Draft Offshore Environmental Civil Sanctions Regulations 2018

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 General Committees

[The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Offshore Environmental Civil Sanctions Regulations 2018.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. The regulations will allow the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning to impose financial civil sanctions for contraventions of offshore environmental legislation, which we believe provides a more appropriate and proportionate enforcement option and will further encourage operators to do the right thing in ensuring that those limits are not breached.

The regulations will, moreover, bring OPRED in line with the onshore environmental regulators, which already have such powers. The regulations will provide the offshore regulator with the ability to impose financial penalties on operators that are breaching environmental legislation.

I have visited OPRED and want to pay tribute to the civil servants working so hard in the fair city of Aberdeen who are doing a marvellous job to ensure that our offshore industry adheres to among the highest environmental standards in the world. One problem they have, unlike onshore regulators, is that they do not have the power to impose fines when they uncover a breach. The regulations will allow that gap in their current enforcement options to be filled.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I do not think that there is anything anyone could object to about having a civil penalty as well as a criminal one, but the Minister implies that there have been some breaches that her inspectorate has not considered to be serious enough to bring criminal proceedings against. Therefore, the companies perpetrating them have been allowed to get away with it. What kinds of breaches does the Minister think the new civil penalties will enable her inspectorate to get a handle on? Such breaches have, by implication, gone by the board because of the inflexibility of the current arrangements.

[Claire Perry]

I welcome that intervention. I will say a little more the sort of breach that will attract the new civil penalty. To reassure the hon. Lady, a series of enforcement actions are already taken and they will have the effect of removing any breaches as quickly as possible. Those include serving an enforcement or prohibition notice, revocation of a permit, and referral for consideration of prosecution.

The majority of contraventions tend to be quite minor and the only enforcement option available is a criminal prosecution, which is costly and time-consuming for all parties. Of course, OPRED does not determine whether those matters should be prosecuted; that is rightly for the judicial system to decide. Giving OPRED these powers, which are in line with those enjoyed by the onshore regulator, would allow it effectively to make that decision and impose a financial civil sanction. That would allow for a more timely and cost-effective response, and it would not lead to the criminalisation of operators that have committed only a minor breach that they are anxious to put right but for which there is currently no sufficient penalty regime.

[Ms Eagle]

I am just trying to find out how large this issue is, in terms of companies that have been in breach but whose actions the prosecuting authorities did not think serious enough to bring criminal charges against them. By implication, there has been a series of breaches that are not serious enough to merit criminal charges but which would fall under the Minister’s proposed civil prosecution structure. Will she give us an idea of how great an issue this is and what has been allowed to pass because we did not have flexibility for a civil rather than a criminal process?

[Claire Perry]

I will give the hon. Lady numbers, because she and I both like facts rather than opinions. Since 2016, there have been 4,178 total breaches of environmental regulation. That sounds a lot but many are very minor. Of those, 78 have been subject to investigation. The assessment of my officials is that 10% of those 78 would have reached the required standard of proof for receiving a civil sanction. OPRED’s view is that that number will not change dramatically. We are talking about tens rather than hundreds. Of course, the measure is almost a threat; it is unlikely to be the outcome. As the Minister responsible for oil and gas, I believe that we have, by and large, very compliant companies that are anxious to maintain the reputation of the North sea basin as the most environmentally well-regulated. I hope those data satisfy the hon. Lady, who asked an excellent question.

Returning to my opening remarks, the measure is the ultimate penalty. It allows the regulator to have more arrows in its quiver when it gets out there and ensures that enforcement notices are taken seriously. In addition to the civil sanction, the ultimate threat is the revocation of a permit, which means that an operator can no longer operate. It is felt that those and the prosecution option are perhaps too severe for some of the sanctions being investigated. I have mentioned the numbers. Although criminal prosecutions can carry substantial penalties, they are used relatively infrequently, because they are so resource-intensive to carry out.

The sanctions will be applied instead of, not in addition to, criminal prosecution for cases where the required criminal standard of proof is met. The fixed and variable civil sanctions that OPRED will have the ability to impose range from £500 to £50,000. Those recommendations follow a consultation that finished on 15 February, seeking views from the public, the hydrocarbon sector and other relevant stakeholders, such as nature conservation bodies and environmental non-governmental organisations. There were only 13 replies, the majority of which responded positively to the regulations. No additional substantive changes to the regulations were needed as a result of the consultation.

