Customs and Borders

Anna McMorrin Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Other Members will have more evidence and experience than I when it comes to all the detailed arguments, but if we are a smaller market offering to trade, we will be in a weaker position to get a good deal than if we are part of a larger argument in that trade negotiation. Trade deals can take a long time, regardless of the best intentions. There can also be winners and losers, which means that even in this country it may take us a long time to agree on whether new trade agreements are right or wrong.

For example, consumers might want to enjoy more and cheaper New Zealand lamb, but Welsh farmers might take a different view. Industry might be able to get cheaper Chinese steel, but what about the consequences for the British steel industry? If the price of a US trade deal is lower environmental standards or giving US private healthcare companies access to, and the right to aggressively compete for, contracts in our NHS, many of us will want nothing at all to do with that. The truth is that any trade agreement will be complicated to agree in this place, never mind with countries across the world.

Moreover, as the CBI has pointed out, we can increase our international trade—and our EU trade—while still in a customs union with the EU and without having to spend years negotiating complex new treaties. As the CBI points out, Germany currently sells four times as much as we do to China. We should be trying to make the most of those opportunities.

Research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research shows that the overall trade increase from possible future agreements with the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would amount to less than 3% of our current trade. Are we really going to rip up all the benefits of what we have in a customs union for the sake of a 3% increase that will not be sufficient to balance what we will lose?

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; she is being very generous. Analysis by the Cardiff Business School and supported by the Welsh Labour Government states that our economy is best protected by membership of the customs union. Wales is currently attracting record inward investment, but businesses in my constituency are very worried due to the lack of certainty from the Government.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. This is affecting businesses all over the country.

I want to make one final point. I have taken a lot of interventions because I know that many Members will not get the chance to speak later and they want to give their views. I am conscious, however, of the time. Time is running out in the negotiations and the clock is even sharper today.

The final reason given by those who object to a customs union is that it is a point of principle. They say that it is about our sovereignty and that that was at the heart of the Brexit vote. Even if it is bad for us, it is a point of principle that we should be able to set our own tariffs and sign our own trade deals, and that is somehow at the heart of the taking back control that Britain voted for.

I find that argument illogical as well as inaccurate because, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, any trade treaty involves signing away some sovereignty. Any kind of trade agreement involves legally binding conclusions and an independent dispute resolution procedure, and once the state has signed up to such an agreement, it might not be able to stop, for example, a US company taking contracts with the NHS or whatever we might have signed away as part of it.

Nobody wants to defend a principle of sovereignty whereby we never do any trade agreements with anybody or sign anything away. We should not do that because it would prevent us from getting a good deal with Europe that would help our manufacturing industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna McMorrin Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a record number of businesses are starting. We saw double the amount of investment in tech companies last year compared with the previous year. Britain is booming, and that is because we have taken the important measures of reforming our welfare system, making it easier to take on staff and reducing corporation tax. The Labour party wants to stop all that, raise taxes and make it harder for businesses to succeed.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

The Government’s green rhetoric is nothing more than empty promises. They say that they have ambition, so when will the Chancellor commit funding for onshore wind, solar and, importantly, the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon? The benefits of these investments would boost not only our green economy, but the supply chain and jobs.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I have already answered the question on the Swansea Bay lagoon—we are studying the project. All of these projects have to meet value-for-money tests. We already have a fantastic offshore wind sector, with record low costs to the consumer through offshore wind generation. We have to decarbonise our economy in a way that also keeps electricity prices as low as possible for consumers and businesses.

Autumn Budget as it Relates to Wales

Anna McMorrin Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 General Committees

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

Gadewch i mi ddechrau trwy ddweud pa mor falch ydw i i gael y cyfle i siarad Cymraeg heddiw. Mae’n un o ieithoedd swyddogol y Deyrnas Unedig ac mae llawer o fy etholwyr yng Ngogledd Caerdydd yn ei siarad. Felly rwyf yn gobeithio y bydd fy nghyd-Aelodau a minnau yn cael siarad Cymraeg yn y brif Siambr hefyd cyn bo hir. Nawr byddaf yn troi at y Saesneg oherwydd dwi’n dal i ddysgu Cymraeg.

(Translation) Let me begin by saying how pleased I am to have the opportunity to speak Welsh here today. It is one of the official languages of the United Kingdom, and many of my constituents speak the language. I hope therefore that hon. Members and I will have an opportunity to speak Welsh in the main Chamber before too long. I will now turn to English, because I am still learning Welsh.

I am sure that my colleagues and the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating Jack Sargeant on an absolutely excellent win in the by-election in Alyn and Deeside yesterday, increasing Labour’s majority after a brilliant campaign. He now joins our Welsh Labour colleagues in Cardiff Bay, representing his constituents and helping to deliver record levels of investment in our NHS, an extra £100 million in funding for schools, 20,000 more affordable homes and the best childcare offer for working parents in the United Kingdom.

That is in stark contrast to the Tories’ shameful approach to our nation, with the Secretary of State for Wales constantly undermining the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government, and complaining that too much power has been “centralised” in Cardiff. It is obvious that that is an attempt to create divisions within Wales, to distract people from the fact that the Tories do not care about investment in Wales, consistently ignore recommendations from the Welsh Government and exclude Wales from Brexit negotiations.

