Budget Resolutions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

There is a lot to praise in this Budget. I and my constituents particularly welcome the confirmation of the additional funding for the NHS and the additional money for social care, infrastructure, broadband, schools and defence, as well as of course the changes to business rates. I appreciate the fact that the Chancellor acknowledged my own representations on VAT, and given that I have 107 pubs in my constituency—about 35 more than the average—I particularly welcome the freeze on beer and spirits duty, as do my constituents.

The fact that the Chancellor was able to do all these things, announcing about £100 billion of additional spending over a five-year period, without increasing taxes—in fact, reducing them—is a remarkable achievement, and he deserves considerable praise. Although my constituents have been telling me for months—in fact, for years—that if it was necessary to increase tax, they would be willing for that to happen, I am glad that it has not happened.

This is not just about the total amount of money being spent; it is about where and how it is spent. I believe we have considerable further work to do on this, because if the money is not spent in a balanced way, areas of the country suffer. My area of the country is not getting its fair share of public expenditure. We are now seeing this in the fact that my constituency was ranked 522nd out of 533 in the latest social mobility index by constituency.

One key is education and education funding. There are few more important things in politics than enabling our children to reach their full potential, and education is the key route to doing so. It is my personal ambition to focus on that in Parliament. I am from a relatively modest background. My dad—my Labour-voting, trade unionist dad, by the way—worked in a factory and my Mum was on the tills at Asda, and I went to a comprehensive school. I was the first person from my school to go to Oxford, and the first person in my family to go to university. Social mobility is therefore key for me, and it is very important.

We know that education is not all about money, but it plays such an important role. It is no accident that the top-funded places in the country—they are mainly in London—also have the highest social mobility and, conversely, that the lowest funded areas are the lowest for social mobility. There is clearly a strong link. In my constituency, average funding for secondary schools is £4,875. It is one of the lowest figures in the country, and it is £500 below the average school. It is also £3,000 per pupil per year less than in Hackney and £2,000 per pupil per year less than in Islington. Yet average incomes in my constituency, at £404, are £39 below the national average. That is also £150 less than in the shadow Home Secretary’s constituency of Hackney North and Stoke Newington, so this is not just related to income.

This is unfair, and I am glad that the Government are taking action and, with the fairer funding formula, ensuring that we will make changes. I applaud the fact that we will do so as fast and in as easy a way as we can, and like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), who is no longer in his place, I support significant increases in education funding. If that means increases in tax, I will support that and my constituents will support it. It is that important.

My area of Worcestershire is also suffering in other ways, such as in clinical commissioning group spending.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend moves away from education, does he agree that one of the key pressures on mainstream schools is that local authorities are seeking to take from mainstream schools to fund high needs, because of the burgeoning complexities in such areas? That is a very important pressure on our schools.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I agree completely. In fact, one of the main reasons why social mobility is such a challenge in my constituency is that there are a disproportionately high special needs. There is also a disproportionately high number of children with English as a second language. All these things require more attention, and they are causing genuine pressure on budgets.

I was mentioning NHS spending. The average CCG spending is £1,254, but the figure in Worcestershire is £1,138. There are areas of the country where average spending per person is up to £1,670. Again, my constituents are losing out to the tune of £500 per person per year vis-à-vis other areas. I do not resent the fact that other areas of the country are getting considerably more public expenditure than my constituents; I am just very jealous, and I want to make sure that my constituents get their fair share.

On infrastructure, whether broadband or road building, the midlands in particular—the area I represent—is underfunded compared with London and the south-east, which get so much funding. I am glad to see that that will change. There are announcements in the Budget for considerable increases in transport infrastructure spend. For example, I hope that the A46 will benefit.