Concerns were raised about the potential overuse of powers, the burden of proof and, fundamentally, the legislation to which the civil sanctions would apply. My team published a response on 16 April that detailed all those points, should people be interested. Many of the issues raised are relevant to OPRED’s enforcement policy and civil sanctions guidance document, which is being produced alongside the regulations, rather than to the regulations themselves. Both the guidance document and the enforcement policy will be subject to consultation and published in final form before any civil sanctions are issued.

In summary, the objective of the regulations is to create an equivalent environment for onshore and offshore operators, which in many cases are the same company; maintain the UK’s position as having excellent environmental standards for hydrocarbon extraction; give OPRED additional powers to impose financial civil sanctions for contravention of specified environmental legislation; and provide an element of proportionality for a breach that is deemed sufficiently serious to invite a potential criminal process but without actually taking the operator to court, although that option is retained for the most serious breaches.

Our intention is a proportionate and measured approach that will ensure greater compliance by offshore operators and allow enforcement action to be taken swiftly. If agreed by the Committee, the regulations will enter into force alongside the supporting documents on the next common commencement date of 1 October 2018. I recommend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

It is a pleasure to serve, for the first time, I think, under your chairmanship in this Committee, Ms McDonagh. I want to take a little of the Committee’s time to tease out a bit more information from the Minister about what is behind the changes she has put before us.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test pointed out, there is an existing system of civil penalties in operation. I have a few questions for the Minister, which I would appreciate her dealing with in her response.

As someone who used to be the Treasury Minister responsible for taxing oil and gas, I have not only fond memories but some personal experience of how well regulated the industry is in general. Because the oil and gas fields are closer to the end than the beginning of their lives, we have seen a range of new expert companies come in that are good at extracting the final drops of oil from existing facilities.

Quite a few of the big boys have moved on to easier pastures and left these different companies, which are generally much smaller, more buccaneering and newer to the industry, in charge of seeing whether they can squeeze the last few drops of energy out of existing wells. Clearly, we are dealing with a range of different people, very different from the companies that we see on petrol forecourt stations. That is one thing: it is a more complex group of companies in different circumstances from how it used to be.

In order to maintain the safety records out in the North sea, with that change in context, it is important that there is a regime that companies take seriously, that has teeth and is enabled to enforce the regulations as they are. Looking at the result of the consultation published by the Minister’s Department there is a list in answer to question 4. I suspect it is the same list, though I am not sure, as the table the Minister said she would make available to the Committee.

It is about the regulations and the level of sanctions. It ranges from failure to comply with enforcement notices to making false and misleading statements or obstructing inspectors in their work. Those all would attract £1,000 fixed-term penalties. That rises to much larger penalties of £50,000-plus for unauthorised discharges into the marine environment.

That could be quite serious, not only for health and safety but pollution. For such things, the variable monetary penalties go up to £50,000. Issues such as that—which could have an impact on health and safety and maybe even the lives of the people on the rigs doing the work—are important and serious. Being able to enforce strict regulations in those dangerous contexts, sometimes in marine environments that are quite fragile, is also key.

Does the Minister think it gives the right message on enforcement to move from criminal prosecutions to civil prosecutions but use the same level of criminal evidence requirements? It looks like we are watering down the implications of ignoring the regulations. Is moving from criminal to civil sanctions that are taken less seriously sending the right message to the companies that are operating in this complex environment?

The companies have to be prevented from cutting corners. In complex, competitive environments, the worst corner cutters can often put pressure on the better companies to cut corners to keep profitability. It is important to send the right message in that context. Is the Minister convinced that these changes do not give the wrong message?

Why is the burden of proof unchanged? If we are moving from a criminal penalty to a civil penalty, why is the burden of proof not less onerous? That would look like a tightening of the regulations to make certain that everything was being watched carefully. Why are we moving to a civil penalty with a criminal burden of proof, which looks like a watering down? Does that not give the impression that environmental breaches will not be taken as seriously as they were before? Will she reassure us about that, too?

