Leaving the EU: Workers’ Rights

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The UK has gone beyond EU minimum standards in so many instances, including maternity entitlements, leave and pay for the other parent, shared parental leave, minimum holiday rights and the national minimum wage. One of the EU’s own agencies, EuroCloud, ranks the UK as the second best country in the EU for workplace wellbeing, and that is something of which the Government are extremely proud.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

In the United States, employment contracts are at will. There is no right to union representation, there is two- week holiday pay entitlement, there are no maternity rights, and there is no entitlement to sick pay. Think of that. Is it not the case that the purpose of not making alignment with the European Union legally binding is to align more closely with the United States?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady will know that what she has just said is absolutely not the case. The EU minimum standard is 20 days’ paid holiday; the UK’s is 28. There is no minimum wage in the EU; in the UK, we are moving to £10.50. Moreover, we are introducing a right of transparency from day one for all employees in respect of their employment entitlements. The UK already far exceeds the EU’s minimum standards, and there is no way that, in a free trade deal, the United Kingdom will need to—or agree to—give away anything that we think is in the interests of the UK’s workers. This Government are committed to making the UK the best place in the world in which to work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. Different touch points with consumers are important. For example, when people go for a replacement tax on their car, they should be immediately alerted to the fact that, instead of paying that tax, they could pay for a new electric vehicle.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Electric vehicles represent a fantastic opportunity to combat climate change and boost manufacturing jobs. That is why Labour is committed to investing £2.3 billion in three new battery gigafactories, £3 billion in support for manufacturing new car models, and £3.6 billion in our electricity grid and charging infrastructure, and we will also provide targeted interest-free loans for new electric cars for up to 500,000 people a year. We will do all that while retaining membership of the world’s largest customs union. Apart from a few ad hoc pots of money, the Government are proposing green licence plates. When it comes to climate change and manufacturing, is it not true that the Government are all hot air and no action?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The hon. Lady just reeled off a list, so I will reel off my own list of good news, starting with the fact that Government announced £1 billion to increase the capacity for electric car development. On 10 October, Nissan launched the new Juke model after investing £100 million in Sunderland. On 26 September, Jaguar Land Rover announced its latest investment in the Gaydon facility, close to my constituency. On 18 September, INEOS Automotive announced that its headquarters and assembly plant for its SUV will be based in Bridgend. BMW’s new MINI Electric launched in July. JLR has made a massive investment in electric engines at Castle Bromwich. On 20 March, Toyota announced a collaboration with Suzuki to make an electric version of its Corolla model. That is all real investment, not “hot air”. The Labour party would crash the economy, raise taxes and have nothing—nowt—to spend on the green economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jake Berry]

I know that the Secretary of State and my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), are working tirelessly to support the steel industry across the country and I know that they will continue to look at how they can support Grimsby steel.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

In the north, European structural funds helped to create 70,000 jobs and 16,000 new businesses between 2007 and 2013. The Minister’s complacent and lackadaisical refusal to divulge any details of the shared prosperity fund raises real doubts that this will be a true replacement for those vital funds enabling significant regional decision making. So will he put the north above party infighting, help power up the north and commit to giving details of that fund before the end of the Tory leadership election?

Industrial Strategy: North-East of England

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure and honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), on securing this important and timely debate. The industrial strategy in the north-east does not receive the attention it deserves, so I am grateful to her for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall and for making such a passionate and comprehensive opening speech. She combined in-depth knowledge of her constituency and region with real lived experience. In that, she was joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who all grew up and have lived in the region, and spoke with such knowledge. It is a pity that that knowledge is not reflected by the presence of Government Members from north-east constituencies, but Labour Members have done well and have spoken with in-depth knowledge about our region.

Like other hon. Members, I will talk a little about the past. We are very proud of our industrial heritage. I grew up in Newcastle in the shadow of industrial greats such as Armstrong, Stephenson and Parsons—that, by the way, is Rachel Parsons, the world’s first female naval engineer, who inspired me to become an engineer. I always like to remind colleagues from across the UK that the north-east literally drove the first industrial revolution. There might be some debate about where the first ticket office was—you were wise not to rule on that, Mr Betts, but perhaps we can have a parliamentary inquiry on that important subject—but there is no debate about who invented the railways. George Stephenson built the locomotive in my constituency, and our region mined and built many of the industrial riches that flowed from the first industrial revolution.

Today, as we have heard, manufacturing makes up approximately 15% of the north-east economy, and we have more than 63,000 specialist workers in our successful advanced manufacturing sector. We have a 126,000-strong workforce in wider manufacturing, and an average of 51,000 science, technology, engineering and mathematics students come through our universities every year. We are in the top five UK regions for advanced manufacturing. We have world-class universities and growing strengths in science, digital, energy, healthcare and business.

Years of deindustrialisation, and chronic underinvestment in infrastructure and education, have left the north-east with significant economic challenges. No one who lived in the region in the 1980s can forget what forced deindustrialisation did to our region, the economic livelihoods that were lost and the talent and potential that was lost with them. The financialisation of our economy that followed centred on London and the south and meant that thousands of manufacturing jobs in the north-east were lost. As leading economist Mariana Mazzucato has argued, the “two faces” of financialisation are at the heart of capitalism’s fundamental failure. The first is that the financial sector has stopped resourcing the real economy. Instead of investing in companies that produce stuff, finance is financing finance. The second is how financialisation changes the motors behind economic activity, giving investors with short-term interests more control over firms. That disproportionately affects the north-east—a region that still takes pride in making and building things. Its legacy is low productivity and low pay.

As we heard from many of my hon. Friends, Brexit adds more uncertainty. The north-east exports more than it imports, as my hon. Friends the Members for Sedgefield, for Washington and Sunderland West, and for Blaydon highlighted, and more than half of that goes to the European Union. No matter what deal there is, there will be negative economic consequences for our region. A no-deal Brexit would be absolutely catastrophic. I ask the Minister to rule that out personally.

As my hon. Friends emphasised, the north-east received almost £0.5 billion in European structural investment funding in the period 2014 to 2020. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said, projections for the next seven years suggest that we would have received up to £1 billion in EU funding, but the Government’s paltry stronger towns fund repackages existing money to the tune of £1 billion for all UK regions. As my hon. Friends said, we have no details about the supposed shared prosperity fund. Labour has committed to matching European Union regional development funding for at least the next decade, so will the Minister take this opportunity to commit to tackling regional inequality by guaranteeing the continuation of the current and projected future levels of regional funding?

