Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report

Debate between Alan Brown and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Like everybody else, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing this debate, and for all the work she has done in speaking up for 3.8 million affected women for all these years. I also commend all the other Members who have spoken in today’s debate; there have been powerful speeches, and powerful but harrowing stories of how various constituents have been affected by the increases in the state pension age for women.

There is a Back-Bench consensus today that the Government have dragged their heels, that a response is now long overdue, and that compensation is due. We have also disproved the nonsense that women should have known about the increases in their state pension age. Financial advisers and lawyers did not even know: as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said, divorces were granted on the basis of women accessing their pensions at the age of 60.

Some Labour Back Benchers today have rightly criticised the Government for their lack of action and for their policies elsewhere, but then somehow bristled at SNP speakers calling out the silence of their own Front Benchers. We are willing to work cross-party, but we also need pressure for action. If we do not call out what we think is wrongdoing, we are not doing the right thing for the WASPI women who we are all here to represent today.

We would not be in this Chamber today, debating this issue as parliamentarians, if not for fantastic campaigners such as Ayrshire WASPI Group, Cunninghame WASPI Group, WASPI in my constituency, WASPI Scotland, and of course the wider WASPI organisation. I pay tribute to my constituent Ann Hammell, who brought the issue to my attention in my early period as an MP in 2015. Again, it was heartening to hear so many MPs commend their own local campaigners.

Turning to the ombudsman’s report, there are a few key aspects: the findings and confirmation of maladministration in the DWP, compensation to be paid, and Government failures. I will explore each in turn. The ombudsman has not only confirmed that it believes that the DWP is guilty of maladministration, but has expressed outright anger at the belligerence of the Department and, by default, this Tory Government. I welcome the robust comments of the ombudsman’s chief executive, Rebecca Hilsenrath, who has stated:

“The UK’s national Ombudsman has made a finding of failings by DWP in this case and has ruled that the women affected are owed compensation. DWP has clearly indicated that it will refuse to comply. This is unacceptable.”

I agree with her.

It beggars belief that, in 2024, the Government are suddenly pretending that this ombudsman’s report is a bolt out of the blue and very complex. It is three years since the ombudsman found that the DWP was guilty of maladministration because of its lack of communication about increasing the state pension age. It is scandalous that the ombudsman is actually having to ask Parliament to find a way to create a mechanism to provide compensation for those affected. If the ombudsman does not trust the UK Government to do the right thing, I do not trust them either.

Unfortunately, at the moment I also do not trust the official Opposition, who have been too quiet on the report findings to date. That is why I have brought forward my private Member’s Bill, the State Pension Age (Compensation) Bill, which sets out a compensation framework. We need to remember that the Prime Minister was the Chancellor who boasted about setting up the furlough scheme in a couple of weeks for the covid lockdown. Clearly, if there is a Government will, there is a way, so why do the Government not have the will to get on with a compensation scheme for the WASPI women?

In the ombudsman’s report, compensation is unfortunately set at just level 4, which feels wrong. For the majority of the 3.8 million women affected, it feels like a smack in the face. Compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 is an inadequate maximum payout. The WASPI APPG recommended level 6 for the worst affected, and my private Member’s Bill takes a similar approach. I have suggested a framework that follows the clear logic that those affected by the biggest increase in state pension age, while in effect having the shortest notice period, should receive the most compensation.

As for the 2.5 million women who have had to wait five years or more to access their pension, it would be absurd to award them just level 4 compensation of less than £3,000. In my framework, they would be allocated compensation at PHSO level 6, which is about £10,000. Those who have not had to wait quite as long, but who were still badly affected in some cases, will get levels 4 and 5, with a minority on lower levels. I thank Members from across the House who have signed my private Member’s Bill.

This subject has been debated in Parliament for nine years, and for over nine years these women and their families have been fighting for justice. It is tragic that, as has been repeated many times, the women are dying at a rate of 40,000 a year, or one WASPI woman every 13 minutes, and they are not getting the justice they deserve. This underlines that it is critical that Parliament takes action now.

However, there has not even been a suggestion on the way forward from the official Opposition. They should be putting proposals to the Government, and saying what they would do if they were in government. If their solution was accepted by the Government, they could then claim credit for getting compensation over the line. Instead, we have heard nothing from the Opposition—zip—apart from weasel words about listening. I hope the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), will change my mind and offer proposals during her summing up, but there was a bad example last week in the Scottish Parliament, when Labour MPs sat on their hands when it came to voting for compensation for the WASPI women. They had the temerity to get photographs taken with the campaigners, and to tell them that they backed them, but then they went into the Chamber in Holyrood, sat on their hands and actively abstained, which was disgraceful.