Will the Minister also make an unequivocal declaration that the draft regulations are not an admission by the Government that enforcement of criminal law has become so expensive and bureaucratic that they have had to switch to much easier civil penalties to get anything done? As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said, there are very few criminal prosecutions. Does she think giving that impression, perhaps because of cuts to the prosecutorial and judicial authorities, sends the right message to people who may not have the best interests of their workforce or the environment at the forefront of their mind and may be more interested in profits than in doing things correctly? I would be pleased to hear the Minister’s response to those questions, and to be reassured that the proposed changes will not send the wrong messages.

[Claire Perry]

I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Wallasey for their good, probing questions, to which I will respond in three blocks.

The hon. Gentleman suggested in his tone that OPRED was making up the fact that it was really busy. He will know—the hon. Lady will, too; I am sure she has done the dunk test and been out to see the various rigs—that we now have 299 oil and gas installations. We have 20 inspectors, who are required to go out and inspect in the most awful conditions, and it is absolutely right that we give them the tools that they have asked for to do their job most effectively. Let me again put on the record my gratitude and admiration for what they do.

The hon. Gentleman made a good point, as he often does—he always does, actually—which helped clarify something in my mind. He is right to flag that we already have a civil penalties regime for breaches under carbon emissions legislation, which is dealt with by an entirely separate set of regulations. The draft regulations will bring the same suite of tools—enforcement notices, civil penalties and, for the worst cases, prosecution—to bear on non-CO₂-related breaches: in effect, in this case, oil and chemical spills. It was helpful for him to make those points, because that helped me to ensure that I was clear about what we are doing. In a way, the numbers that he pointed out show that this will be an effective way of dealing with lesser breaches, just as it is under CO₂ legislation, which requires civil sanctions and/or prosecutions for the most serious cases.

I defer to the hon. Lady’s long knowledge of this area. She is right to point out that the North sea, although it is probably past peak production, is in a period of real renaissance. That is partly because of what the Government have done in listening to the oil and gas industry—

[Ms Eagle]

indicated dissent.

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but she will know that this Government proposed the transferrable tax history, which my hon. Friends north of the border campaigned for very strongly and the industry had been asking for. Along with investment in the Oil and Gas Authority, which is the oil and gas regulator, and the wonderful Oil and Gas Technology Centre in Aberdeen, which is co-funded by the Westminster Government and the Scottish Government, that has stimulated a whole wealth of new investment and interest, and asset transfers from the big boys—she was correct to call them that: they are mostly boys—to smaller, more nimble companies that are better able to exploit those assets. We should all be very proud of that.

I want to push back a bit on the idea that the regime is being weakened. There are some serious large breaches—in effect, oil and chemical spills—that are absolutely worthy of prosecution. Then there are a whole suite of lesser offences for which enforcement notices can be issued and, most importantly, remediation action can be taken, both in clean-ups and ensuring that it does not happen again. However, other than through an exchange of letters and conversations, there is no way to make it clear to that operator that that is totally unacceptable behaviour which must not happen again.

I argue that having a civil sanctions regime enables that message to be sent even more strongly. For operators who—knowingly or unknowingly—are effectively allowing smaller breaches to happen, a suite of sanctions that did not exist will exist and be in force thanks to the regulations. I say unequivocally to the hon. Lady that this feels like a tightening of the regulatory regime. She is right that we have an offshore sector that is capable of generating hydrocarbons into the future. Ultimately, we will get to a hydrocarbon-free world, but, in the case of gas, if we invest in carbon capture and storage technology as we want to do, we can keep that gas being burnt cleanly in the system for a long period of time. It is economically vital to this country that we do that, and we need a regulatory regime that enables good operators to do what they do.

The hon. Lady said there might be some rogue operators creeping in. I am not suggesting that—there is no evidence of that—but we do have to bear that in mind, and these are the sorts of regulations that will send a strong message. Sanctions can be applied and penalties, which can be reinvested in the industry, can be collected to ensure that that message is sent loud and clear.