At the heart of tackling the challenges that our great region faces needs to be a strong, positive industrial strategy capable of building and rebuilding the economy to meet the needs of the future. Until very recently, the Government were incapable of saying “industrial” and “strategy” in the same sentence, so their acknowledgment of the need for local industrial strategies is a step forward. Unfortunately, we have no evidence that the Government’s industrial strategy is anywhere near sufficient for the north-east’s needs. Their industrial strategy is sectoral, favours sectors that are already well organised and can push to the front of the queue, and focuses on what I, as an engineer, would call “sexy science”. Last year, Sheffield Hallam University researchers found that the Government’s industrial strategy pledges would impact only 10% of our manufacturing base and only 1% of the whole economy.

The north-east’s five universities make a huge contribution to our economy—they contribute £750 million directly, and £1 billion more through other industries—yet the golden triangle of London-Cambridge-Oxford attracts the lion’s share of research funding—more than £17 billion, compared with only £600 million for the north-east—despite the north-east’s many research-intensive universities, such as Newcastle University. Cambridge, with a population of just over a quarter of a million, has as many private research and development jobs as the whole of the north. Does the Minister agree that innovation should deliver high-skilled jobs across our country, and how will he ensure that local industrial strategies from our local enterprise partnerships and the North of Tyne Mayor have the resources that they need to deliver high-skilled and high-productivity jobs?

Labour’s “innovation nation” mission would raise R&D to 3% of GDP, and would democratise science and technology, so that they benefit the whole country, as well as the whole region. It would also be certain to benefit the north-east’s growing tech industry. We need to maintain our current centres of excellence, but we must ensure that every region can benefit from innovation and growth. That is why we are committed to putting technology and innovation at the heart of the lowest-paid and least productive sectors. My hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon, and for Stockton North, mentioned the importance of retail. We are committed to creating a retail catapult, which will support the 3 million people who work in retail across the UK, making it the UK’s largest private sector employer.

Much of our additional R&D spend would be drawn on by our industrial strategy missions, such as investing in carbon capture and storage, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North also mentioned, as part of our commitment to decarbonise our economy by 2050 and to deliver hundreds of thousands of green jobs in the process. The Government’s refusal to commit to funding a carbon capture and storage facility on Teesside is another example of their unwillingness to invest in the green technologies of the future.

The regional disparity and unique issues that the north-east faces are the reason that we need the £250 billion national investment bank—a network of regional development banks—to which Labour is committed. That would properly put regional needs first and restore regional decision making. Labour’s national education service will address some of the challenges highlighted by my hon. Friends, by delivering education, free at the point of demand, from cradle to grave, and ensuring that we have the skills that our regional businesses need.

As my hon. Friends also highlighted, improving infrastructure is critical to raising productivity. Under the Tories, infrastructure spending in the north-east is five times lower than in London, which is why Labour’s £250 billion national transformation fund would invest in our transport and digital infrastructure. We have already committed to a £1.4 billion investment in north-east transport, which would renew rolling stock on the Metro and build a Crossrail for the north. Would the Minister like to do the same?

Labour would also establish a new materials and metals catapult centre on Teesside—that is supported by UK Steel, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry—to help secure the future of UK steel by encouraging innovation in the materials industry. Will the Minister secure the future of UK steel with a commitment to support it?

As we have heard, the north-east is a fantastic region that offers a quality of life that is second to none, with sun, surf, castles, coasts, rolling landscapes, history—including the Romans—excellent local produce and excellent industry. We need a real industrial strategy to support the north-east, realise its potential and deliver an economy that ensures prosperity for everyone across our region. Labour’s industrial strategy is positive, practical and visionary enough to know the future that we want, while focusing on addressing our present challenges in productivity, skills and wages. Will the Minister commit to doing the same?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson]

I think that I am correct in saying that the Secretary of State has not ruled that option out. However, the thing to bear in mind about nationalisation is that, even if British Steel were nationalised, the same state aid rules apply: the company has to be run on a commercial basis in order to be compliant with those rules. Therefore, nationalisation is not a simple solution; it might be the solution, but it is not an easy option.

Lots of steel companies in the UK and across Europe are doing great work, and I hope that we can find an experienced company in the sector that wants to invest in British Steel. If we look at the steel sector pipeline—orders and infrastructure projects across the UK, such as Hinkley Point, High Speed 2 and various other big projects—there is sizeable domestic demand for products made by British Steel. I think that the company has a strong future. I am therefore very hopeful that over the coming weeks and months we will find a good buyer who will want to invest in the site and, most importantly, its workers who have such skills and knowledge of the industry, to ensure the future of steelmaking in that part of this country.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for responding to questions about the key strategic asset of British Steel and of that capability. He cited state aid rules as a crucial concern in providing the right level of financial and other support. Does he agree that different countries interpret state aid rules in different ways? Other countries within the European Union have been, shall we say, far more innovative, creative and supportive with their strategic industrial capacities, despite the same state aid rules environment. Will he commit to publishing parts of the legal advice on the possible infringement of state aid, so that we can see whether there is a way to provide British Steel with the support it requires within the European Union and, indeed, World Trade Organisation state aid rules, which other countries do manage to achieve?

[Andrew Stephenson]

The shadow Minister makes a valid point about the interpretation of state aid rules. The challenge of the rules in relation to the steel sector is that they are particularly rigid. A lot of the global overcapacity was created by illegal subsidies around the world for domestic steel producers.

We received legal advice from within the Department and, on the Secretary of State’s instruction, we sought a second opinion, because we wanted to ensure that there was definitely nothing more that we could do. The accounting officer’s advice has, I believe, been laid in the Libraries of both Houses, so it is available to all hon. Members who wish to see it. I hope that it sets out how the Government looked at the issue in a detailed way.

The reason I mentioned the 87 meetings is that we were meeting morning, evening and night about it, in order to find a way through. The Secretary of State, whom I have the pleasure of working with and serving under, has a real commitment to the north-east. Originally, he is from that part of the world, and he really wants the British Steel site to remain a going concern. Through the number of meetings he has had, the £120 million bridging facility provided to the industry and other things, he clearly demonstrates a commitment to finding a way through, but it has to be legal and compliant with both UK domestic law and EU law. I look forward to continuing to work with him, hon. Members in all parts of the House, trade unions and others to ensure a future for British Steel.

Returning to research and development spending, we have committed record investment in UK infrastructure: £37 billion has been committed through the national productivity investment fund, including £2.5 billion for the transforming cities fund to improve transport, £5.5 billion for the housing infrastructure fund and £740 million for digital infrastructure. That infrastructure investment has been of direct relevance to the north-east of England. In March, the Government announced that £10 million from the first tranche of the transforming cities fund will be allocated to the north-east, and £35.9 million of housing infrastructure funding has been allocated to the region.