As I say, I hope the shadow Minister will bring forward proposals, but I would like her and the Minister responding to the debate to consider the constituents’ stories we have heard today, and a few of mine as well. Lynn was exhausted after working for 34 years in the NHS and agreed to take early retirement at 55, but she found out on her last day of work that it would be 11 years before she got the state pension, not the five years she anticipated. Nancy was widowed at the age of 54, while she was working part time, which was clearly traumatic emotionally and financially. She has suffered umpteen chronic health conditions while caring for her parents, but was forced to take NHS bank work just to survive.

Lesley, who has sometimes worked three jobs to make ends meet, was a carer for her partner when he had cancer, a carer for her dad when he had cancer, and had a period of travelling to Southampton every weekend to visit her aunt—superwoman efforts that would exhaust anybody. It is little wonder that she took early retirement age 56, only to discover later that she had to wait six years longer than she thought to access her pension.

Do not dare tell those women and others like them that they need to wait longer for justice. These are women who did not have maternity rights back in the day. They were paid less than men, and were more likely to work part time, and their private pensions were smaller, if they had them. In reality, pension age equalisation has further disadvantaged those women, especially as they were told that to get a full pension, they had to pay extra NI contributions. It is time that the right thing was done, and that right thing is fair and fast compensation now.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Business of the House

Debate between Alan Brown and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, and I thank him for his point of order. I will simply say this: at the point just after 7 o’clock last night when Questions were put to the House, the noise and turmoil in this Chamber made it impossible for the then occupant of the Chair, my colleague Madam Deputy Speaker—who was doing her best in very difficult circumstances—to ascertain whether she could hear any calls of “No”. She has told me that she could not hear calls of “No”, and she acted accordingly. It is always very easy to go back in hindsight and examine what each of us might have thought happened, but I can assure the House that Dame Rosie did her very best in difficult circumstances, and that she thought—and I think, too—that she was carrying out the wishes of the House at the time. I was standing beside the Chair at that moment. I appreciate that other people have different views on the matter, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will accept my assurance that Dame Rosie did her very best in difficult circumstances.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am very reluctant to take further points of order. Is it directly related to this business?

[Alan Brown]

Yes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

In that case, I call Mr Alan Brown to make a point of order.

[Alan Brown]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance; perhaps as Chair of Ways and Means, you might be able to give further clarity. My point of order is regarding the response that Mr Speaker gave earlier to the SNP group leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), about the sequencing of the decisions he took. Yesterday, the guidance he gave at the start of the debate was that there was precedent for selecting an amendment by the main Opposition party to a smaller party’s motion, but the letter from the Clerk makes it quite clear that there is no precedent for that. Mr Speaker also said that that was about having the widest possible debate, but last night, the rationale changed to security.

In his response just now, Mr Speaker really homed in on security as the primary reason for his decision, and he intimated that lives were at risk. That is a very grave matter; it implies that as things stood, decisions that Members took on the SNP motion would effectively have put their life at risk. It implies that somehow, debating the Labour amendment took away that security risk, which in turn implies an assumption about how Members were going to vote. Why were those security concerns not shared with other party leaders? What do the security services say, and does this not set a precedent that mob rule can change the business of the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have to stop the hon. Gentleman there: he is trying to continue the debate, and he is again asking questions that Mr Speaker has already come to the Chamber and answered. Mr Speaker has dealt with those matters, and it is not for me to deal with them any further. I think there will be further opportunities to explore these matters, both in public and in private, and the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party will no doubt have discussions with Mr Speaker, but I will not continue debate on these matters.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Alan Brown and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

We want a Labour Government for the whole United Kingdom, but we also appreciate Lords amendment 1 and the devolved powers. We believe in devolution. We were the party of devolution. We were the ones who gave devolution because we absolutely believe in it, but we also believe that we need a Labour Government to get rid of the Conservative Government in Westminster so that we can change the whole United Kingdom for the better.

Another one of the most troubling aspects of the Bill has been the profound lack of scrutiny. The Bill presents the Secretary of State with huge and unchecked powers to set, impose and police minimum service levels and to amend, repeal and revoke primary legislation. This is about not just laws that the Government already have passed, but even those we pass in the future, yet we have no real idea why they would need that power nor how they intend to use it.

