Sheep Farming: No-deal EU Exit

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Helen Goodman

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Chapman]

I agree with the hon. Lady, and I will refer later in my speech to the report that she has mentioned.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Last week, I went to the Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Service. Its concern is that because the Government have failed to bring forward the Agriculture Bill, it is not clear whether the Government have the legal powers to make payments in the event of no-deal Brexit. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister must answer that point this evening?

[Jenny Chapman]

That is the first time I have heard that point made in the House; it is one that my hon. Friend and I discussed earlier today. She is absolutely right: farmers need to hear from the Minister what he intends to do about their payments, and we need to ensure that he has the power to make those payments. The principal problem for the sheep sector is that, according to the report the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) mentioned, under no deal the export of sheepmeat to the EU27 would be almost entirely wiped out, with the only exports being those via a tariff rate quota of less than 400 tonnes. Of course non-EU exports could increase over time, although the possible rise of around 5% would not be anywhere near enough to offset the loss of EU trade. Reduced trade with the EU would leave around one third of UK meat without a market.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Helen Goodman

Committee: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 6th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Chapman]

It is a real pleasure to be called to contribute. I wish to speak to new clause 80 and amendments 339 and 340 in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

New clause 80 would require a vote in the House on the financial settlement that the Government agree with the European Union. Further, it would require the House to be informed in its decision on that matter by reports from the Office for Budget Responsibility and the National Audit Office. Amendments 339 and 340 would prevent tax or fee-raising powers from being established via tertiary legislation and limit any fees that are levied by public bodies to the cost of the service that the fee is intended to cover.

I should start by referring Members to the third report of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee from September, which examined the Bill before us today. The report draws our intention to the fact that the delegated powers memorandum notes that those powers would enable

“the creation of tax-like charges, which go beyond recovering the direct cost of the provision of a service to a specific firm or individual, including to allow for potential cross-subsidisation or to cover the wider functions and running costs of a public body.”

The report alerts Parliament to the danger of allowing organisations full-cost recovery of their services without parliamentary scrutiny as it could allow them to gold-plate the services that they offer. As the report says:

“A tax-like charge means a tax.”

And it

“should not be allowed in subordinate legislation. They are matters for Parliament, a principle central to the Bill of Rights 1688. Regulations under clauses 7 and 9 cannot impose or increase taxation.33 But regulations under Schedule 4 may.”

The report goes on to make the point that that means that Ministers can tax. They can

“confer powers on public authorities to tax and they can do so in tertiary legislation that has no parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever.”

New clause 80 also addresses this issue of a lack of parliamentary oversight. As we all know, the Government are in the process of attempting to conclude the first phase of negotiations with the European Union. Part of that process is agreeing a financial settlement, which reflects the obligations that the United Kingdom has incurred as a result of its membership of the European Union. Labour has always been clear that Britain should meet its obligations. We cannot seriously hope to make new agreements on the international stage if we are seen to go back on what we have already agreed. Britain is a far better, fairer and more reliable ally than that.

As the Chancellor said when he attended the Treasury Committee today:

“I find it inconceivable that we as a nation would be walking away from an obligation that we recognised as an obligation.”

He continued:

“That is just not a credible scenario. That’s not the kind of country we are and frankly it would not make us a credible partner for future international agreements.”

On that, we are agreed. But we have also been clear that the deal must be fair to the taxpayer. Already the Government are attempting to bypass the scrutiny that should take place in this Chamber. This money belongs to the UK taxpayer and they have a right to know how much, and for what they are paying. It is true that the public interest in discovering more about the financial settlements that the Government intend to make with the EU is great, and that there will inevitably and rightly be extensive media coverage. The details, some certain and some speculative, will be pored over by commentators. Estimates will be made and objections proffered on the basis—sometimes, I venture to say—of inaccurate or incomplete information. That is not a satisfactory way to proceed. The House must get a grip of this process and demand the ability to scrutinise and take a view on the deals reached.

Our new clause argues that this House should have a vote, and also that the vote should be properly informed. Being properly informed means that independent analysis by the OBR and the NAO must be provided to assist this House in its consideration of the deal. We are going to need that, because the financial settlement will not be straightforward, and unvarnished truths will be hard to come by. Crudely speaking, the Government will try to make the amount look as reasonable as possible and the EU will try to show that it has everything that it thinks it is due.