Vauxhall Factory, Ellesmere Port

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have had debates about that before. He reminds me of the time when we talked about the police in France using Citroëns and Renaults; the police in Germany using Mercedes and BMWs; and the police in Spain using SEAT vehicles. As a nation and as an economy, we should do much more to take advantage of our procurement power.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he recognise that my constituency contains Vauxhall workers as well? Their economic future is reliant on the Government’s decisions in the Brexit negotiations, particularly given that they have decided to leave the single market, which puts those jobs at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Angela Eagle]

I thank the Minister for giving way. All of us who have an interest in this issue welcome his interest in the automotive plant, but we want a little more from him than that, since he is the Minister. Can he give us an answer on the issue of rate relief? Will the entire area be given the special status that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) asked for?

[Richard Harrington]

Well, I have seven minutes and I will do my best to satisfy hon. Members, but as I say my door is open to anybody—

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Just say yes now; it does not take seven minutes to say yes.

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Lady has been in government herself, so she knows that sometimes seven minutes is not enough to deal with these matters.

The automotive industry is very important for the industrial strategy, which is our cornerstone policy. We have announced quite significant sums of money— £80 million—for battery scale-up facilities in the west midlands, and I believe that the automotive industry, with the advanced propulsion centre and everything else, is absolutely critical to us. I hope that can help the situation at Ellesmere Port, because it will provide a framework for a modern industry of the future.

As far as Brexit is concerned, I recognise exactly the uncertainty that has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and others. It is very important; we are not in “denial” about it. However, what I would say is that the automotive industry has been used as a model by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. For example, it was well publicised that at Chequers the automotive industry and its interlink with all of the companies in the supply chain, and everything in Europe, was used as an example; what my right hon. Friend would call, quite rightly, an “exemplar”.

Yesterday’s conclusion of the negotiations between the Brexit Secretary and Michel Barnier, with the transition period, showed that exactly the sort of thinking that we need for the automotive industry is recognised by our own Government and by the European Union. I am confident that that is largely the result of successful Government lobbying by the automotive industry—in which, of course, Vauxhall has taken part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

Yes. Thank you, Mr Rosindell.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Mr Rosindell—

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is over, I am afraid. The Minister has offered to continue the debate after this, so I suggest that you speak to him later.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I think the House will recognise that I am no stranger to a fish supper, and I would like to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Apollo Fisheries on the community spirit it showed. It clearly demonstrates that businesses contribute not just to the economy but to our society. The future high streets forum provides joint business and Government leadership to enable our high streets and town centres to adapt and compete in the face of changing consumer and social trends, but we want to go further, so last week I announced the establishment of the Retail Sector Council, which will bring together leaders in retail to help to develop policies and support for the vital retail sector.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

We all want self-employment to grow, but we also want to crack down on apparent self-employment, where people are forced to become self-employed by exploitative employers who then save on national insurance contributions while putting all the risk of that employment on often vulnerable individuals. What are the Government doing about that?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I am sure the hon. Lady will be delighted to know that the Government are taking forward the proposals set out by Matthew Taylor. We recognise that employment status—whether workers are employed or self-employed—is key to their getting not only the payments but the protections they deserve. That is why we have embarked on a full consultation with the intention of clarifying the status of workers, giving them extra protections and ensuring that if it looks like work and feels like work, it is work and they are paid properly.

Taylor Review

Angela Eagle Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 7th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I wondered how long it would be before we got on to the “B” word, Brexit. I know that my hon. Friend is hugely concerned about that, as are businesses large and small up and down the country. He will have to wait a little bit longer, I am afraid. That announcement will, I am sure, be made by someone higher up the food chain than I, but I can assure him that the concerns of workers and British business are being heard by Government.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Zero-hours contract carers get paid for face-to-face work, so they get paid for every 15-minute visit, but none of the travelling time in between. They often have fragmented contracts and have to be available for work throughout the seven days of the week, and they do not have proper time off. That is one example. Then we have couriers, who have to deliver more than 100 packages a day for 48p a package. They often have to keep driving 15 hours a day, six days a week, and they are called self-employed. Surely the Minister has got to end that appalling practice by properly defining and enforcing employment law. Nothing he has said today has reassured me that he is going to help the 3.2 million people who are missing out on their basic employment rights.