Where there has been measly scrutiny, the wide-ranging consensus has been that the Bill is a total disaster. The Regulatory Policy Committee called it “not fit for purpose”. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Joint Committee on Human Rights sounded the alarm. The impact assessment was also published late, finding that this legislation could lead to more industrial action and have unknown knock-on consequences. Consultations have been launched in a haphazard way and only for certain sectors, without any explanation. There has been no meaningful consultation on the Bill as a whole, not least with the very people that it will have an impact on. If the Government had nothing to hide, they should have nothing to fear. Labour Members will vote to keep Lords amendment 2 and to protect the democratic scrutiny that the House is meant to provide.

There are serious concerns about what the Bill will mean for devolution. I have mentioned the unprecedented Henry VIII powers, which allow Ministers to make decisions about services that are entirely run by the devolved Administrations, including the elected Governments of Wales and Scotland. The Bill sets a dangerous precedent, using powers reserved to Westminster in one area of law to interfere in other areas that have been devolved. Perhaps the Minister has noticed that the Welsh Senedd and the Scottish Parliament have refused legislative consent. There has been no attempt to seriously engage with them or with devolved Administrations with powers over sectors listed in the Bill, including not just London, but my patch of Greater Manchester. This is a question not of changing the devolution settlement, but of defending it from the threat of the Bill. That is why we will vote to uphold Lords amendment 1.

This is one of the worst pieces of legislation in modern times, and looking over the last 13 years, that says a lot. But it is not just Labour Members who think that. The Bill has been widely and routinely condemned by: the Regulatory Policy Committee; the Equality and Human Rights Commission; the Joint Committee on Human Rights; NHS providers; the rail industry; the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development; the CEO of the confederation of recruitment companies; the CEO of the NHS Confederation; President Biden’s labour Secretary; the ILO; all UK trade unions; the TUC; the Welsh and Scottish Governments; the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg); the right hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland); the Transport Secretary; the Education Secretary—what a shambles! If it was not so serious, it would be a joke. This is from a Government who are desperately trying to distract from the 13 years of their own failings and who are playing politics with key workers’ lives.

The Bill is shoddy, unworkable and unnecessary. For the sake of every nurse, teacher and firefighter across the UK, and for the sake of our British democratic institutions, I urge the whole House to join us in supporting the thoughtful and sensible amendments from the other place and to vote down the Government’s vindictive motions tonight.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

[Alan Brown]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I agree with what she said, and I welcome her comments on devolution protecting the devolved Parliaments. I also welcome the commitment from Labour to repeal this legislation if it is in Government, but I would point out that there have already been a number of Labour U-turns recently, and now we have heard the mantra that Labour is not going to be in power to do the job of repealing nasty Tory legislation, so there is a concern that Labour will not do what its representatives have promised at the Dispatch Box. It is also amazing that in an earlier intervention from the Tory Benches, we heard the mantra that the Tories are the party of workers. The party of workers will not even have one Back-Bench contribution to today’s debate on the Lords amendments—that is how interested they are in the workers in reality.

State Pension Triple Lock

Debate between Alan Brown and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

That is a very good point. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an ideal way of managing that. I urge the Secretary of State to take heed of that intervention and work with banks and other organisations to try to increase pension credit take-up.

In terms of pension policies, of course I have to refer to the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—scandal and the fact that the Government are still not moving forward on fast and fair compensation, given that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found there was maladministration. The PHSO made it clear that the Government do not have to wait for the end of its investigation to take action to remedy this injustice.

There is also the frozen pensions scandal, whereby whether your pension gets uprated or not is arbitrary, depending on which country you reside in. It is also scandalous that the UK Government have yet again rejected offers from the Canadian Government to enter into reciprocal arrangements. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider that and engage in meaningful talks with the Canadian Government.

All those aspects show that the state pension in the UK is not the safety net we are told it is. It shows clearly that the Better Together mantra of staying in the UK to protect pensions in Scotland was a cruelly false premise. Indeed, with private pensions nearly collapsing after the Tory mini-Budget, that claim looks even more ridiculous. It also shows that when Gordon Brown, at a Better Together event, said:

“Our UK welfare state offers better protection for pensioners, disabled and the unemployed”,

he was, frankly, lying.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It would be better if the hon. Gentleman found other words—perhaps a little gentler—rather than those he has just used.