The Secretary of State is just Westminster’s representative in Wales, not Wales’s representative in Westminster, and as a mouthpiece for the Tories in Westminster he continues to block policies that would allow Wales to create more jobs and lower energy costs, as well as undermining devolution at every opportunity. It is embarrassing how obvious he and his Government make their lack of respect for Wales as a devolved nation.

The Budgets presented by this UK Government have consistently punished Wales. The UK Government give in to the likes of the Democratic Unionist party to save their own jobs. And where was the Secretary of State for Wales when the DUP was given a billion pounds for Northern Ireland? Why did he not stand up for Wales? Why did he not demand more money? In fact, where is he now?

The Welsh budget has experienced year-on-year cuts as a result of the UK Government’s ongoing policy of austerity. By 2022, when we will have had more than 10 years of Conservative rule—hopefully not—UK GDP is forecast to be £41 billion, or around 3%, lower than previously forecast. On this Westminster Government’s watch, libraries, leisure centres and youth clubs are closing, because they have starved the Welsh Government and Welsh councils of money. Mental health services are being cut back, too. Since 2010, 25,000 local authority jobs in Wales have gone and the services that make our communities healthier and more liveable in are disappearing, because of lack of funding from Westminster. The austerity politics of this UK Government is killing our communities in Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales tells us that all that must be the fault of the Welsh Government. However, the seven-year public sector pay cap of this Tory Government has reduced the wages of carers, school support staff, cleaners, highway maintenance staff and many more public sector workers by more than 20%. Since 2010, nurses have suffered a 14% pay cut in real terms and current estimates are that 3,000 nursing jobs in Wales are unfilled.

In my constituency of Cardiff North, where we have the highest number of public sector workers in Wales, I have spoken to nurses who have to resort to foodbanks, and to other public sector workers who are barely making ends meet. That is unacceptable, and we should not use Welsh Government funding to resolve an issue that should be put right at UK level. If Welsh Government funding is used, we would see millions of pounds being taken from frontline services and from the budget of NHS Wales, risking thousands of public sector jobs. It is absolutely essential that this UK Government provide the funding that Wales needs, and that they treat our public sector workers with fairness and equality.

Moving on, the effects of climate change and resource depletion mean that the old, tired ways of doing business are an insufficient response to the challenges we face today. Governments and businesses must come together to create new models of sustainable growth. That is happening in Wales, and it comes at a time when Welsh industries and businesses face the danger of a hard Tory Brexit. The best way to protect our nation is to retain full access to the European single market and a customs union.

In the same way that the availability of natural resources put Wales at the forefront of the first industrial revolution, driving the growth in what was then iron, coal, steel and manufacturing, our abundant natural resources can now drive the growth of a new and different economy, which will be rooted in the sustainable and intelligent use of those resources. That is in stark contrast to the shambolic direction of the Tories in England, who seem unable to give a steer on climate targets or long-term sustainable growth. The tidal lagoon has been discussed. It is shameful that the UK Government cannot come to a decision—Tory Ministers consistently undermine it, despite, as we have heard, investment from the Welsh Government.

In a competitive global marketplace, companies will invest where there are the best conditions to make long-term sustainable growth possible. The Welsh Government have recognised that and introduced a strong legislative framework that gives certainty beyond electoral cycles. In the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 the Welsh Labour Government have set out a far-reaching economic, environmental and social agenda. That strong ambition and drive can help Wales to become a world leader in green growth, providing a platform and location where companies that share those values can thrive. I am proud to have played a part in introducing the carrier bag charge seven years before it was introduced in England, as well as to have helped to develop a truly sustainable Wales.

It is clear that the next 20 years will see a period of massive technological change. Young peoples’ voices will be critical to that process as the generation who will be at the heart of driving change over the next 20 years. The challenge now is to drive green growth widely and quickly, as we face the risks and opportunities of the 21st century. Successful markets need a strong clear vision and an effective regulatory regime. The UK Tory Government have neither. If they have any real ambition to lead on green growth they must do likewise, and put in place long-term statutory goals to reflect what we want now and in the future. They need to improve the position of business and prioritise investing in high-quality sustainable infrastructure, such as the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, which will make Wales a far more attractive place to do business.

At the moment the UK Government and the Secretary of State for Wales are an embarrassment. They cannot take a decision on the tidal lagoon; there are U-turns on rail electrification investment; and they have failed to invest in energy efficiency or renewable energy, which would provide the vital economic and environmental infrastructure needed to boost growth and support the environment. Diolch yn fawr.

Trade Bill (Third sitting)

Anna McMorrin Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Alan Brown]

Q I have one more, Chair, if that is okay. Elspeth, I believe that you have come out as backing the Scottish and Welsh Governments’ decisions to withhold a legislative consent motion. Will you outline your concerns and say what you would like changed in the Bill to alleviate those concerns?