Aside from that national work, all places will produce local industrial strategies, setting out how the quest for prosperity will come to life in our cities, towns and rural areas. The first local industrial strategy was published on 16 May in the west midlands. I was delighted to join local councillors and others in Coventry to launch that strategy. The north-east and the Tees Valley areas are both in the second wave of places to produce their own local industrial strategies in collaboration with Government. In the area of the hon. Member for North Tyneside, that work is led by the North East local enterprise partnership, which has a strong history of evidence-based delivery and is well placed to develop a powerful and distinctive local industrial strategy for the region. So far, a number of critical local drivers have been identified to improve productivity in the north-east: from the need to grow small businesses and to improve start-up rates, to improving the skills base of the local workforce.

The north-east boasts a cutting-edge technological and knowledge economy, based on its four leading universities and its fast-growing digital and tech sectors. On the doorstep are tremendous opportunities in east coast offshore energy, as well as deep expertise in advanced manufacturing. I am particularly interested in the contribution that the area could make to the ageing society grand challenge, which was cited by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). The north-east is home to the £40 million National Innovation Centre for Ageing, which reflects Newcastle University’s longstanding leadership in that field. There is a powerful story to tell about how the north-east, with its large rural area and expertise of the transition away from heavy industry, is ideally placed to lead the response to this national and global challenge.

The north-east local industrial strategy will be empowered by the recent North of Tyne devolution deal, which covers three north-east authorities: Newcastle, Northumberland and the home authority of the hon. Member for North Tyneside. I congratulate the three councils on their successful pursuit of devolution, and Jamie Driscoll on his recent election as the first North of Tyne Mayor. The Government have a strong track record of working with the elected mayors, including Ben Houchen in Tees Valley. Alongside specific powers such as control over the adult education budget, the deal includes a total investment fund of £600 million over 30 years, to be used by the area to pursue its local growth goals. Local estimates are that the investment will generate £1.1 billion for the local economy and create 10,000 new jobs.

The north-east local industrial strategy will build on a strong track record of investment in the wider North East local enterprise partnership area. Over the three rounds of the local growth fund, £379.6 million will be invested in the North East LEP area. That includes £1 million for the Ignite centre for engineering and innovation in North Tyneside. I look forward to visiting the north-east and Tees Valley—shortly I will visit the Centre for Process Innovation, which has bases in both areas. That centre has a strong record of collaboration with Government, including a £38 million grant from UK Research and Innovation to establish a national biologics industry innovation centre in Darlington.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I am very keen to see the UK move forward with carbon capture, use and storage. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the report by the Committee on Climate Change, which suggested that we could move towards a target of net zero in the same cost envelope as our current target. It says that carbon capture and storage has to be part of the mix. That will accelerate what the Government are doing in this area. I will certainly pass on remarks from today’s debate to the Minister for Energy and Climate Change, as I am sure she will want to focus on this area. When I am in the region, I will be keen to see some of the work in the renewables sector, and I will also pay close attention to carbon capture, use and storage now that the hon. Gentleman has raised it.

I will visit the CPI’s Redcar centre to discuss its achievements and ambitions and the development of the industrial strategy. I look forward to attending the northern powerhouse SME roadshow in June, to discuss investment opportunities and links to the industrial strategy across the whole of the north. Through local partnerships with Government and the impact of national investments, we expect the north-east and Tees Valley to play a full part in the industrial strategy agenda.

I was pleased to hear a number of hon. Members support various Highways England projects in the region, including Silverlink and improvements to the A19. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for North Tyneside about power lines; she has raised that point on numerous occasions and has met my ministerial colleague about this issue, who wrote to Ofgem about it, and we are looking at possible ways forward. I am sure we will continue to push the point, and I assure her that her remarks today have not gone unnoticed.

Members rightly raised the importance of the east coast main line. At the Cabinet meeting in Newcastle in July 2018, a £780 million investment in the east coast main line was announced, which hopefully will mean faster journey times and more frequent services. That builds on the £337 million that was announced to upgrade local transport through a new fleet on the Tyne and Wear metro.

I strongly agree with the comments by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West about the importance of Nissan and its huge strength in battery technology. I agree that the company is incredibly well placed to benefit from schemes such as the Government’s £246 million Faraday battery challenge, which is supporting the development of new battery technology in a market that will be worth £5 billion to the UK by 2025.

As the Minister responsible for the automotive sector, I recognise that the sector will go through more change in the next 10 years than it has in the last 100. We need to work closely with car manufacturers based in the UK to help them with that transition and to ensure that they decide this is the best country in the world in which to invest in new, cleaner modes of transport.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Minister speaks about the importance of battery technology, and Nissan’s strength in particular, but does he recognise that while the five-year fund supports investment in battery technology, it does not support investment in battery manufacturing? In this country we need a battery manufacturing base, so that batteries are not simply imported. Will he speak to that? I also hope he will not forget to respond to the concerns about a replacement for European regional development and structural investment funds.

[Andrew Stephenson]

The shadow Minister is correct; that is one of the reasons why we have the industrial strategy challenge fund. I mentioned my being in Coventry to launch the west midlands local industrial strategy, which was the first to be launched. On that day, I was delighted to visit the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre and to announce a further £28 million for that facility, which will be about production. It will take technologies being developed in places such as the Advanced Propulsion Centre and see how to produce batteries here in the UK. Some existing companies that have already done incredible work, such as Nissan, have the potential to bid for some of the Government funds that are already available, as well as future funds. That is fundamental because of the number of petrol engines we produce in the UK: to keep the UK as an automotive hub, we need to ensure that companies across the board invest in battery technology and production in the UK.

Questions have been asked about the £675 million high streets fund, the £1.6 billion stronger towns fund and the UK shared prosperity fund. More details of all those funds will be published in due course. They show the Government’s commitment to addressing the challenges raised by Members today. We need to invest more in renewable technologies, as was raised by several Members. The offshore wind sector deal is a great example of that. The Government’s commitment to the sector is underlined by the £92 billion of public and private investment in renewables since 2010. We have just finished an 18-day coal-free run in our power supply.