[Alan Brown]

I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but of course I was not referring to any hon. Member in this place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I fully appreciate that and the hon. Gentleman is technically correct, but I take the view that anyone who has been a right hon. Member, and held a most senior position in this place, should be treated with respect even after they have left. A different form of words would therefore be appreciated.

[Alan Brown]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I respectfully say that his comments were misleading because, as I have outlined, the UK pension is not as good as it is made out to be and is one of the poorest in north-west Europe.

Moving on, it is little wonder that the Scottish Government have been publishing papers comparing the UK to comparator countries for an independent Scotland. Scotland has a lower pensioner poverty rate than the rest of the UK at present, but we want to do much better than that. We want to match or better the comparator countries, reduce inequality during working life, and allow a more dignified and enjoyable retirement for all. We no longer want to be left here hoping, yet again, that Westminster will make the right decisions on such measures as the triple lock. We want to do things for the betterment of the citizens of Scotland.

Economic Situation

Debate between Alan Brown and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

And the last word comes from Alan Brown.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I thought you were going to say “Last but not least”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but thank you.

According to figures published in connection with the mini-Budget, not implementing the corporation tax increase is predicted to cost the Treasury more than £2 billion in this financial year alone, and in subsequent years £12 billion, £17 billion, £18 billion and £19 billion: £68 billion in total. We can split hairs about whether or not that is a tax cut, but is not the reality that the Treasury’s own figures show that cosying up to business has created a £68 billion black hole?

Exiting the European Union

Debate between Alan Brown and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman is asking me, but I have absolutely no idea. Unfortunately, I have no responsibility whatsoever.

[Alan Brown]

I thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The way things are just now, I worry about why so many people are withdrawing. Hopefully, everything is all in order. We know that the Whips usually try to force people to speak in debates, especially debates that might be short or dry, so it is certainly unusual that the Whips have been pressuring their colleagues to withdraw from today’s debate.

I hope that you can show some forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker, because as I thought there were so many speakers in the previous debate, I did not expect to be called so early in this one, so my notes are a wee bit haphazard; hopefully, you can bear with me on that.

I must commend the shadow Minister for her speech and for the amount of information that she covered. She highlighted the deficiencies that the Minister did not cover. She said that, in actual fact, when we talk about the movement of goods, one of the key issues is what it means for businesses and whether they are ready for this. We can talk about divergence in standards of the EU, but are businesses ready for what will happen on 1 January 2021? Have the Government given enough support to businesses? When we turn on the radio just now, it tells us all, “Get ready for Brexit”. That is all very well, but it does not actually tell us what we need to do. What is the point telling us to get ready, when there is no information that is clearly accessible to businesses about what they need to do? Are IT systems up and running? The companies need to know what they have to do to be able to export, and that is before we even get to divergence.

Just today, ironically, my office got a letter from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which is supposed to be aimed at all businesses, but I can assure the Minister that although that letter might be a bit of propaganda, it does not clear up what businesses need to do going forwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

I am sure the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) will be entitled to a passport as well, but is not the point that Lorne sausage and Scotch whisky—the indicators of these vitally important products—are at risk because of the lack of the UK Government’s ability to conclude a deal with the EU? That is the kind of thing that ought to be being addressed through statutory instruments like this, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that is why it is relevant to this debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

For clarification, I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was in any way out of order in the points he made. I am just really concerned about the square sausage.

[Alan Brown]

Yes, so we all share the same good taste in food then.

I agree with the point my hon. Friend made. Following up his earlier point about the contribution from the other Benches, I actually thought, “Oh my goodness, I’m going to have to listen to another 15 Conservative MPs tell me how great Brexit is going to be, how they are taking back control, how this is just another step in the way of taking back control and there’ll be wonderful trade deals.” So in one way there is a blessing: I do not have to listen to 15 speeches the same. But in another way, it is disappointing that they have not turned up here to actually do their job and actually say what they wanted to say. That is disappointing.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I would be so bold as to put on the record that this Government have been guilty of cronyism. But that is not just in the context of Brexit or the pandemic. For example, there is also the cronyism in terms of Richard Desmond and the Westferry scandal. So I would caution my hon. Friend. It is not just in terms of the pandemic that the Government have been guilty of cronyism; it goes much wider than that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As the hon. Gentleman said, the point he has just made goes very wide, and very much wider than the particular statutory instrument before us. So I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will stick very strictly to the terms of the SI, which he has done very well so far in his long speech.

[Alan Brown]

Hopefully, I will not be too much longer—these notes might be deceiving.