I do not want to give the impression that it is all doom and gloom in my constituency, because it is frequently mentioned, after all, as one of the most desirable places in the country in which to live. It is obviously not because we are overfunded through public expenditure, but because the people in my constituency work hard. They are self-reliant, and if there is a problem, they look first in the mirror and try to resolve it themselves. It is unfair if my constituents have to delve into their own pockets to pay for things that are provided in other parts of the country through public expenditure. We need a balance, and a rebalancing, in where public money goes. In conclusion, I am arguing today not for special treatment for my constituents, but for fair and equal treatment, which I will do everything I can to deliver.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I welcome the Bill, as it places consumers at its heart. That is really what we are talking about. In particular, I welcome the amendment in lieu, which is a tweak but a valuable tweak that makes the Bill really work. I also reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) said. How wonderful it is to have unity in the Chamber after these last few days. It is welcome and a lovely feeling.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It’s quite unsettling.

Draft Companies (Disclosure of Address) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I had planned to trace the history of the Companies Act 2006 and, for the benefit of our illustrious company, to go through the reasons why it was so important that residential addresses, later service addresses, were published, but the Minister has given such a thorough, detailed and lengthy explanation—

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Exhaustive.

[Bill Esterson]

Exhausting or exhaustive? I could not quite catch from the Parliamentary Private Secretary which it was. I leave that for the readers of Hansard to determine for themselves.

I have two questions for the Minister. It is clearly right that the authorities still have access to residential addresses, including for former directors, and that a service address is available. As the Minister rightly set out, for reasons of fraud and the risk of violence and intimidation, and the 2003 cut-off, it is right that directors—as well as, I believe, company secretaries, shareholders and persons with significant control—receive adequate protection. My understanding from research from the fraud prevention organisation, CIFAS, is that one in five victims of recorded cases of such fraud is a company director. As the Minister says, there has been an increased incidence of fraud or risk of violence and intimidation reported to his Department.

It is clearly right that if the service address option exists, it is only fair that all directors, current and former, can take up the option. Will the Minister explain how the redactions are possible? What has changed in the technology to allow that? What is the new process that means it is now possible? Will he confirm that my understanding about full access by the authorities is correct and also that the publication of a service address is important to the wider public? With those replies, we will be happy to support the regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

10. Whether he is taking steps to safeguard the employment of people who were working under private sector Carillion contracts at the time of that company’s liquidation.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

19. What steps he has taken to support and engage with businesses affected by the liquidation of Carillion.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)]

The official receiver and special manager are working to ensure an orderly transition by facilitating the transfer of contracts. As of 12 March, 8,521 jobs have been safeguarded and 1,536 people have been made redundant, sadly, through the liquidation. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has set up a taskforce, bringing together trade associations, bankers and representatives of Government to ensure that we support the Carillion supply chain. The taskforce has delivered a range of supportive measures, including more than £900 million of support from UK lenders.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and refer him to the recent Westminster Hall debate, when we discussed at some length the legal responsibilities in relation to TUPE, which do not apply in many cases during a liquidation. Transferring employers may well decide to offer terms to transferring employees that recognise existing employment rights, terms and conditions. The Government are focused on ensuring that transferred employees are no worse off, and the official receiver is doing all he can to facilitate this wherever possible.

[Alex Chalk]

The Carillion collapse has exposed what can only be described as market abuse by lead contractors, with subcontractors in Cheltenham suffering as a result of the failure to adhere to best practice schemes such as the prompt payment code. What steps are the Government taking to ensure compliance with the schemes and more generally to stamp out market abuse?

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend, who has met me on a number of occasions to defend the interests of businesses in his constituency, will know that the Government had two priorities: to protect the provision of vital public services and to do what we could to protect jobs in Carillion and jobs in the supply chain. We are clear that we must learn the lessons from the collapse of Carillion. This could be a catalyst for change for the good. We are concerned to ensure that we do all we can to learn the lessons on procurement, and we also want to do more to ensure that the supply chain is promptly paid and that small businesses are paid speedily. Looking at the prompt payment code is an important part of that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I have explained to other Members the importance of exercising these powers in the required way and of not giving a running commentary in this House.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that competitive rates of interest should be offered to businesses and subcontractors that are affected by the LARC collapse, and that the 8.64% offered to LARC Construction in my constituency is simply too high?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I agree with my hon. Friend that access to competitive finance is essential, not just for businesses affected by LARC, but more widely, and particularly for small businesses. I am happy to meet him to discuss the issues if he would like me to.

