unknowing of that. They are either complicit or ignorant; I wonder which one my hon. Friend thinks it is.
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
rose—
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
I am extremely grateful to my namesake for giving way. He is making an interesting speech. He is right that global power and its growth is making people feel that they cannot affect decision making; that is a profound point, but we need to root power closer to people, not detach it from them, as happens when power is given over to foreign potentates, whether in the EU or any other part of the world.
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the Conservative party; it has indeed been a great party and remains so. On entanglement, he makes a valid point about co-operation and collaboration, but that has always been the case. Of course we must work with other countries, but the core issue here is authority. Entanglement means granting authority to a power outside this country. Surely this movement of young people, which is a dressed-up form of free movement, is just that.
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
My hon. Friend’s scepticism is well founded, because many on the Government Benches—I do not say all—could barely sustain the result of the referendum and regarded it with outrage. The people had spoken and contradicted the long-standing prejudice of the liberal bourgeoisie. That is why they tried to block Brexit—indeed, the Prime Minister tried to block it 48 times. My hon. Friend is right, therefore, to be sceptical about Labour.
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
The hon. Gentleman was pointing to an empty Bench when he talked about Reform, by the way, because its Members have not turned up. On the structural funds, I know the hon. Gentleman would not want in any way to say something misleading. After Brexit, my constituency attracted Government funding of something like £60 million or £70 million for roads, a new leisure centre and the regeneration of our town centre. In the last year we were in the EU, does he know that it cost us £17 billion to be a member? What sort of price is that?
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
In human affairs, there is a persistent fascination with novelty. It is curious that people clamour for what is different—for the other, whatever that other might look like. It is this fascination that leads to the similar interest in—indeed, preoccupation with—internationalism, even to the point where that means giving up power to someone beyond these shores. It is a damaging preoccupation. At its most curious, it leads to the peculiarity of—I am sorry the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) is not here, because he made a remarkably articulate speech, as I told him afterwards—a representative of a nationalist party making the case against nationalism, and a Member who believes in sovereignty making the argument that sovereignty does not really matter, although he did qualify that by saying that sovereignty in Scotland meant something different. He and I will no doubt have an opportunity to debate that at some length in future. That fascination fuelled the sentiment that, after the referendum, pervaded the Labour Benches and the Liberals; it is a matter of record that I do not have a liberal bone in my body of any kind, whether socially, culturally, politically or economically, and I shall make the case against free trade in a few moments. As a result of that fascination, the cadre of people who populate a good deal of the establishment—the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) will know this, because a lot of the establishment live in his constituency; it is not surprising that they picked one of their own, really—could not bear to come to terms with the result of the referendum. For the people had spoken! And of course, the people’s will directly contradicted the assumptions—the presumptions—of that establishment, which they had foisted on the people for donkeys’ years. I do not say, by the way, that all the guilt lies on the other side of the Chamber. This began with Harold Macmillan, and then was carried on by Ted Heath, who sold out our fishermen. It went on and on; the gallery of villains is almost endless. One thinks of Roy Jenkins. There were noble exceptions, including Labour’s Peter Shore, and Tony Benn, who made the case for national self-government in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) told me was one of the best speeches he has heard in this Chamber in his years here. On our side, there were noble exceptions, too. Enoch Powell stands proud among those, but there were many others. [Interruption.] There was Michael Foot, of course, on the other side. I will not go into the whole list, Madam Deputy Speaker, just in case you thought I was going to. I was thinking of our lamented friend Sir Bill Cash, who gave such great service. He was seen as a bit of an outsider for the great bulk of his career, and then, in the last part of it, was proved right. My goodness, what is better than that in politics? They say all political careers end in failure, but Bill Cash’s didn’t; his political career ended in success.
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; Sir Bill’s political career has not ended; his parliamentary one has. I can, like my right hon. Friend, acknowledge that Sir Bill has texted me this afternoon, along with no doubt many others—[Interruption.]—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I just gathered. This tension—between the will of the people as expressed in the 2016 referendum, and the prevailing assumptions of what I described earlier as the liberal establishment—underpins this debate. In the spirit of generosity, which I tend to employ—there are exceptions, by the way; Members can intervene on me, if they like—I note that there are those on the Government Benches, such as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who acknowledge, albeit grudgingly, that the referendum result cannot be reversed and that we cannot go back into the EU. That was not what those people said immediately after the referendum, of course. They fought hard for ages to try to frustrate the outcome. They used every parliamentary technique they could conjure, as well as extra-parliamentary techniques, including well-funded legal cases, to try to derail Brexit. The scepticism personified by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who said she was doubtful about the Government’s intent, is well founded. I know that the Minister will want to reassure us, when he rises at the end of the debate, that that scepticism—in his case, at least—will not prove to be a prediction of what might happen next. Scepticism is well founded, though, because of the history. It was a Labour politician who said, “You don’t need a crystal ball when you’ve got the record book”—Aneurin Bevan, of course. We have the record book when it comes to Labour, and, worse still, when it comes to the Liberal Democrats. I hope the Minister will be crystal clear, as he has been invited to be throughout the debate, on dynamic alignment, or, as I think it would be better described, dynamic realignment: realigning our relationship with the EU. Such alignment would bring us closer not to our friends and neighbours in Europe—of course, co-operation and collaboration is a natural part of mature policies—but to the EU, in terms of governance, regulation, law, interference in our affairs and, crucially, jurisdiction. It is the exercise of authority that we are really debating here—not the ability or, indeed, the willingness to share, but the danger of succumbing to a power that takes authority further and further from the British people. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) talked about some of the challenges the world faces and the answers to those global challenges. He was right to do so, by the way; I thought the first half of his speech was very good, although it got worse as it went on. The answer to those challenges is not to become more globalist or to give in to the forces he described that exert power in an unaccountable way, but to bring power back to the people. When those of us who advocated Brexit spoke of taking back control, we did so partly because we wanted power to be vested in this Parliament, which is accountable to the people whom that power affects. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are almost a model for this, and others would do well to follow your model. We are answerable to and known by our constituents; they understand that we make decisions on their behalf. New Members of the House will be coming to terms with what that means and its relentlessness. I do not mind it myself, but I can see how it could wear down souls less forceful and robust than me. It is that constant interaction with our constituents that is the lifeblood of democracy. Whoever knew who their Member of the European Parliament was? I could not remember who the Tories were, let alone the Members from the other parties. People certainly did not enjoy that kind of intimate relationship and sense of mutual ownership when we were members of the EU. We feel as though we own our constituencies and they feel as though they own us, and quite right too. [Interruption.] I am being chided, Madam Deputy Speaker. I first heard of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) when he arrived here—I never knew who he was before then. I say that without disrespect.