Lots has been done, but there is lots more to do, and lots of great ideas have been suggested today. I look forward to working with all Members who spoke in the debate and to visiting their constituencies and some of the projects they talked about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The discussions that we have had are intended to ensure that the steel sector, which is of fundamental importance to this country, can benefit from some of the manufacturing opportunities that we have talked about. As we expand our production of vehicles, as I hope we will do, there will be a strong requirement for steel, and through the proposed strategy we will ensure that that is British steel.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s industrial strategy states that manufacturing is crucial to the economy and promises to support businesses to access international markets and drive up exports. However, according to Make UK, stockpiling in the UK is now the highest of any G7 nation ever, as manufacturers try to protect themselves from Brexit uncertainty. Chambers of commerce across the country report falls in cash flow because money tied up in stock is not available to drive exports or pay wages. Cash flow is the lifeblood of manufacturing and the cause of up to 90% of business failures. Whatever the eventual outcome of the Government’s Brexit shambles, British manufacturers must be in business to meet its challenges, so will he now commit to providing financial support?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady quotes Make UK. The chief executive of Make UK, with whom I meet almost every week, has said:

“Make UK has consistently supported the Government’s withdrawal agreement as it removes the risk of no deal and delivers a sensible transition period which is vital for the needs of manufacturers.”

I think the hon. Lady and I have a joint view on the importance of manufacturing, not least in the north-east. I hope that she will have the flexibility and pragmatism to come together—I am talking to her colleague the shadow Secretary of State—and agree a way forward in line with what Make UK recommends.

Exiting the European Union (Structural and Investment Funds)

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for setting out the technical details of the statutory instrument so clearly. Here we have yet another statutory instrument that makes provision for the regulatory framework after Brexit if we crash out without a deal. The parliamentary recess has been cancelled because of the sheer volume of SIs to be dealt with before 29 March. Of the 442 laid since June, 269 have yet to be passed. Of the 20 SIs relating to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy passed in 2019, only two had impact assessments available.

As many of my shadow ministerial colleagues have made clear, the volume and flow of secondary legislation on European Union exit is deeply worrying in the context of accountability and proper scrutiny. The Government have assured the Opposition that no policy decisions are being taken, but the establishment of a regulatory framework inevitably involves matters of judgment and raises questions about resourcing and capacity. In that light, the Opposition wish to put on record our deepest concerns about the process for the regulations.

Labour will not oppose the statutory instrument, given the importance of the European structural and investment funds to the United Kingdom. We recognise the necessity of ensuring that the requisite regulations are in place to allow the UK to manage such funding, but we have serious concerns about the scope of this SI and the Government’s complete failure to take effective action to reduce regional inequality in the UK. The Government have presided over the UK becoming the most regionally unequal country in the European Union. We are the second most unequal country in the OECD, with only Mexico ahead of us. We are home to the richest region in northern Europe—London—but we also have six of the 10 poorest regions. In London, disposable income per household is almost 60% higher than it is in Wales and in many regions in England. Transport spending per head is 15 times higher in London than it is in Yorkshire.

The Government have not only failed to tackle regional inequality, but increased it. Their local government finance settlement shows a party so beholden to ideology that they will willingly deepen the crisis in our councils, which have been

“gutted by a series of government policies.”

Those are not my words, but those of the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. European structural and investment funding plays a significant role in tackling just such economic and developmental disparities between regions. It is all the more important because of the impact of the past 10 years of Tory Government.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady refers to some figures that, I think, come from the Institute for Public Policy Research, saying that the spending in Yorkshire is 15 times lower than it is in London.

[Chi Onwurah]

On transport.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, but those figures are inaccurate. The contribution from central Government is pretty much on a par on a per capita basis. The difference comes when we add in local authority spending on transport infrastructure and private sector investment. It is about 3:1, which is still too great a differential, but it is important that we look at the figures in the round and factually, rather than at some of the headline figures.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is important that we look at the background to the statistics that we use. I can say to him very clearly that, for example, the statistics used by Transport for the North and other reputable bodies show consistently higher per head spending in London than in our regions, including in his and mine.

In the hon. Gentleman’s region, in my region and across the country, ESI funding supports our people, our businesses and our innovation. Those things are simply too important for us to leave questions about transition unanswered. Over the current 2014 to 2020 funding cycle, the European structural and investment funds are worth more than €19 billion to the UK, including €10 billion in direct investment. Wales alone, as one of the poorest regions in the UK, is receiving €2.4 billion in the current period. The impact of that funding is huge; the impact of losing it would be greater.

In the past 10 years, it is estimated that European Union investment has created more than 115,000 jobs and 25,000 businesses. In my constituency, funding from the European regional development fund supported the construction of The Core, part of the Newcastle Helix, and the growth of more than 800 local businesses through Supply Chain North East. Throughout the UK, EU funding has driven growth in the low-carbon economy, particularly through investment in research and innovation, and it has ensured that it is local economies that have benefited. It is not just income that the European Union funds provide: the security guaranteed by the seven-year funding cycle of structural funds allows economic planning in partnership across local authorities, the private and third sectors over a longer period than our domestic funding. That security is crucial to attracting the necessary match funding from donor partners.

The statutory instrument deals purely with projects that start before the Brexit exit day on 29 March and enables them to be administered according to pre-agreed frameworks. None the less, we need more clarity. Does that refer to projects that have been approved before 29 March, or just projects that have actually started, and how is started to be defined? What of projects started after exit? How are those to be administered?

We have been promised that funding for all projects up to 2020 is guaranteed and that projects will continue to be signed under the same terms until 2020. What we have not been told is anything about how these projects are to be run, how decisions are to be made and how funding is to be allocated. According to the instrument, these frameworks are still being drawn up. It states merely that delivery frameworks for future projects will be

“based on the pre-exit framework and the same investment priorities as have been applied for existing Structural Fund projects.”

Who will make these decisions, and how do the Government intend to replace EU structural funding in the longer term?

The Government have committed to a successor fund—the shared prosperity fund—and to holding a consultation on that fund by the end of 2018. In case the Minister has not noticed, it is now 2019. We are just 38 days away from 29 March, but we have yet to hear a single detail about how that fund is supposed to work. How do the Government plan to replicate the security of the seven-year EU funding period, and how do they intend to administer the shared prosperity fund? The Minister said that that was not within the scope of this statutory instrument, but I think that to give confidence in the ongoing funding and the decisions that the Minister is taking, it is necessary that we understand that there is a strategic vision for what will happen after Brexit.

EU structural and investment funding has traditionally been focused through regional and sub-regional bodies and aligned to regional priority programmes. That has given our local areas a strong degree of direct influence and control over resources and the ability to align them with other local and regional investment—an ability that is all too often missing in relation to central Government funding. Unfortunately, because the coalition Government chose to abolish regional development agencies, the current ESIF programme lost much of that local knowledge. Instead we have a national approach with regional allocations, and leadership and administration of funds moving from regional development agencies to central Government Departments. Despite the committed work of local enterprise partnerships and their partners working in the regions, the loss of regional control over funds has resulted in their being targeted less effectively and subjected to significant delay in approvals and delivery, as well as being less responsive to local needs and aspirations.