Budget Resolutions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Again, we have a Conservative Member who struggles with reality. I urge him to speak to workers in his constituency and ask them about the quality of said employment. I speak to workers in my constituency, and they are struggling in an era of casualised, low-paid, insecure work.

Our productivity was certainly impeded, but the picture worsens still when we focus on the recent productivity and investment figures of many British regions and nations. Stark research recently published by the Centre for Cities shows that London and the south-east are up to 44% more productive than many other British regions, and the Institute for Public Policy Research’s commission on economic justice has found that Britain is the most regionally imbalanced country in the whole of Europe.

What have we seen after seven years of this Government’s single-minded obsession with cutting the national debt? Higher debt and unprecedented downward revisions of GDP growth. As every economist knows, the only way substantially to manage the national debt is by growing the economy, but this Government have simply tried to deflect attention away from their miserable performance on GDP.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady assist the House by saying how much extra it would cost in annual interest payments if she led a Government that borrowed an additional £500 billion?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman should refer to comments made by the shadow Chancellor. It is not as straightforward as putting a figure on interest repayments. Each investment is dealt with on the basis of the level of return to the Government, so each infrastructure project, for example, needs to be assessed on its own merits. The hon. Gentleman should know that. He is a clever young man, and I would have expected him to know a little more about this subject.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Alex Chalk Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is woefully typical of the approach of this Government that despite their intention to abandon Euratom, this Bill falls significantly short of dealing with vital issues for the UK’s nuclear future. Without any confirmation of a transitionary deal, Ministers have left a host of unanswered questions around nuclear safety. The nuclear industry, the medical profession, our research sector and universities—virtually everyone associated with nuclear power or related supply chain industries—have asked for the answers to those questions. Breaking the news to Parliament that we will leave Euratom in a line of the Bill’s explanatory notes shows wilful disrespect to them.

It also betrays an all-too-common disregard for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, because while safety is reserved, areas of regulation are devolved. That regulatory role is just part of why the Scottish Government must be involved in discussions over Euratom as things move forward.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Do we not have to be very careful about our terminology? The Bill has absolutely nothing to do with safety standards as in the prevention of nuclear accidents—it is about safeguarding, which has an altogether different legal meaning. Is it not very important that we do not scaremonger about this?

[Drew Hendry]

It is very important that the unanswered questions are dealt with in this insufficient Bill—[Interruption.] Well, a lot of people will be concerned about the implications of what is not covered in this discussion, some of which I intend to cover.

With regard to nuclear safety, it is critical that we continue membership—or, at the very least, associate membership—of Euratom. Falling back on WTO rules could risk the UK breaking international law. It will come as no surprise that we in the SNP believe that the safest nuclear power policy is no nuclear power. We are determined to deliver just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare).

I support the Bill. The introduction of a Bill on nuclear safeguards is an entirely sensible contingency measure. It is sensible to cater for the possibility that no associate membership of Euratom can be agreed; indeed, given the importance of the matters covered by our current membership, it would be extraordinary were the Government not to do so. I have listened with interest to the Opposition speeches but, ultimately, they resulted in sound and fury signifying nothing, because it appears that no one is going to vote against the Bill’s Second Reading.

[Alan Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether the Bill is a contingency and a back-up or the bright, shining new way forward? Mixed messages are coming from Government Members.

[Alex Chalk]

It is a sensible contingency to deal with safeguarding. We will no doubt be able to consider other aspects in due course.