The Government will want to highlight estimates that show how payments will be less than half the €100 billion liability, once UK projects have been taken into account. As Alex Barker in the Financial Times put it last week:

“Ministers are banking on Treasury budget wizards making the exit price look as small as possible.”

The two sides in the negotiation could look at the same agreement and come up with net estimates that are quite different.

[Helen Goodman]

I am just puzzling over how the Government think this will work. Has my hon. Friend thought about this: it is highly likely that we will make not one big payment, but a number of payments over a period of time, which means that the payment could be spread into another Parliament? Given that no Parliament can bind its successor, how does she think that the Government can make this agreement?

[Jenny Chapman]

That is a very interesting point. As a fellow member of the Select Committee on Procedure for several years, I am not surprised that my hon. Friend has spotted this. I would be fascinated to hear what the Minister has to say about that when he gets to his feet later this evening.

Parliament ought to have the ability to debate, scrutinise and reach its own conclusion on this matter. If we do not, we will be the only people not tussling with it. This Parliament wants to do as the people said we should: take back control. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in response to an urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) that to give Parliament details about the settlement

“would not be in our national interest”—[Official Report, 29 November 2017; Vol. 632, c. 327.]

That is not good enough. She said that she will “update the House” when there is more to say, but we do not want to be updated; we want the ability to decide.

National Railway Museum and Ownership of National Assets

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Helen Goodman

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Helen Goodman]

I was just suggesting that if the Tornado was built in Darlington, Darlington should have the Tornado, but Shildon should have Locomotion No. 1.

[Jenny Chapman]

I see that this local rivalry could get out of hand! We would love the Tornado, but we are proud that the Tornado, made in Darlington, is being used and enjoyed regularly by passengers around the country, although we are thrilled when it comes back to the north-east, too. My hon. Friend has now made her point twice. Shall we leave it there for today and perhaps pick it up again in The Northern Echo some other time?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said, the growth of the railways changed this country. Without the railways, we would not have Middlesbrough or Saltburn; indeed, the whole shape of the north-east, and later the country, changed because of the railways, which were created, built, designed and invested in in the north-east of England. We take enormous pride in that, and we are concerned when assets are given away. There are serious questions for the National Railway Museum on this matter. I am sure that those questions can be answered, but to a town that struggles to support its own small railway museum—we struggle hard to keep it interesting and thriving—gifting an asset such as an engine seems rather odd.

We would like assurances on what a gift is. Is this more of a long-term loan? What safeguards are in place for the upkeep of the asset? How do we know that it will be cared for in the way we know it could be cared for? How do we know that it cannot be disposed of in future in a way that would be detrimental to our national heritage? It is pleasing that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) was able to answer some of those problems, but there is still a question mark over the concept of gifting in these instances.

I wonder whether such a relaxed approach would be taken if the asset were not part of our industrial heritage. What if it were a piece of fine art or a piece of statuary? Rules need to be applied in every case. Industrial heritage is just as important to my constituents as—

[Helen Goodman]

Italian art.

[Jenny Chapman]

As Italian art, for example.

The National Railway Museum is in a privileged position, in that it has all those assets in a wonderful location. Visiting it is an incredible experience, as is visiting the site at Shildon. I have enjoyed both, and families across the north-east enjoy them regularly. However, Head of Steam, which is the Darlington railway museum, is not as privileged, and as I have the Minister’s attention, I shall explain the situation that we are in.

The railway museum in Darlington is supported by the Friends of Darlington Railway Centre and Museum, by local residents and, principally, by Darlington council tax payers. We have benefited from Heritage Lottery Fund money for special projects, and we are very grateful for that, but we do not benefit from—my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North referred to this—any national strategic consideration of how these assets ought to be looked after and how they might be better promoted in the future.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said, the railway museum in Darlington is not free. It is closed on Mondays; indeed, at this time of year it is closed on Mondays and Tuesdays. From Wednesday to Sunday, it is open only from 11 am to 3.30 pm. To get in, adults need to pay £4.95; for young people, a visit costs £3.00. That museum is therefore at a considerable disadvantage compared with the nearby Shildon and York railway museums, important to our heritage though it is. It is to the credit of local people that they have managed to support the museum for as long as they have. I understand that this week, it being half-term, entrance is free.