How does the Minister intend to make the right decisions for regions, given the lack of regional development authorities? We need clarity; we need details, not just empty promises, because real jobs, businesses and communities are at risk. This Government’s continued failure to address regional inequality is the hallmark of a Tory party that places narrow party interests above the good of the country.

The absence of any plans that deal with projects started after exit day and the deafening silence about the shared prosperity fund leave our regional economies in jeopardy. While we are not opposed to the statutory instrument, we want to know how the Government will do more to safeguard the future of our communities. Labour has committed to matching European Union funding for regional development for at least the next decade. Why will the Minister not follow suit? A Labour Government would invest £250 billion in a national transformation fund to meet the infrastructural needs of every part of our country, and create a network of regional development banks to ensure growth in the areas that most need it.

We need a viable plan for sustainable and equitable regional development—one that reflects the needs of the region, one that empowers local people and grows local economies, and one that can guarantee funding for all our communities. It is evidently one that only a Labour Government can provide.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

In the Labour party’s long history of standing up for working people, the introduction of the national minimum wage in 1998 was a particularly proud moment, and let us never forget that Conservative Members unanimously opposed that introduction.

I want to start by saying that we will not oppose this increase in the minimum wage for working people; any increase in pay for those on the lowest pay is to be welcomed. However, this small rise is entirely insufficient, and is emblematic of a Government who will only do the very barest minimum for working people, and often not even that.

There is a crisis in our country. Millions are struggling to make ends meet. Work is no longer a guarantor of a decent standard of living; indeed, work and poverty are no longer contradictory under this Government. The failed policy of austerity has had a terrible impact on our communities. Years of austerity have bred wage stagnation, which in turn has meant that 4 million workers across the country are living in poverty. Real wages are still almost £15 a week lower than 10 years ago, and they will not recover to those levels until the mid-2020s.

But at the same time, the rich are getting richer and our country gets even more unequal. Top executives are now paid 133 times more than the average worker, which means the salary of the average FTSE chief executive is the same as that of 386 workers on the minimum wage combined.

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech, but does she agree that as a result of the taxation policies of this Government, the richest are paying more tax than ever before, and that by changing the tax rates we have lifted the lowest paid in our society out of paying tax entirely?

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it does show a lack of understanding of the economic realities in our country. The richest are not paying their fair share; the poorest are paying more in tax, particularly through that most unequal and unprogressive of taxes, value added tax, which the coalition Government immediately raised when they came into power. So the poorest in our country are being taxed more and the richest are not bearing their share of the burden.

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady mentioned VAT. Is it her party’s policy to lower VAT, should it ever come into power?

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Wait and see!

[Chi Onwurah]

As one of my colleagues helpfully says, the hon. Gentleman must wait and see. In our 2017 manifesto, we set out our fully funded taxation and spending policy. The hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that a fairer taxation policy would not only enable us to fund our public services better but ensure that our economy was growing and that the growth was shared by all those who contributed to it, unlike what is happening at the moment. Last month, we learned that household debt was at its highest rate ever. Many people are reliant on borrowing, not for luxuries but for essentials such as putting food on the table for their children, and food bank use has skyrocketed.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Our 2017 manifesto was fully costed and full of figures, but the only figures in the Conservative manifesto were the page numbers. According to the StepChange charity, 3,500 families containing 5,000 children in my constituency are in toxic debt, owing about £14.5 million. Does she agree that this is because of eight years of austerity?

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The burden of debt has been shifted. We still have our public debt, but the burden has been shifted on to our poorest families. The national figures for debt are a matter of great concern for our future economic stability. As a consequence, food bank use has skyrocketed, with wages no longer covering basic living costs. In my constituency, Newcastle’s West End food bank is the largest in the country. That is not an achievement of which we are proud, but we are proud of the generous Geordies who take on the role that this Government have abandoned in feeding the most vulnerable among us.

We know that 5.2 million people are trapped in low pay, and small single-figure percentage increases in the legal minimum wage will not put an end to this misery. Shockingly, one in four employees earning the minimum wage for five years have been unable to move out of that low pay, which is the highest figure since records began. Low pay is becoming a trap, and the workers least likely to escape the low pay trap are those in the north-east and women. They are being trapped by the lack of action from this Government. Will the Minister admit that, under the Tories, low pay means that work is not a protection against poverty? I want to make it clear that, despite its name, the Government’s minimum living wage is not a real living wage. The small increase that this statutory instrument introduces will not make it a real living wage. More than 5 million people are paid less than the living wage—a huge increase from the 3.4 million people in 2009.

[Mike Wood]

The shadow Minister refers to small increases in the minimum wage. An increase of 38p in the national minimum wage is now being introduced. Can she tell the House in how many of the 10 years after the introduction of the national minimum wage the Labour Government made a bigger increase than the 38p that workers will see under this increase?

[Chi Onwurah]

When we introduced the national minimum wage, it was a transformative change for the pay of so many low-paid people, and our commitment to a real living wage of £10 an hour will also be transformative for working people.

Research by the Living Wage Foundation, which the hon. Gentleman might be interested in, revealed that one in five workers—more than 5 million people—is paid less than the living wage, which is a huge increase from 3.4 million in 2009. In Newcastle, 30% of workers who live there and 20% of those who work there are paid less than the real living wage. In the north-east, around 238,000 jobs are not paid the living wage. I am therefore particularly proud that, despite having its budget halved by reckless Tory austerity over the past decade, in January Newcastle City Council renewed its commitment to pay all staff the real living wage. After a decade of imposing austerity, this Government will still not give workers a real living wage. Will the Minister tell me why the Government will not follow Newcastle City Council’s example and raise the minimum wage to a real living wage?

The Minister said that she does not represent the Department for Work and Pensions, but she does represent the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which is not paying the London living wage to all its staff. Will the Minister confirm the number of employees who are not receiving the London living wage? Will she explain how we can have confidence in her ability to enforce even the national minimum wage when her own staff are striking due to the lack of a decent wage from the Government of the day?

[Chris Stephens]

The shadow Minister makes an important point. UK Departments are not complying with the London living wage, and people are taking industrial action. Does she agree that that needs sorting out today?

[Chi Onwurah]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A Government who cannot even guarantee a decent wage to their own employees should not be able to speak in this debate. I hope that the Minister will clarify the points that I have raised and confirm that a real London living wage will be paid to the Government’s employees. It is totally within their ability to do so.