Were the Government not to introduce the Bill, they would be in complete dereliction of their duty. The background is as follows: the UK has a strong and developed nuclear sector, with 15 nuclear reactors generating 21% of our electricity; there is something in the order of 30 licensed nuclear sites; and our nuclear industry serves important civilian purposes, including medicine, transport, farming and industrial processes.

It is worth my taking a moment to reflect on the Bill’s key purpose, which is to give the Office for Nuclear Regulation—a UK body—powers to take on the roles and responsibilities required for us to meet our international safeguarding and nuclear non-proliferation obligations. What does that mean? In other words, it is to demonstrate and ensure that civil nuclear material is used only for civil purposes, not military ones.

It is also worth reflecting on what the Bill is not about. First, notwithstanding the points made by the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), it is not about security standards in the UK. The security standards relate to the physical protection measures. The UK already follows the convention on the physical protection of nuclear material, which is outwith the scope of the Bill. Indeed, the related responsibilities are already within the ambit of the ONR.

Secondly, the Bill is not about safety standards for the prevention of nuclear accidents. We will continue to observe the standards imposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, overseen by the ONR. We have heard a bit about medical isotopes, which are not special fissile material, so I do not propose to traverse the ground that has already been ably ventilated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset.

It is clear, though, that our membership of Euratom covers far more than safeguarding. I wish to develop a little the points that were helpfully set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). First, on research and development such as that on fusion technologies, we need to continue our collaborations. We heard a little about the JET scheme, which ends in 2018, although the Government have rightly committed funding for it in case it is extended to 2020. We want that co-operation to continue.

Secondly, there is the international thermonuclear experimental reactor project to build the world’s largest tokamak—at that point, my expertise starts to evaporate, but it is important.

Thirdly, the Government have already committed to funding the Horizon 2020 projects that were entered into before March 2019—the date of our departure—even if they continue after our departure. That is absolutely the right thing to do. All that underscores the importance of such projects to our economy and the European economy more widely.

After research and development, the second area that the Bill does not cover but in the perpetuation of which we have a strong national interest is nuclear co-operation arrangements, and we have heard a little about Australia, Japan, the United States and Canada. Those agreements matter because the United States cannot enter into trade agreements with the UK unless NCAs are in place. That is vital.

The third point that bears re-emphasis is the free movement of highly expert scientists. All three things must be secured, and the easiest and most sensible way to do so would be through associate membership of Euratom. It is worth making the point that there is no off-the-shelf solution: the Swiss associate membership relates only to scientific and technological co-operation and the Ukrainian model is even more limited.

The Bill is entirely necessary and entirely sensible, but in a way it is just the easy bit. Just as vital is that we secure co-operation in all the other areas, too. I have already said a little about associate membership, which I suspect is the most straightforward way to deliver that co-operation, but there might be others. I have every confidence that once this sensible contingency legislation on safeguarding is securely enacted, moving on to other matters is precisely what the Government will go on to do.

Tuition Fees

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

It is a fundamental Scottish National party principle that access to education should be based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. SNP MPs have a strong and principled record of opposing tuition fee increases in England and Wales and, if we are able to, we will reject any Bill that would increase the financial burden on students.

In 1997, I personally lobbied my predecessor in this place on the introduction of student fees. I had never met him before, but I think he still remembers that meeting, because I was incensed at the idea that students should have to pay fees. I found their introduction by a Labour Government particularly objectionable, especially as so many of them had gone to university themselves; they then pulled up the ladder behind them. Neither I nor the SNP have changed our view that access to education must be based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay.

The SNP’s commitment to free tuition is firm and unequivocal. In 2007, the SNP Scottish Government abolished tuition fees. The Scottish Government’s free tuition policy benefits 120,000 undergraduate students in Scotland every year, saving them from accruing debts of up to £27,000, unlike their peers in other parts of the UK. The SNP will always guarantee that access to education is based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay.