[Andrew Griffiths]

Allow me to try to reassure the hon. Lady that those issues are being taken care of. She will be aware that a Green Paper on social care is imminent, and those social care issues will be covered within it. She talks about when workers in the gig economy are clocking on and off and what constitutes their working time. If she has read the report, she will know that we recognise that the law should be clearer about when people are being paid and the hours that they work. We will address that within the consultation and come up with firm proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I can be absolutely clear with the hon. Lady that we are very attuned to the impact of the Swedish derogation and how it can be used unfairly on workers.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

What are you going to do?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady asks me what we are doing about it: we are specifically consulting. In the report, she will see that there are four consultations, and one specifically comes forward with proposals. [Interruption.] She may sigh, but we have to listen to the experts, and then we will deliver. We recognise the difficulties in relation to the Swedish derogation. We want to extend the support both for agency workers and those who feel that they are being disadvantaged—[Interruption]—on terms and conditions, exactly—and we will be taking this forward with firm proposals.

Draft Unified Patent Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2017

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 General Committees

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Bailey; I do not think I have done so for a while.

Will the Minister say a little bit more about how the arrangements will work in future? Clearly, it is a very important and good thing if we can deal with the fragmentation of patents, particularly across the European single market, but his Government are now determined to leave that market. Although this new institution is not an institution of the European Union, we agreed to come on board and become involved in it while we were in the EU, well before the vote to leave had even been thought of, except on the far fringes of the Conservative party, much less the subsequent referendum.

I am interested in the Minister’s observations on that, because the court will have to put into place the new unified directive on patents, which the European Union is in the process of putting into law and with which we are associated at the moment. However, we probably will not be if we leave the customs union and the single market at some time in future.

We are in quite an unfortunate situation: just as we are attempting to stop the fragmentation of patent law and requirements, particularly their jurisdiction in the European Union, we are fragmenting ourselves from the institution that is meant to co-ordinate that. If the last few weeks are anything to go by, we are not exactly leaving in good odour—or order—judging by the way things are going at the moment. I suspect that that may have some implications for the way in which such a pragmatic and important issue will be dealt with in future. Will the Minister give us the benefit of his observations on that and its implications?

I also note that there are experts who feel that the UK will need to take several steps to remain within the ambit of this institution after Brexit, including entering into new international agreements with the other signatories of the agreement on the unified patent court. Those signatories will all, of course, remain in the single market and the EU.

We are in the middle of trying to set up this institution, which is what the order is about, just as we are leaving the EU. Does the Minister think that we need to come back to this, and change the law and international agreements so that we can proceed smoothly with what we all agree is a desirable outcome? Would that hold up the implementation of what is a wholly good thing?

I also note that there are some issues in Germany that are holding up the final ratification of the court. Does the Minister feel that events in Germany will assist us in getting the timing right regarding our desire to enter into new international agreements, or does he think that they will slow down this wholly welcome development? If we do need new international agreements to move forward in the event of our coming out of the European Union by 2019, is his Department geared up to negotiate them? Has it done any planning on ensuring that our legal arrangements enable us to go on with, and not disrupt, the setting up of this extremely important institution as we leave the European Union?

Finally, can the Minister give us a definite guarantee? His Government do not believe in the jurisdiction of the European Court, but areas of patent law, particularly in the directives, are currently subject to that jurisdiction. Can the Minister explain to us how on earth we are going to be part of this institution, but not subject to the oversight of the European Court? For the life of me, I cannot work out how that would work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

Through the passage of the order and completing all the necessary legislative steps in Parliament, we want to ensure that we are in a position to ratify the UPC and our membership of it, thus enabling it to come into existence. As the hon. Gentleman and Members know, under the terms of the international treaty, UK ratification is required for the UPC to come into existence, and we want the court to come into existence. We have been supporters of it from the outset, and we think it will play an important role in enabling businesses to enforce their intellectual property rights at the lowest possible cost, or certainly at a much lower cost than many companies find to be the case at the moment. We are supportive of it, and we want to continue to play a facilitating role in setting it up.