The increase in the minimum wage will be of some help to the lowest paid, but it will not be transformative. It will not tackle extreme and growing levels of inequality, and it will certainly not end the growing levels of in-work poverty faced by millions. Even if it was a sufficient safety net, the minimum wage would not catch all workers. With the growing gig economy forcing more and more workers into sham self-employment, it is more important than ever that every worker is paid a decent living wage. However, the minimum wage does not cover self-employment, and TUC figures show that almost half of self-employed people earn less than the minimum wage, meaning that 2 million self-employed workers are now stuck on poverty pay. Does the Minister think that that is acceptable? What is she doing to address poverty pay among the self-employed?

Another glaring inconsistency is the huge discrepancy in the minimum wage for people over 21 and for those aged 18 to 20. Will the Minister set out why the Government believe that workers aged 18 to 20 should be paid a far lower rate than those aged 21 for exactly the same work? Why is the adult rate for under 25s less than for those over 25? What is it about a 24-year-old doing exactly the same work as a 26-year-old that leads the Minister to believe the former deserves less?

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the anger felt by young people is palpable? The message that the Government are sending is, “By being younger, you’re not worth as much as someone who is older than you.” What kind of message is that for young people?

[Chi Onwurah]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. What message is being sent to the under-25s about their contribution to our economy? They are exactly the people whose confidence and contribution we need to promote, especially during these difficult times.

In its latest report, the Low Pay Commission found that more than 200,000 workers were underpaid by a cumulative total of £15.6 million last year. From 2017, measured underpayment for those aged 25 and over increased to 23% of all those covered by the national living wage. Does the Minister agree that is simply not good enough?

Labour will stand up for workers against unscrupulous employers by properly resourcing Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is critical to enforcement, and will strengthen the enforcement of labour laws. We will crack down on employers that breach labour market rights and regulations through increased fines and sanctions.

Labour is committed to making work pay, which is why we will ensure a real living wage of at least £10 an hour for all workers aged 18 and over. There is no justification for differential rates based on age. Increasing wages, particularly for the lowest paid, would not only immediately help those workers and their families but would increase demand in our economy and reduce the subsidising of low pay by the state. Given the Government’s chaotic handling of Brexit and the perilous state of our economy as a consequence, does the Minister agree that the economic benefits that a significant increase in the living wage would create are desperately needed?

It is important that the state sets a minimum rate of pay based on the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations, but state minimums are just one part of the solution to low pay. Trade unions are the collective voice of workers and are best placed to bargain over what workers are paid, within a negotiating framework that includes employers. Does the Minister agree that it would be far better if workers had a direct voice in the setting of their pay through, for example, national sectoral collective bargaining?

Workers in this country deserve far better than this Government are offering, and they deserve far better than this Government. That is why Labour will set up a new Department to roll out sectoral collective bargaining, protect the interests of workers and strengthen trade unions, introducing new rights and freedoms so that every worker gets the support, security and pay at work they deserve. This Government are clearly incapable of doing that, but I hope the Minister will at least be able to answer my questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I point out that we introduced the national living wage in 2016. As I said, we have made increases year on year and stuck to our commitment.

I want to answer a few more questions, particularly the question that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) asked about pay for the Department’s security staff. We value all the staff, who deserve fair and competitive wages. The Department has agreed with its contractors to align the pay of cleaning, catering, mailroom and security staff with the median rates for those occupations. That will come into effect on 1 March.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. Is she saying that all staff at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be paid the London living wage from this financial year?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s comment about the London living wage, and we value the work of the Living Wage Foundation. However, it is the Government’s responsibility to set the minimum rate and, as I said, it has been agreed that the wage rates will be aligned with the median rates for those occupations, and that will come into effect on 1 March.

As a result of the increases in pay that will come into effect in April, another 350,000 young workers will benefit. Nine out of 10 workers between the ages of 18 and 24 are paid more than the minimum rates. There has been much criticism of age-related rates, but they are not new. Age-related rates have been in place since the national minimum wage was introduced in 1999. In fact, this Government have asked the Low Pay Commission to review the youth rates this year to see whether they are fit for purpose, and it will report later in the year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know takes an interest in this, that I have always been clear, and indeed the “road to zero” strategy is very clear, that having a new diesel engine is a perfectly reasonable choice as we move towards zero-emission vehicles in the future. That is very clear: I have said it, my colleagues have said it and I am happy to repeat it to the House.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Our car industry is a global success story facing existential challenges—climate change, technology change, market change and Brexit. As 80% of our imported parts come from the European Union and 80% of cars made are exported, including half to the European Union, motor manufacturers say a no deal could mean £4.5 billion in tariffs, affecting hundreds of thousands of jobs. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) are known to favour a customs union in private, but with 45 days to go, do they not have a duty to make the private public, to take no deal off the table and to stand up for a permanent customs union and British jobs?

[Greg Clark]

I would say that the hon. Lady and her colleagues have a duty to listen to what the employers that she mentions have to say. I could mention Ford, which said:

“It’s important that we get the agreement ratified that’s on the table at the moment”.

Aston Martin has said that it is “obvious” that the deal

“meets the needs of all the requests we put forward as an industry”,

and that its needs it to be ratified. McLaren has said that the withdrawal agreement would provide urgently needed certainty. If the hon. Lady wants to follow the representations of our employers, she should do what they say and back the deal.

Unpaid Work Trials

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for securing this important debate and for his excellent opening speech. Like him, I highlight the fantastic campaigns by trade unions, particularly the “Better Than Zero” campaign.

As several Members have set out, unpaid work trials have become a widespread practice in the hospitality, entertainment and retail sectors, but it is important that we place that development in the wider context of the so-called gig economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) did. Characterised by increasingly exploitative working practices and conditions and insecure work, the gig economy affects millions who are struggling to make ends meet, making it harder for someone to say no to unreasonable and exploitative conditions set by employers.

That is the reality for so many, but it is being ignored, and even—dare I say it—encouraged by a Tory Government that represent only the wealthiest few. Everything about the current crisis of work is a consequence of an environment that is designed to reduce the burden on the employer at the expense of millions of workers.

In addition, more than £3 billion is lost in wages every year through unpaid work, with the continuing practice of unpaid work trials a key contributing factor. After a long campaign by the TUC and trade unions, and after attempts by Members—notably the hon. Member for Glasgow South—to introduce legislation have been repeatedly ignored, the Government attempted last December to set out when unpaid trial periods are acceptable. It was about time. As we have heard, a growing number of workers, particularly younger workers and those with learning disabilities, have been asked to work for free in recent years. Research by Unite has shown that, over the past three years, there has been a six-fold increase in complaints about unpaid shifts.