Since we came to office in Scotland, the number of Scottish-domiciled full-time first-degree entrants has risen by 12%, but this is also about our values and the kind of Scotland we want to live in. Scotland as whole values free access to higher education, as does the SNP. Unlike the Tories in Scotland, we have no intention of billing our young people for their education, either up front or after they have graduated.

In 2015, the president of the National Union of Students Scotland, Vonnie Sandlan, said:

“The idea that abolishing free education—a clear recognition of the public and social good provided by higher education—would improve fair access seems bizarre.”

It is almost as bizarre as the recent comments by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on “The Andrew Marr Show”, when he said that only graduates benefit from their studies. As a Scot, has he not heard of the commonweal? Everyone benefits. Society benefits from a higher tax take, and from its teachers, its doctors, even its lawyers, and sometimes, perhaps, its MPs.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Has the hon. Lady read the report by the Sutton Trust, the social mobility charity, which was absolutely damning about social mobility in Scotland as a specific result of the SNP’s policy of capping places? Does she not deprecate the fact that social mobility in Scotland is going into reverse?

[Marion Fellows]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I totally disagree with him. I will come on to that point further on in my speech. The fact is that Scottish education is different; the way into it and how to progress in it are completely untypical.

Euratom Membership

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Vaizey]

That is a very effective point. It is certainly the case that those of us who wish to remain in Euratom will now seek our own legal advice, but it would be nice to know where the Government stand on this. The other point that has emerged is that no assessment has been made of the impact of leaving Euratom or, rather, of the Government’s current position, which is to leave Euratom and then rejoin it. The Government are being offered a time-saving opportunity.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that continued membership of Euratom would not in any way preclude the striking of free trade deals or controlling our borders, which are the stated aims of Brexit?

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. One Member asked earlier why we are singling out Euratom from other European institutions that we will leave as part of the process of leaving the European Union. The key point is that our membership of Euratom is under a treaty separate from our membership of the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on securing this important and valuable debate. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) that Euratom brings great benefits to this country.

We should do all that is legally possible to maintain those benefits by whatever means it takes. We should not allow any thoughts of ideological purity to get in the way of achieving that. My judgment is that if we can legally remain within Euratom, we should do so. I understand the points that were well and eloquently made by my right hon. and hon. Friends who have suggested that legal advice goes against that, but it would not be the first time that Government legal advisers have been shown to be wrong and it would not be the first time that the Commission’s legal advice has been proved wrong.

[Alex Chalk]

If there is political will, any legal obstacle can be easily overcome.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is my next point.

Unless the Government seek clarity—there is a dispute among lawyers about the matter—the likelihood is that an interested party may itself seek to litigate and it would be much better if the Government seized the initiative and said that politically they wanted to stay in and would do whatever is necessary legally to achieve that objective. That would be altogether better. If they cannot achieve that, certainly an association agreement would be the next best thing and I suggest it should be the Swiss model because the small amount of jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is a minor price to pay for the benefits. I cannot believe that anyone would object to the very modest movement of skilled nuclear scientists who only benefit this country. Otherwise, we would be cutting off our economic and scientific nose to spite our political face and we should not do such a thing. That would be a good compromise, but we should stay in until such time as that is in place because we cannot have any risks in the interim.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Alex Chalk Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

I had moved on to the second part, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s question. We need to know what our relationship will be, given the important work—as the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) rightly described it—carried out by Members in this House over many years, which has been extremely important in making progress in the countries named in this Bill and others. It is important that we have a sense from the Government as to how we will stay involved in the work of such agencies. I am sure all Members will agree that this country still has a very important role to play whether or not we are in the EU.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a key bulwark of human rights in this country, and indeed across Europe, is the European convention on human rights, which is not affected by this Bill at all? That has to remain the key and most important element.

[Bill Esterson]

I completely agree.