A key point, as I said, is divergences and this is all about the movement of goods. Where are we with regards to the movement of goods in terms of a no deal? Are we still reliant on the EU making concessions, just because the UK is not in a position to check in common goods? If we are going to look at diverging, we have to be able to manage what we have got just now, never mind changing things going forward.

This was raised yesterday. The Minister at the Dispatch Box was not able to answer it but, on checking goods and the movement of goods, how many custom agents will be required? How many have been trained? Yesterday, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) highlighted that the Cabinet Secretary estimated that 50,000 customs agents are needed, but that it is also estimated that only 10,000 have been trained to date. The Minister could not clear that up. This Minister has been taking lots of notes, so although she has not intervened, I am expecting a lengthy response. I hope that she can tell us where we are with training and employing customs agents and whether there will be enough in place on 1 January 2021.

[Alan Brown]

Yes, it is very worrying. There has been very little preparation—all last-minute stuff. That is also why the Government are unable to engage with the devolved Administrations and businesses. They have not planned or done enough to get us to where they want to be—not where I or my hon. Friend want to be—in time for 1 January 2021.

The reality of Brexit preparations, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), was illustrated yesterday by the passing of the Kent borders regulations, which allow the police to stop lorry drivers entering Kent because of the fear of the utter chaos at the border in January. That shows how the UK Government have not done enough and that more work needs to be done. Clearly, all those issues matter in the immediate short term and need addressing in the long term before we start looking at divergences of standards.

Is there any planned divergence for agricultural standards? That has been touched on and is important. The UK Government resisted protecting those standards for future trade deals in the Agriculture Act 2020. What does the SI mean regarding the UK’s ability to diverge from the EU? While the UK wants to avoid challenge, what does that mean for the devolved nations in terms of the UK Government protecting themselves? Will they impose their will on the devolved nations? I mentioned the point earlier, but on divergences, will the internal market Bill become the kicker through the back door by allowing divergences to be forced on the devolved nations against their will?

We do not accept that the UK Government have any legitimacy in imposing divergence from the EU acquis on Scotland’s behalf as a member of the UK. On democratic principles, we do not consent to allow any withdrawal of Scotland from the EU. That applies to the withdrawal agreement and any subsequent legislation used to enforce the unwanted and undemocratic divergence from the EU, which Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain a member of.

We do not accept the economic impact of diverging from EU rules, and that also applies to leaving the transition period, particularly because, as we discussed, the economy faces unprecedented challenges as we try to recover from the covid pandemic. We do not support or accept the need for the UK internal market Bill, which potentially allows divergences to be forced on the devolved Administrations against their wishes. We really need better co-operative working from the UK Government.

It would be ironic, when there seemed to be consensus from the Opposition that they would not oppose the SI, if, unless we start to hear decent responses from the Minister, there was a vote on it after all.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I have been informed that the Member who is No. 5 on the call list has withdrawn from the debate, as have the Members who are Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. We therefore come directly to the Minister.

Virtual Participation in Debate

Debate between Alan Brown and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Let me go back to the guidance that the Deputy Speaker gave earlier about this being all about participation in debate. Clearly, the Leader of the House is trying to control who participates in debate. We know he is absolutely obsessed with physical participation in debate, so is it not disgraceful that the Government forced 20 Back-Bench Tories to pull out of physically participating in a debate earlier on a statutory instrument? The Government then pulled the Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill money resolution, taking 24 people off the call list. They then did not move the motion on the independent expert panel, taking 10 people off the call list. They then did not move the motion on the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme investigations: Commons-Lords agreement, taking 10 people off the call list.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have already made it very clear, and I know the hon. Gentleman is one person who has certainly been in this Chamber all afternoon, that we are debating the matter before us, not what might have been debated previously.

Exiting the European Union (Energy Conservation)

Debate between Alan Brown and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I presume from your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you do not want me to try to push this to the full 90 minutes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Correct.

[Alan Brown]

I will do my best.

This sounds all very grand—"Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products”. I look forward to scrutinising and getting stuck into this legislation, but will it be about a cleaner, greener UK, or taking back control and leaving the EU? Well, no. There are actually 116 pages of legislation, nearly 100 pages of which are nice pictures of labels. Rather than taking back control, this is all about putting a Union Jack over what was formerly the EU flag on the labels on our appliances, which we all recognise, that tell us how energy efficient they are. The explanatory notes, at 10 pages, are nearly as long as the text in the regulations, which, again, says it all.

