European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Alex Chalk and Chris Leslie

Report stage: First Day: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

If that were the right way, the Government would have introduced a Bill to provide such certainty, instead of saying, “Mañana. Maybe at some point in the future we will try to close this loophole.” We have the Trade Bill now, as well as the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and a customs Bill. We are supposed to have an immigration Bill at some point, although I suspect that the Government are having a few difficulties figuring out how to bring it forward. These Bills are supposed to be the fundamental underpinnings of the copy-and-paste process that the Government are pursuing. They are supposed to be taking aspects of European Union rules and regulations and ensuring that they will still be here after March 2019, but no Bill relating to the charter of fundamental rights has been brought forward.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of some of these rights, but may I suggest that incorporating the charter would create complete legal confusion? Under the convention, there is purely a power to make a declaration of incompatibility. Under the charter, however, UK law can actually be trumped. The extraordinary situation could arise in which, if a prohibition against slavery were breached, the courts could merely say that it was incompatible, but if there were a breach relating to data protection, UK law could be trumped. That would create confusion and chaos, which is not what we need in this country.

[Mr Leslie]

Personally, I believe that Parliament does and should value the provisions of the charter of fundamental human rights. I trust our legal system to be able to reconcile textual difficulties between different Acts. I would rather operate on the precautionary principle and have those rights covered within our law than see the protections that are offered to our constituents expunged at this point, only to unwittingly discover later that the rights we used to have under the charter are no longer provided for because the Government of the day did not want to transpose them.

While talking about rights, but in a completely different context, I want to talk about new clause 7, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). It relates to animal sentience and the welfare of animals—not human rights but animal rights. If there is one issue that can be guaranteed to fill all our inboxes, it is the protection of animal rights. Our constituents really do care about this issue. The Government have already got into a tremendous pickle over this, and it would have been funny if it were not so tragic to see the Secretary of State for the Environment scrabbling around trying to pretend that, all of a sudden, the Government really cared about these matters.

Brexit will affect this area quite considerably. On the International Trade Committee, we heard evidence from various animal rights organisations and others involved in the agricultural trade sector, including the National Farmers Union and those involved with what are known as the sanitary and phytosanitary regulations relating to the import and export of animal products. There is a reason that the Americans dip their chickens in chlorine, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether you have had chlorinated chicken recently. I am not that fussy myself, but perhaps we will be invited to a tasting session at the new American embassy at some point. The reason they dip their chickens in chlorine is that the welfare standards that cover their abattoirs and the way in which their animals are looked after before slaughter are far worse than ours. Before the animals reach the consumer, they need to be cleaned up in a way that is not necessary here in the UK because we have higher welfare standards, not least by virtue of our membership of the European Union. Across all the European Union, we take a precautionary principle when it comes to this kind of regulation. We do not have to dip our chickens in chlorine, because they are already subject to certain health and safety standards.

Animal welfare issues matter in relation to trade as well. I find it perplexing when Conservative Members say that our salvation will be a trade deal with President Trump and the United States. We all know that the primary goal of the United States will be to have a treaty in respect of agriculture. If we do such a deal, the Americans will want to sell us animal products that have been produced under lower welfare and regulatory standards. That will be the deal they will seek. However, if the Secretary of State for the Environment says that we are going to have exactly the same regulatory standards as we have now, he will effectively be telling the Americans that there can be no trade deal. That would be the outcome—[Interruption.] It would certainly be a very big sticking point.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Alex Chalk and Chris Leslie

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I have just looked at table 1.2 on page 17 of the Red Book, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It shows the deficit going down from £58.3 billion to £16.8 billion, but the figures he referred to—£8.4 billion going up to £20.6 billion—relate to the receipts forecast. They do not indicate a reduction in receipts as a result of Brexit.

[Mr Leslie]

I am afraid they do show a reduction in receipts. The hon. Gentleman will see in the end column that the budget deficit for 2021 was forecast in the spring to be £16 billion, but today’s Budget now predicts that it will be £30 billion. The level of borrowing is predicted to go up significantly, largely driven by the £20 billion fall in receipts. The figures are quite clear.

The Government could choose not to take resources out of public services now. They could add to the borrowing, but that would have an impact due to extra debt interest. My suspicion, certainly with this Government, is that there will be more fiscal tightening and more austerity in the tail end of the years ahead. When we add up the money being wasted on Brexit preparations and the divorce bill, and take into account the fall in receipts because of low productivity and lower growth forecasts, which in turn are being driven by the dark cloud of Brexit, we realise that this is the real story behind the Budget. However, this need not be the fate of this country if we take certain decisions. I say to hon. Members on both sides of the House: let us not be responsible for this level of austerity in the future. We can choose a different fate, and we need to ensure that we intervene and retain our membership of the single market and customs union.