After we leave the European Union in March 2019, we understand that we will have to negotiate a new relationship with the UPC. We want to do that as seamlessly as possible so that businesses can continue to take advantage of the provisions that the UPC makes possible. Our expectation is that the long-term relationship we will have to establish after March 2019 will be subject to some negotiation. I and the Government as a whole do not want to go into the detail of exactly what that relationship will be at this point.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

We all agree that the court should be set up. Because of the delay in Germany it is unlikely to be up and running much before the middle of next year, if things go well with the constitutional court there. That leaves us less than a year to get the institution up and running before we have to have a major renegotiation of our relationship with it.

In response to one of my initial questions, the Minister said that he is not in a position to give us any particular view on that because he, his Department and the whole Government will be much too busy concentrating on the bigger Brexit things. Is he of the view that the court and, much more importantly, our participation in it can continue without the legal changes we will clearly have to negotiate to remain a member once we are outside the European Union?

[The Chair]

Order. I remind Members that the order is essentially about the privileges of the key figures of the court. While I have allowed the debate to range to other issues around it, it would be helpful if we could focus on the order and if the Minister could relate his reply to the specific issues relevant to the order and the hon. Lady’s comments.

[Joseph Johnson]

Thank you, Mr Bailey, I will try to do that. Returning to the hon. Lady’s question, the order is made under the International Organisations Act 1968. It does not relate to EU legislation, nor does it rely on the European Communities Act 1972. The order will therefore not need to be preserved by the EU (Withdrawal) Bill at exit to remain UK law, so it will continue. As the hon. Lady knows, the UPC agreement is an international treaty, not an EU treaty. It will not need to be converted into UK law by the EU (Withdrawal) Bill for it to continue to apply.

To summarise all the points on Brexit, whatever the UK’s future relationship with the UPC, we will need to negotiate with our European partners to reflect the change to the UK’s status when we leave the EU. We want the court to come into existence. That is why we are facilitating it by putting ourselves in a position where we can ratify it. We understand that there are issues in other countries whose ratification is necessary; we hope that they can be overcome so that this court can come into existence and do the job we all want it to do.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

The privileges issue is clearly important. We cannot have the court without this order, which is why we all support it, but I hope the Minister will reassure me that we can continue to use this court with all its privileges if we are out of the European Union. The House of Commons Library note on this issue includes some worrying or at least alarming views from European law experts who say that we will not be able to remain in the court appropriately after Brexit before we have changed the law—we will not be able to just carry on having the court run. That might mean that people in our country cannot have access to its benefits until the Government ensure that they have entered into new legal agreements with the other signatories. Would he confirm that that is the case and say something about whether the order ensures that we will continue to have access to the court’s benefits, which we all want, without Parliament having to come back—

[The Chair]

Order. That is an incredibly long intervention.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Well, it is a question.

[The Chair]

The points have been packaged up as questions. We have the drift of it, so will the Minister now respond?

Unified Patent Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2017

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 General Committees

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Bailey; I do not think I have done so for a while.

Will the Minister say a little bit more about how he the arrangements will work in future? Clearly, it is a very important and good thing if we can deal with the fragmentation of patents, particularly across the European single market, but his Government are now determined to leave that market. Although this new institution is not an institution of the European Union, we agreed to come on board and become involved in it while we were in the EU, well before the vote to leave had even been thought of, except on the far fringes of the Conservative party, much less the subsequent referendum.

I am interested in the Minister’s observations on that, because the court will have to put into place the new unified directive on patents, which the European Union is in the process of putting into law and with which we are associated at the moment. However, we probably will not be if we leave the customs union and the single market at some time in future.

We are in quite an unfortunate situation: just as we are attempting to stop the fragmentation of patent law and requirements, particularly their jurisdiction in the European Union, we are fragmenting ourselves from the institution that is meant to co-ordinate that. If the last few weeks are anything to go by, we are not exactly leaving in good odour—or order—judging by the way things are going at the moment. I suspect that that may have some implications for the way in which such a pragmatic and important issue will be dealt with in future. Will the Minister give us the benefit of his observations on that and its implications?

I also note that there are experts who feel that the UK will need to take several steps to remain within the ambit of this institution after Brexit, including entering into new international agreements with the other signatories of the agreement on the unified patent court. Those signatories will all, of course, remain in the single market and the EU.