Noting what you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, about other important business coming later on, we have to ask: why is this legislation being debated in the main Chamber and not where SIs are usually done, which is in a Committee Room? It prompts the question of why the Government are bringing this legislation here anyway.

Will the Minister tell us whether a consultant was used to design these new labels and specifications included in the 100-odd pages, or was he able to do it in-house with civil servants? Did they come up with the new specification and the colour coding all by themselves, or did they have to go to someone external? Can he tell us what the advantage is of removing the EU language from the labels? Is that really necessary? In paragraphs 2.12, 2.15, 2.26 and 2.27 of the explanatory memorandum, reference is made to “fixing deficiencies” in retained legislation. Will the Minister confirm that no improvements or alterations have been made to coding and regulations other than, as has been already said, substituting references to EU legislation and EU bodies for references to UK bodies and adding a Union Jack to the labels, and that the measure just mirrors other regulations that have been incorporated, such as the power transformer amendment regulation? Does that mean there are no actual deficiencies in EU legislation to be fixed and that it is just about sorting UK legislation out before leaving the EU? If the Minister could confirm that, it would be good.

Can the Minister explain why there is just a one-year transition period for CE marking? As I tried to ask in my intervention earlier, for goods that arrive in the UK during that transition period but are not sold until later, when the regulations kick in for the new labels that must be displayed, will it just be a matter of the retailer swapping the label over to the new label without doing anything else, or will some other process have to be followed to provide certification?

Paragraph 10.1 of the explanatory memorandum states that stakeholders

“raised concerns about the limited timeframe being granted to implement the required”

changes. What has been done to help stakeholders with the timeframe, and what additional stakeholder engagement has taken place?

Paragraph 12.3 of the explanatory memorandum gives an estimate of the total cost to business under de minimis self-certification of £1.95 million. What is the total of all the various de minimis assessments that have come through the Minister’s Department? That £1.95 million cost itself is small, but if we keep adding up all these de minimis estimates, what is the estimated total cost to business of changes as a result of our leaving the EU?

Paragraph 2.25 of the explanatory memorandum gives details on compliance with the Northern Ireland protocol, which is good, but ironically, the UK Government seem to want to rip up that protocol, which was the whole point of the urgent question earlier today. Unfettered access for goods in Northern Ireland—for goods coming from Ireland and the EU, and for getting GB goods into Northern Ireland—would seem to be a really good advantage for distributors in Northern Ireland. Does that give Northern Ireland distributors an advantage over their GB mainland counterparts in business overheads and the checks and scrutiny they need to do?

Going forward, if there is a divergence in standards between the EU and the UK, how will the declaration of conformity for goods coming in and out of Northern Ireland to GB be implemented and checked? What discussions has the Minister’s Department had with counterparts in Northern Ireland?

It seems to me that even this simple replacement of labelling and updating of references to standards to comply with the EU—to make UK law valid and compliant as we exit the EU—is being left to the last minute. How are we supposed to believe that the UK is ready and okay to handle a no-deal exit, which the Government say will cause no problems whatsoever to business and transactions going forward?

As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) asked, what is the reality for GB goods being exported to the EU on exit? What arrangements are in place so that, going forward, these GB regulations that are coming into place will be accepted by the EU once the UK is a third country? Have any discussions taken place? Are any agreements in place, or is this all at the mercy of whether we get a deal or no deal? We do not have long left for that to be sorted out.

Let me conclude by asking the Minister this. Given that he is introducing legislation today that swaps flags and changes references from EU legislation to UK legislation while possibly missing key export issues that we need to understand, is he not embarrassed to be doing that from the Dispatch Box rather than in a Committee Room?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the Minister, I thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for having pointed out what an interesting piece of legislation this is. Very rarely do we get a fully illustrated instrument like this before us. I have never understood energy labels, but I have a much better idea now than I ever had before. I hope that many people will go to the Vote Office and pick up this draft statutory instrument.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Alan Brown and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I appreciate the—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This point might be about haggis and the House must listen to it.

[Alan Brown]

I appreciate the Foreign Secretary’s concern for Scotland’s exports. Does he still believe that a pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde?

Trident

Debate between Alan Brown and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman says he is going to dig into the Scottish Government’s record on health and education, but I do not think that is applicable to today’s motion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am listening carefully to what the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) is saying, and I will decide if he has strayed from the motion. At the moment, my interpretation is that he is introducing his speech and that he will come to the precise point of the motion very shortly.