Finance Bill

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Helen Goodman

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has spoken about how the changes might apply to the National Theatre. Is she intending to move on to talk about regional theatre and how those changes may or may not benefit somewhere such as the Darlington Civic Theatre?

[Helen Goodman]

I am, because I know that my hon. Friend has a keen interest in that, as do people up and down this country.

So we have had big cuts to the Arts Council. The Government have also imposed big cuts on local government, and from answers that I have received to freedom of information requests, we now know that on average local authorities are cutting their arts provision by even more—some 14%. So, given the estimates in the Red Book of the value of this tax relief rising from £5 million to £20 million per year, we can immediately see that it does not compensate for the reductions that have been experienced in public support.

My hon. Friend is right: there is a big issue about what is going on in the regions. The “Rebalancing our Cultural Capital” report suggested that the Government were supporting cultural institutions to the tune of 14 times as much per person in London as elsewhere, and that is not conscionable in the long term for this country. It is clearly because of that concern about regional imbalance that the Minister has decided to provide a slightly more generous relief for touring.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Helen Goodman

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

What a shambles. The Government have had more than a year to consider the Bill, and at the very last minute, with only two or three hours to consider this group of Lords amendments, they make an attempt at a concession on domestic violence. We welcome that concession, but I am afraid it does not go nearly far enough. I echo my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State in saying that this wide-ranging group of amendments demonstrates both the scale of opposition to the Bill and the Government’s failure throughout to provide sufficient time for deliberations on it. We have just two hours to consider the Government’s defeats on domestic violence, welfare benefits advice, children with civil justice problems and clinical negligence.

The Opposition will not press Lords amendment 2. Furthermore, given the Government’s amendment to Lords amendment 193, bringing it into line with Lords amendment 192, which was the result of a Division, we are satisfied that the Secretary of State now accepts the otherwise settled cross-governmental definition of domestic violence: any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse, whether psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional, between individuals who are associated with each other. It is a shame that it has taken him so long to agree to something that is otherwise agreed on across Government, by external campaigners for women’s rights and by many Government Members. [Interruption.] I am glad the Lord Chancellor finds this so amusing.

Despite the Government’s acceptance of a common definition of domestic violence—a very welcome concession—there remain legitimate and pressing concerns that the Government seek to use an evidential gateway that in no way implements the spirit of the agreed definition.

Lords amendments 194 and 196 are the result of Government defeats in another place. They would place in statute forms of evidence that a victim can present to get the help that they need to escape their abuser and protect their children. That list of forms of evidence is already used by other Government agencies. For example, the UK Border Agency uses it for the purpose of proving abuse in immigration cases. It is not just Labour, nor the 84% of Cross Benchers who voted in favour of those amendments, who support the use of that list. Mumsnet, the Women’s Institute, Rights of Women, End Violence Against Women and more groups all warned that the Government’s originally proposed list of acceptable evidence would prevent many abused women from asserting their right to live free of violence.

The new list that the Lord Chancellor proposes significantly omits certain domestic violence services. In another place, my noble Friend Baroness Scotland put a case that I imagine helped to persuade him that she was right. It is a pity, however, that he seems unable to accept the list of forms of evidence that she proposed. She said:

“We should look at the average case, such as when a woman has run from her home. She manages to go to her GP”—

many such women do not—

“who sees the injuries and notes them and then sends her to hospital because there are fears that she may have cracked a rib or another bone. She is seen by the medical staff and they verify that the injuries that she complains of are genuine. Her neighbours may have come in to rescue her from an assault. They may not have seen the assault taking place but have noted what was happening and taken her away. Social services may have come along and examined the children, spoken to them and heard what they had to say. All of that might have been used by the police who then came along and arrested the man. He may then acknowledge that he has indeed committed the offences that are alleged against him. Even if all those things had happened, under these provisions the woman would not be entitled to legal aid.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 January 2012; Vol. 734, c. 595.]

I can see why the Lord Chancellor was persuaded by that, but it is a shame that he has not been persuaded to accept what Baroness Scotland went on to recommend. That cannot be right.