We are in the middle of trying to set up this institution, which is what the order is about, just as we are leaving the EU. Does the Minister think that we need to come back to this, and change the law and international agreements so that we can proceed smoothly with what we all agree is a desirable outcome? Would that hold up the implementation of what is a wholly good thing?

I also note that there are some issues in Germany that are holding up the final ratification of the court. Does the Minister feel that events in Germany will assist us in getting the timing right regarding our desire to enter into new international agreements, or does he think that they will slow down this wholly welcome development? If we do need new international agreements to move forward in the event of our coming out of the European Union by 2019, is his Department geared up to negotiate them? Has it done any planning on ensuring that our legal arrangements enable us to go on with, and not disrupt, the setting up of this extremely important institution as we leave the European Union?

Finally, can the Minister give us a definite guarantee? His Government do not believe in the jurisdiction of the European Court, but areas of patent law, particularly in the directives, are currently subject to that jurisdiction. Can the Minister explain to us how on earth we are going to be part of this institution, but not subject to the oversight of the European Court? For the life of me, I cannot work out how that would work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

Through the passage of the order and completing all the necessary legislative steps in Parliament, we want to ensure that we are in a position to ratify the UPC and our membership of it, thus enabling it to come into existence. As the hon. Gentleman and Members know, under the terms of the international treaty, UK ratification is required for the UPC to come into existence, and we want the court to come into existence. We have been supporters of it from the outset, and we think it will play an important role in enabling businesses to enforce their intellectual property rights at the lowest possible cost, or certainly at a much lower cost than many companies find to be the case at the moment. We are supportive of it, and we want to continue to play a facilitating role in setting it up.

After we leave the European Union in March 2019, we understand that we will have to negotiate a new relationship with the UPC. We want to do that as seamlessly as possible so that businesses can continue to take advantage of the provisions that the UPC makes possible. Our expectation is that the long-term relationship we will have to establish after March 2019 will be subject to some negotiation. I and the Government as a whole do not want to go into the detail of exactly what that relationship will be at this point.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

We all agree that the court should be set up. Because of the delay in Germany it is unlikely to be up and running much before the middle of next year, if things go well with the constitutional court there. That leaves us less than a year to get the institution up and running before we have to have a major renegotiation of our relationship with it.

In response to one of my initial questions, the Minister said that he is not in a position to give us any particular view on that because he, his Department and the whole Government will be much too busy concentrating on the bigger Brexit things. Is he of the view that the court and, much more importantly, our participation in it can continue without the legal changes we will clearly have to negotiate to remain a member once we are outside the European Union?

[The Chair]

Order. I remind Members that the order is essentially about the privileges of the key figures of the court. While I have allowed the debate to range to other issues around it, it would be helpful if we could focus on the order and if the Minister could relate his reply to the specific issues relevant to the order and the hon. Lady’s comments.

[Joseph Johnson]

Thank you, Mr Bailey, I will try to do that. Returning to the hon. Lady’s question, the order is made under the International Organisations Act 1968. It does not relate to EU legislation, nor does it rely on the European Communities Act 1972. The order will therefore not need to be preserved by the EU (Withdrawal) Bill at exit to remain UK law, so it will continue. As the hon. Lady knows, the UPC agreement is an international treaty, not an EU treaty. It will not need to be converted into UK law by the EU (Withdrawal) Bill for it to continue to apply.

To summarise all the points on Brexit, whatever the UK’s future relationship with the UPC, we will need to negotiate with our European partners to reflect the change to the UK’s status when we leave the EU. We want the court to come into existence. That is why we are facilitating it by putting ourselves in a position where we can ratify it. We understand that there are issues in other countries whose ratification is necessary; we hope that they can be overcome so that this court can come into existence and do the job we all want it to do.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

The privileges issue is clearly important. We cannot have the court without this order, which is why we all support it, but I hope the Minister will reassure me that we can continue to use this court with all its privileges if we are out of the European Union. The House of Commons Library note on this issue includes some worrying or at least alarming views from European law experts who say that we will not be able to remain in the court appropriately after Brexit before we have changed the law—we will not be able to just carry on having the court run. That might mean that people in our country cannot have access to its benefits until the Government ensure that they have entered into new legal agreements with the other signatories. Would he confirm that that is the case and say something about whether the order ensures that we will continue to have access to the court’s benefits, which we all want, without Parliament having to come back—

[The Chair]

Order. That is an incredibly long intervention.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Well, it is a question.