It is not only the trade unions and those who represent workers who say that the current system is not working. The Federation of Small Businesses has expressed concerns that unpaid trial shifts are shading into exploitation. Far too many employers have made people who are seeking work do a full-day trial shift, and in some cases employers have even demanded a full week of free work. That is not limited to small businesses; it includes large companies, as highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

The TUC makes it clear that testing skills and abilities should be part of a structured recruitment process. Having worked in industry for 20 years before I came to Parliament, I support structured recruitment processes, which are far better than the old boys’ networks they often replace. However, there is absolutely no justification for employers demanding a period of free work as the price of entry into a job. In my view, and in the view of the TUC and other campaigners on this issue, employers who require candidates to do any productive work should be made to pay them at least the minimum wage—which, by the way, will be at least £10 an hour under a Labour Government. Why does the Minister think that productive work should go unpaid? Why will she not commit to a £10-per-hour minimum wage?

[David Linden]

I realise that this is probably an unpopular point to mention in this place, because the practice is rife, but does the hon. Lady agree that we need to have a conversation about the use of unpaid internships in this building? Often, people will work for an MP for several weeks and there is a possibility that they might get taken on afterwards. It is not quite an unpaid work trial, but there is still a culture, in this building and in other Parliaments across the UK, of unpaid internships.

[Chi Onwurah]

That is an excellent point, and I would welcome a debate on unpaid internships in this building. I myself offer living-wage paid internships. It also happens in other areas, such as the media, where the BBC and others offer unpaid internships. It is a barrier to entry into certain professions and a form of exploitation.

It is clearly bad employment practice to ask for real work and not pay for it. It also means that employers avoid paying taxes and making a relevant contribution. That leaves the taxpayer and the entire country out of pocket. Will the Minister commit to ending such tax avoidance by preventing unpaid trial shifts?

As the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) emphasised, without strong enforcement the new guidance is not worth the paper it is written on, but the organisations tasked with enforcement have faced huge cuts since 2010. The employment agency standards inspectorate has lost half its budget. That is why a Labour Government will invest in enforcement through a new Minister of Labour. How will the Minister prevent companies from simply choosing to ignore what are, after all, just guidelines?

Employers who require candidates to do any productive work should be made to pay them the national minimum wage. Will the Minister commit to these basic requirements when it comes to trial periods, and if not, why not? Workers deserve more. Ending exploitative unpaid trial shifts is just one aspect of redressing the balance in favour of workers, and that is why we will set up a new Ministry of Labour. If the Minister cannot match that, she should at least commit to ending unpaid trial shifts.

Draft Recognition of Professional Qualifications (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 General Committees

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I will not attempt to out-do the Minister, who is famous throughout the House for his courtesy and compliments, but it is a real honour to be in this Committee.

I am less happy about the fact that we are discussing a statutory instrument that would make provision for the regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out without a deal. On the many occasions that we have had these discussions so far, my Labour colleagues and I have spelled out our objections to this Government’s approach to secondary legislation. Many of my shadow ministerial colleagues have made clear that the volume and flow of European Union exit secondary legislation is deeply concerning for accountability and proper scrutiny. The Government have assured the Opposition that no policy decisions are being taken. However, establishing a regulatory framework, for example, inevitably involves matters of judgment and raises questions about resourcing and capacity.

Secondary legislation ought to be used purely for technical, non-partisan, non-controversial changes, because of the limited accountability it allows. Instead, this Government continue to push through contentious legislation with high policy content via this vehicle. As legislators, we have to get it right. These draft regulations could represent real and substantive changes to the statute book. As such, they need proper, in-depth scrutiny. In that light, the Opposition put on record our deepest concerns that the process regarding these draft regulations is not as accessible, transparent or well scrutinised as it should be.

This statutory instrument deals with what would happen in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Labour believes a no-deal Brexit would risk huge damage to our economy, jobs and living standards. The vote last week shows that a majority in Parliament agree. Labour has called on the Government to take no deal off the table. I welcome the regulations’ transitional provisions to ensure certainty for individuals who have already had their qualifications recognised and for those who have already submitted an application. The General Medical Council said:

“this SI provides us with the necessary transitional arrangements to avoid any legal vacuum for applications made or actions begun but not yet completed by 29 March 2019, thus providing legal certainty for both regulators and professionals during this time.”

As the Minister set out, the regulations amend the European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015, which currently apply only to EEA and Swiss nationals. After the UK leaves the EU, it will no longer be appropriate to retain preferential treatment for EEA and Swiss nationals, so the SI means that individuals from third countries will be treated the same as those from the EEA and Switzerland when recognising professional qualifications. It also makes the primary consideration the country where the qualification was obtained, not nationality; the amended regulations will apply to anyone who holds an EEA or Swiss qualification and will no longer apply to third-country qualifications held by EEA or Swiss nationals.

The 2005 directive, which the Minister referred to, is a central component of freedom of movement as it allows EEA and Swiss nationals to have their professional qualifications recognised in other EEA states and Switzerland, allowing professionals to work abroad. Qualifications including chartered certified accountant, chartered engineer, and chartered surveyor are all subject to a system that requires regulators to recognise qualifications if they are considered equivalent to the same or similar UK qualifications. If they are not, the regulator must offer compensation measures or partial access if feasible. The draft regulations remove those obligations, allowing regulators to decide for themselves the application process, whether to grant access for equivalent qualifications and whether to put in place any compensation measures.

I have been in contact with various professional associations, including the General Medical Council, the Law Society, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the Engineering Council. I am pleased to report that the Government have been in consultation with them, too. The Engineering Council welcomed the draft regulations and said that

“taken as a whole, these provisions would allow the UK to maintain the flow of competent engineering professionals who wish to be recognised in the UK while providing realistic safeguards.”

Those associations broadly support these changes, although some flagged potential issues, which I will turn to in a moment.

First, I will make what may be a declaration of interest. Before I came to the House, I was a professional. I have a professional qualification as a chartered electrical engineer. In that capacity, I worked all over the world, including in the European Union but also in the United States, Nigeria and other countries. Engineers, as well as chemists, accountants, lawyers and other professionals, are often highly mobile. Being able to work abroad not only allows them to develop their careers and have exciting opportunities but benefits the UK when they return, bringing back skills, knowledge and networks. There are many British professionals—lawyers who advise clients in Brussels on European Union law or work on global investigations, for example—whose job involves criss-crossing the channel.