It is shambolic to present us with the new list at the very last minute. If the Government’s gateway excludes domestic violence cases from legal aid, it is not fit for purpose. Rights of Women has conducted a survey of abuse victims showing that 46% would have been excluded by the Government’s original list. All of them, however, would be covered by the provisions of Lords amendments 194 and 196. There has not been an opportunity to assess how many would be excluded under the Lord Chancellor’s new list.

The Government claim, in defiance of our Lords amendments, that they do not want to be hamstrung by a list of forms of evidence that may need to change over time. I accept that it might emerge that one of them is prone to abuse, but were that the case, the Government have powers under clause 9(2) to vary or omit acceptable forms of evidence in schedule 1. If the Government provided evidence of abuse of the system and could demonstrate the need to change the list, we would of course not oppose that. I say to Government Members who express concern that one or more forms of evidence on the list might be open to abuse that that is the best route to fixing it.

For now, the list that we have suggested—I say once again that the Government already use it to decide whether individuals have the right to settle in our country—should also be used to decide whether our fellow citizens who suffer abuse should have basic advice and representation. To abandon them to mediation or self-representation in the courts system, with no one to help them deal with their abuser, would be simply cruel. Furthermore, it would go against the long sweep of decades of cross-party harmony on dealing with the horrors of domestic abuse.

According to Home Office figures, the joint governmental strategy to deal with domestic abuse, which was led by my noble Friend Baroness Scotland between 2003 and 2010, cut domestic violence by 64% and saved the state £7.5 billion a year. For the practical, moral and economic reasons that I have mentioned, I urge the Government to think again about domestic violence services that support 125,000 women, only 17,000 of them in refuges. Should they not do so, we will seek to press Lords amendment 146 to a vote, but owing to the inexplicably compressed time scales, we will not force a Division on Lords amendment 148. We will seek to address both matters in another place should the vote be lost.

I move on to Lords amendments 168 and 169, on welfare benefits advice. I welcome the Government’s decision to accept the essence of the latter, which would allow funding for advice and representation on appeals to the upper tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court on matters relating to welfare benefits.

[Helen Goodman]

I was slightly confused by what my hon. Friend said about the Lords amendments on domestic violence. Is she saying that she will press for a vote on Lords amendment 194 or on Lords amendment 196?

[Mrs Chapman]

On Lords amendment 194.

Campaigners have advocated for nearly two years the funding that I described, and we are delighted that the Government have now seen the light. However, they continue to fail to do so when it comes to reviews and first-tier tribunals, which are the only mechanisms by which fact can be challenged. We seem to be a bit fuzzy about points of law and fact, so I point out that higher courts deal only with points of law.

Before the debates in another place on legal aid funding for advice on welfare benefits, the noble Lord Pannick QC wrote to all peers making the case for welfare benefits advice. He made a simple and powerful case for those unlawfully denied disability benefits having access to advice. The case is well understood by Government Members, and I can only imagine that that is how they managed to eke out the concession from the Lord Chancellor at the very last minute.

Before the election, the Prime Minister wrote a powerful piece for The Independent on his experience with the benefits system. He said that

“life for parents of disabled children is complicated enough without having to jump through hundreds of government hoops. After the initial shock of diagnosis you’re plunged into a world of bureaucratic pain. Having your child assessed and getting the help you’re entitled to means answering the same questions over and over again, being buried under snow drifts of forms, spending hours on hold in the phone queue…I am determined to make life simpler for parents.”

Later, he posited a solution in a speech, saying he wanted to help disabled people when they have a problem accessing the benefits system. He said:

“For the sake of these families’ sanity we are looking at the evidence and considering…pulling professionals like doctors, paediatric nurses, physiotherapists and benefits specialists together in one team to act as a one-stop-shop for assessment and advice.”

I have no doubt the Prime Minister wrote openly and honestly, so it is baffling that his Justice Secretary is taking specialist advice away from disabled people and, worse still, from children, who have absolutely no ability to navigate the justice system alone.

We can see the problem and there are obvious solutions, but the Justice Secretary has broken the promises that have been made. Here is another example of those broken promises. Asked by The Guardian what the big society was, the Prime Minister immediately pointed to his local citizens advice bureau, but Citizens Advice, the primary agency that delivers welfare benefits advice, is facing massive cuts because of these changes. Alongside law centres and other neighbourhood advice services, citizens advice bureaux are both value for money and valued by the communities they serve, but now their future is very uncertain.