[The Chair]

The points have been packaged up as questions. We have the drift of it, so will the Minister now respond?

Vauxhall (Redundancies)

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I pay tribute to the many people who I am sure live in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency who work in the other major Vauxhall plant and who I know are as committed and productive as those in Ellesmere Port. He is absolutely right, and this is why we have to have the negotiation and why we have to come up with a good deal and ensure as seamless a relationship across borders as possible. He will know that 65% of the Luton plant’s production is exported to the EU. We want to make sure that continues.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

rose—

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

I am not sure who the winner was in that contest, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right. She should not listen to the noises off, which people seem to be obsessed by, that are reported to come out of the Cabinet. There is an absolutely obvious view that we have to get a deal. We will get a deal that works for the UK and for businesses such as this in the UK, and we will have the opportunity over the next few days and weeks in the debate on the repeal Bill to show that we are unified on this and want to stand up for the businesses and those they employ in our constituencies.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

I have constituents who will be losing their jobs as a result of these extremely worrying announcements. The Minister has said that the Government are standing ready to help, but the future of the plant would certainly be enhanced if the plant were a front runner for a new model. What are the Government doing to ensure that it is?

[Claire Perry]

That is absolutely part of the conversation. I understand from listening to the general secretary of the union today and from talking to the company that decisions about the new model have to be taken in the next few years. It is incumbent on us all, therefore, to make sure that this is perceived as the best place to build that model. That is how to protect, preserve and enhance the jobs and productivity of the plant.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

The Government believe that people are entitled to be treated fairly at work, regardless of what type of contract they have with the company for which they work. The Prime Minister commissioned Matthew Taylor to undertake a review of the rights of employees. He will report on the ways in which employment regulations need to keep pace with changes in the labour market very shortly.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement that the Government are determined to ensure that employees get their employment rights. Why, then, did the Government introduce the huge fees for access to employment tribunals? Will they now abolish those fees?

[Margot James]

Employment tribunals are a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but I am in discussions with it over the review of employment tribunals that it has undertaken and we keep a watching brief on the matters the hon. Lady raises.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Come on!

[Margot James]

I am glad that the hon. Lady is so keen to hear my answer to this question.

We support small business growth by ensuring that small businesses can access finance and wider support. The British Business Bank is already supporting more than 54,000 smaller businesses with £3.4 billion of finance, and I am leading a taskforce to enable SMEs to accelerate their growth potential and realise their growth prospects quicker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I quite agree with my hon. Friend. That demonstrates the need for all businesses, especially SMEs, to take advantage of our target of 3 million apprenticeships and the huge improvement in the quality of apprenticeships that the National Apprenticeship Service supports.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

T5. Given that the Brexit negotiations are about to start, does the Secretary of State agree with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that no deal is better than a bad deal?

[Greg Clark]

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Opel/Vauxhall: Sale to PSA Group

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

We want to make sure that we have the best possible trading relationship with the rest of the single market, but whether we were leaving or staying in the EU the opportunity to get more suppliers in this country is there, and I am determined that we should take it.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I have constituents who work in the Ellesmere Port plant and many others are reliant for their employment on local supply chains, so this is causing huge worry in the area. What can the Secretary of State say to reassure my constituents about the future, particularly given that our employment laws make it easier to sack workers in the UK compared with those who work in France and Germany, which puts them at an immediate disadvantage? What can he say to reassure them about the fact that we are leaving the EU and the single market, which again potentially puts them at a disadvantage in the competition to come?

[Greg Clark]

What I would say to the hon. Lady is, first, that the reason we have a successful record in this country is that our car plants and their workforces are highly efficient, and we should not forget that. Secondly, the commitments given—they have been shared with the trade unions—are to honour agreements that include the trade unions, which I think she will welcome. In the long term, we want to expand the industry. We want to take every opportunity to work with the automotive sector to increase the number of good jobs available to her constituents and people across the country.