The EU Commission states that there is a danger that the absence of a power to exchange information with the Canadian Competition Bureau will become an impediment as co-operation between the two parties increases; the Minister made that point. Co-operation with other competition authorities is now standard practice in international competition investigations. The EU has co-operation agreements with the USA, Japan, South Korea and Switzerland. The most advanced is the one with Switzerland; it is very similar to the Canada agreement and has proved, as the Minister said, uncontroversial. Many worldwide or transatlantic cartels include Canada in their operations, and the Canadian commission will get a good opportunity via this agreement to gain additional information concerning these cartels and whether practice is anti-competitive or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

As this is also my first opportunity to do this, may I congratulate you and welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker?

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the provisions in the Bill. On the first two draft decisions, we welcome the opportunity to give our support to the participation of Albania and Serbia as observers in the work of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. As the agency says:

“Fundamental rights set out minimum standards to ensure that a person is treated with dignity. Whether this is the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of your age, disability or ethnic background, the right to the protection of your personal data, or the right to get access to justice, these rights should all be respected, promoted and protected.”

Those are shared values, and Scottish National party Members and the Scottish Government hold them dear. We are demonstrating that in Scotland by using our limited new powers to build a social security system with dignity at its heart. We can contrast that with the approach of the UK Government, who are rolling out a dysfunctional universal credit regime which is punishing the disabled, those on low wages and the vulnerable.

On Serbia and Albania, although there is much work to be done, this is an important step for both countries in their journey to improving the lives of their citizens. They deserve credit for their approach, and we know that joining the EU is also the will of both nations. Serbia was formally announced as an EU candidate in 2012 and has already opened 10 of the 35 chapters of accession. Last week, Serbia’s newly elected Prime Minister, Ana Brnabić, talked of a

“strategic orientation toward the European Union, which represents the values that we stand for.”

She continued:

“That is the place where Serbia should be”.

Similarly, elections in Albania this week showed, once again, a renewed commitment to the EU. Albania’s two largest parties are both pro-EU, and a national survey has shown that more than 95% of its citizens support EU membership. In their commitment to EU accession, Serbia and Albania have shown a willingness and commitment to improving the fundamental rights of their citizens and to restoring peace. They see the EU as a vehicle for peace across Europe. As his name has been mentioned today, it is worth recalling Jean-Claude Juncker’s tribute to the recently deceased former German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl. Mr Juncker said:

“It was on the day we decided to press ahead with EU enlargement to the east and south east. In a voice choked with tears he said it was one of the most beautiful days of his life. That he, as German Chancellor, was able to bring Europe back together after all the harm that Germany had caused.”

Juncker said of his friend:

“He wept. Nobody was embarrassed by his tears. That was Europe at its best.”

That we are here today playing our, albeit small, part in improving the rights of people across the Western Balkans is a great thing.

What a shame then that this UK Government are hell-bent on pulling Scotland out of the very partnership that delivers those protections; and this despite people in every Scottish local authority area voting to remain in the EU. It is also not lost on us that this Bill comes only days after the fundamental rights of people, in particular those of the LGBT community in Northern Ireland, are now being questioned—all because of a back-door deal with the Democratic Unionist party to keep this Tory Government in power.

[Alex Chalk]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when it comes to protecting the human rights of people in the United Kingdom, be that in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, our membership of the convention is by far the most important thing in asserting those rights, and that is what we need to keep in mind?

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the membership of the convention, but it is also vital that we take every opportunity to make sure we are protecting the rights of citizens.

Turning to the third and fourth draft decisions, SNP Members welcome further formalisation of the working relationship between Canada and the EU in regard to competition laws. These draft decisions, in particular, serve as a reminder of the good business and trading opportunities the EU provides for the UK. A bad Brexit deal, or the fatuous, ludicrous idea of no deal, will make it more expensive and difficult for our businesses to trade with the EU—a market eight times the size of the UK market.

The people in Scotland stand to lose much, with independent estimates concluding that a hard Brexit could cost Scotland up to 80,000 jobs within a decade and that after 10 years average wages could fall by £2,000 a year per head.