Although what regulators in other countries decide to do is beyond the scope of the draft regulations, giving regulators freedom to choose the regulation process and which qualifications are equivalent may lead to accusations of unfairness or to European regulators refusing to recognise British professional qualifications in retaliation. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales warned me:

“Elements of the SI are open to interpretation. A UK regulator could refuse an EEA applicant by saying the EEA qualification is not equivalent in some way. There is a chance that EU members states will notice this and potentially do the same in their provisions for considering UK nationals/UK qualification holders.”

What discussions has the Minister had with EEA and Swiss regulators about the recognition of UK professional qualifications?

The UK benefits from having access to a wide pool of professionals from Europe and beyond, so I welcome the fact that the draft regulations would open up access to third-country professionals. Several British industries rely on access to professionals from Europe and across the world, and we must avoid having a shortage after we leave the European Union. The draft regulations give individual regulators the power to introduce their own application processes. It is vital that those processes do not become too difficult or expensive and leave us with a deficit of highly skilled workers.

If regulators are unable to secure co-operation with EEA and Swiss regulators, responsibility for obtaining relevant documents may fall to applicants. That would put an additional burden on applicants and may prolong and complicate the application process, potentially dissuading talented individuals with the skills we need from coming to work in the UK. What discussions has the Minister had with regulators about the ease of future recognition processes for applicants and the protection of certain professions, such as engineer, that currently are not protected in EU law but are protected in certain European countries? I do not advocate that; I just wonder whether he has considered it.

As the Minister mentioned, once we leave the EU we will lose access to the internal market information system—the IMI—and the alert mechanism, which enables regulators to exchange information about applications and qualifications, and notify other states of professional or criminal sanctions and of professionals whose activities have been restricted or prohibited. This statutory instrument encourages regulators to communicate voluntarily with EEA and Swiss regulators. Regulators will have to request documents confirming the applicant’s fitness to practise and professional standing. It is vital that good co-operation is secured among regulators so UK regulators have full access to all the information they need to determine whether a person is allowed to work in sensitive positions—for example, as a solicitor or accountant.

What discussions has the Minister had with EEA and Swiss regulators about their willingness to co-operate with UK regulators on the sharing of information and documents? Finally, what discussions has he had with EEA and Swiss regulators about their willingness to co-operate with UK regulators to notify them of an individual’s professional or criminal sanctions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

There is quite a bit to be going on with; I shall do my best.

First, I must politely not accept the shadow Minister’s view that this is the wrong vehicle for the process. I perceive it as necessary; there are many SIs like it. I accept the hon. Lady’s fundamental point, but on other Committees we have discussed the subject and deem this to be the only available vehicle to achieve our objective which, as she and other speakers mentioned, is to have as much continuity as possible, given that we are leaving the European Union.

I agree entirely with what the shadow Minister said about a hard Brexit—crashing out—causing huge damage to the economy and to living standards, and I hope that she and her colleagues will consider that and vote for the Prime Minister’s deal when it comes back to the House, because most of it is in the areas that she, I and others have talked about. I do not accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley that that would be a clean Brexit. I think it would be the dirtiest of Brexits. I am in favour of a clean one: a sensible transition period and then a sensible arrangement, so that for most of the business we do it is business as usual. That is what I call a clean Brexit. On the valid point my hon. Friend made about reciprocal rights, we are unilaterally recognising EEA and Swiss qualifications to mitigate the immediate impact of a no-deal exit, because it ensures the very continuity that anyone would want.

The shadow Minister made some good points about how much this country has benefited from people coming not just from the European Union but from all over the world, and vice versa—many people go to Switzerland and other countries to work, in the way that they should. What we have suggested at least means that we will have a system in place on exit day that recognises professional qualifications and that retains the essential parts of the current situation.

On meetings with the regulators about future recognition processes, I have not met the regulators—I do not want to give the impression that I have—but my officials have met them regularly. We reached the conclusion, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central said, that on the whole, they support the changes. None of them anticipate extensive future burdens on applicants, which would be a very bad part of the system if they were to happen.

That also applies to our engagement with the devolved Administrations through regular meetings. The Department has had technical discussions about the proposed amendments to the regulations and how the policy approach and proposed amendments could have an impact on service provision in the devolved nations. I would not like any Committee member to think that that had been forgotten about or that we were just telling Edinburgh, or anywhere else for that matter, “This is what we are doing.” I hope that that has been fed back to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who has excellent connections with the Scottish Government. We have not picked up anything adverse and I am sure she would be the first to bring something to our attention.

On the point about our professionals not automatically being able to work in the EU or EEA afterwards, because obviously we are giving unilateral rights, the European Commission has previously published guidance on that. Decisions made by another EU member state before exit day about the recognition of our professionals will not be affected by our withdrawal from the EU, but the Commission has advised holders of UK qualifications living in the EU to obtain recognition in an EU27 member state before exit. The Commission will ask member states to consider pending applications made by UK nationals before exit day as if we were still a member state.

In a no-deal scenario, the recognition of qualifications will be assessed under host member state rules. In that scenario, after exit day, our nationals will not be able to provide temporary and occasional professional services as they previously could under the directive, but that will be subject to their host members state’s laws and regulatory frameworks.

[Chi Onwurah]

Just to clarify, given that British citizens living in the European Union will be required to regularise their professional qualifications, does the Minister envisage that there could be circumstances in which they would not be able to continue working without doing so?

[Richard Harrington]

I envisage that there could be those circumstances, depending on the individual EU member state, as I explained, but I have every reason to believe that there will not be. The only way that that could not happen is for there to be no crashing out and for there to be a proper arrangement, which I am sure everybody wants to be the case. The hon. Lady has made valid point; I would not say it was a ridiculous point.

[Richard Harrington]

I am not sure of the answer to that, so I will drop the hon. Lady a note about it tomorrow, if that is acceptable. If she wishes to discuss it further, I would be happy to do so.

[Chi Onwurah]

It would be desirable if the Minister could ask his officials to look at the potential for those circumstances and the two or three areas that would need to follow, which would be to identify where UK citizens working in the European Union might be and to alert them to that potential, and to do some kind of impact assessment—or at least to write to me to say whether he considers that that needs to be done.

[Richard Harrington]

An off-the-cuff response—I know one should not give off-the-cuff responses—would be that given the current European Union regulations, and given that there is not a registration procedure at the moment, I do not know how we would know which UK nationals were working abroad. However, that is just an off-the-cuff answer, and the hon. Lady is probably going to tell me that I am completely wrong.

[Chi Onwurah]

I would never put it quite like that. What I would say is that my concern is not to identify the particular individuals, but the professions and the circumstances in which this situation might occur.

[Richard Harrington]

I apologise for my misunderstanding. I understand exactly what the hon. Lady is saying, and I will happily clarify that issue for her in the next day or so, if that is acceptable.