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
It is typical of my hon. Friend’s humility and good humour that he should acknowledge that in the Chamber in such an open and frank way, and I pay tribute to him for it. The scepticism that I have described and tried to articulate takes the form of real doubts about what realignment will really mean. Let me just deal with three or four specifics. I spoke earlier in an intervention about security and defence. Of course, it is right that we have a continuing relationship with our neighbours in those terms. We do work with the agencies across Europe, but the critical security relationship we enjoy is with the Five Eyes countries—by the way, we also enjoy relations with many other countries in the world outside the Five Eyes and Europe—and it is vital that we reinforce that relationship. That, of course, overlaps with our commitment to NATO and defence. There may be some virtues in information sharing—indeed, there certainly are virtues in various kinds of co-operation—but anything that undermines the sovereignty of that security and defence alliance seems to be highly questionable and also risky, which is worse. Let me turn now to free movement. Although the referendum was not all about immigration, immigration was perhaps the most pressing and salient matter during those times. People resented and resisted free movement and they wanted to bring it to an end. For many, the term “take back control” epitomised the need to control our borders—to decide who came here and who did not. Although it may be understandable that people want to wax lyrical about young people being able to travel across the continent, what they say less enthusiastically, or do not say at all, is that young people from the entire continent will want to travel here. Until we know the terms of that, that could easily mean those people competing with Britons for scarce jobs. We have large numbers of young people not in education, employment or training. No Government have dealt with that satisfactorily. I started speaking about this more than 20 years ago. Previous Labour Governments and, indeed, Conservative Governments did not really grasp that nettle as firmly as they should have done. Disturbingly, the trend is upwards, and so I do not want people in my country to have to compete for education and training places and for other opportunities with possibly tens of thousands of people who have entered the country by those means. There will be suspicions that it is the beginning of a return to free movement. What did mass immigration do? The Prime Minister was right about this yesterday. He is a very late convert, but the Bible says that we must welcome all converts with enthusiasm. What mass immigration did was to displace investment in recruitment, training and retention of workers and in automation and improving workplaces, making us ever more dependent on low-skilled labour. It had the effect of stultifying the economy. Any suggestion that we may return to that will inhibit—perhaps ruin—the Government’s intention of improving productivity. If we really want to deal with productivity, we have to create a high-tech, high-skilled economy. I am fearful that that broader consideration will not necessarily hold sway when we get into negotiations with the EU on this issue of some relaxation of the bar on free movement, which was brought by the referendum. Mindful that there are enthusiastic, insightful and bright colleagues on all sides of the House, but mainly on the Conservative side, who want to contribute to the debate, I will draw my remarks to a close. I can hear colleagues saying, “No, go on”, but I am going to resist those overtures and finish with this thought: C.S. Lewis said, “We are what we think we are”. I think we are a proud, independent nation that has made a disproportionate contribution as part of western civilisation to world history. I think that our past is noble and should give us a sense of achievement and pride. I do not buy the self-loathing that seems to have taken hold with too much of the very establishment that I derided earlier.
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
I will happily give way—let us see whether the hon. Member is a self-loathing individual.
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at it through this prism: for all intents and purposes, I am Brexit, I stand for Brexit: I am a patriot, proud of my working-class origins; I am determined to do my best for my constituents and my country; and I am driven by a combination of the national interest and the common good. That was the spirit that inspired Brexit. It inspired those of us who campaigned for it, and those who voted for it, which 75% of my constituents in South Holland and the Deepings did. I am a bit resentful that Boston and Skegness next door had an even higher percentage, but it was only by 1%. As I said, C.S. Lewis said that we are what we think we are. I think that we are a proud country who can stand in the world, in collaboration with other nations, of course, but free and sovereign. Labour cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that we have done a great deal with India because we did not have to kowtow to the EU and that we have done a great deal with the US because we escaped the clutches of the EU, while at the same time saying that we want to creep back in and for them to have more say in any future deals we might do. Let me end with the words of one of my political heroes, Joseph Chamberlain, who understood that to protect our economy we need to protect the jobs, industry and enterprise that are part of it and not to give in to the free trade liberals. He said: “a democratic Government, resting on the confidence and support of the whole nation, and not on the favour of any limited class, would be very strong. It would know how to make itself respected, and how to maintain the obligations and the honour of the country.” No Member of this House should do less than that.
- Hansard source
UK-EU Summit
rose—
- Hansard source
Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities
I remind all Back-Bench colleagues to bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.
- Hansard source
Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities
Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, I observe that interventions are getting progressively longer. If those who want to speak are going to be able to speak, we will have to have shorter interventions.