Elspeth Macdonald: The principal issue with the Bill that causes us great difficulties is the way in which it constrains the ability of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers, and consequently our ability, to act and regulate in ways that are considered appropriate for businesses and the public in Scotland. The fundamental issue is essentially the same as in the case of the constraints imposed through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill; it is a similar matter of high principle that overarches the Bills.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

Q May I return to geographical indications and EU rules? Sarah Dickson, can you tell us a little more about your concerns on this? What if, for example, South Korea raised objections on geographical indications in a new trade agreement?

Sarah Dickson: When the EU negotiates a trade agreement, it always looks to protect geographical indications. It does that in different ways. Not every agreement has exactly the same provisions, but it is always what they call an offensive interest of the EU to make sure that geographical names are protected. Where we think that an agreement with that intellectual property protection—that is basically what a geographical indication gives us—does not exist anymore, we will have to find other means, which means spending time and resources trying to work the country’s system. All countries, via their TRIPS—trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—agreement, should have intellectual property; it is just that the easiest, clearest way to do this is through a free trade agreement.

We have already started work, in countries where there is an EU trade agreement, on making sure that we double up, so to speak, and work through the Government system to try to make sure that there is no intellectual property gap.

[Anna McMorrin]

Q Are you concerned that there could be a compromise on the definition of whisky, for example, in future trade agreements?

Sarah Dickson: Looking at future trade agreements, I would hope not, because I would assume that the UK Government would give the same priority to protecting its geographical indications, like Scotch whisky.

[Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)]

Q May I ask Ms Dickson a question about the process for engagement on trade policy through the EU’s market access strategy, and the market access advisory committee? How do those compare with the frameworks in place for engagement with the UK Government?

Sarah Dickson: I think the engagement with the UK Government is the missing piece of the puzzle, but we assume that it will happen at some point, and that we will have more detail on it. The market access advisory committee is a great way for us, the industry, to feed in our views formally to all the member states. We regularly attend it. It has a spirit-specific working group that we are able to contribute to. It feels very much like a partnership. We explain the problems we face in markets around the world and the EU then works out how it can respond to that. It has to prioritise, but because you have all the sectors contributing in that way and it is quite an open, transparent process, you know that you are at least being listened to and included in its strategies.

Trade Bill (Second sitting)

Anna McMorrin Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Prisk]

Q So you do not think that having Question Time and a Select Committee on trade is adequate.

Jude Kirton-Darling: There is a clear role for stronger scrutiny. Inside the legislation, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State or the new Trade Remedies Authority to engage directly with Parliament through, for example, a specific Committee of Parliament. In future, that could be the International Trade Committee—an amendment could be tabled to ensure that link and that scrutiny—but at the moment that is not in the proposals. It is a missing link, if you think about what we already benefit from in the current system, of which we are a member.

I would hate to give the impression that what we have is perfect; that is not what I am trying to say. Today, in the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade, MEPs have voted on a modernisation package to try to rectify some of the weaknesses in the EU’s regime. If you are thinking about what to improve on, our system is not perfect, but, at the same time, MEPs—your counterparts—have a clear role in the process, which is entirely missing from the proposals tabled.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

Q May I address this question to Dr Bartels? The Government suggest, to justify the absence of any process for parliamentary oversight, transparency and scrutiny, that trade negotiations need to be done confidentially and under some secrecy. What is your feeling about that?

Dr Bartels: One can look at what is covered in modern trade agreements according to two poles, and then there is a sort of meeting in the middle. On one side, you have the pure market access issues, where you are reducing duties—you are liberalising trade—in certain economic sectors. Those sectors are going to be affected negatively and are not going to be happy about it, because there is competition that they were not used to. To do that, you need to be able to trade sectors off against one another. There is a reason for confidentiality with that traditional sort of trade negotiation. Not everybody would agree—you might say that someone whose job is at risk should get a right to know what is being negotiated—but there is at least a traditional and strong argument there for confidentiality.

On the other side, you have purely regulatory issues, such as the question of what you think in your system of the precautionary principle for health and safety. That sort of principle would normally be dealt with through the normal democratic process, and I cannot see any reason why that should be changed and negotiators should be given the ability to haggle that away, particularly if they are doing that in secret. In the middle, you have rules that are regulatory but arguably are also protectionist, so the trade negotiators would say, “We should be able to negotiate those away in secrecy.” It is hard to know where to draw the line, but it is certainly useful to conceive of what is in a trade agreement according to those two poles.

None of that means that this should be limited purely to the Executive, even when there is confidentiality on market access. Many other countries have systems where parliamentarians have some rights to see what is being negotiated and to be kept apprised of negotiations as they go. The European Union, for instance, is extremely advanced when it comes to that; there are strict limitations in terms of going into and coming out of the room, no phones are allowed, and so on. The US Congress has similar arrangements. There is a palette of options to enable parliamentary involvement, even within the framework of confidentiality. I am not sure that the Bill is the right place to address that sort of issue, but there is certainly nothing like that in the Bill.

[Anna McMorrin]

Q Some claim that non-tariff barriers to trade, such as regulations on standards, are protectionist. What is your opinion? Do you believe that is true?

Dr Bartels: It is true, but it is generally more true in certain sectors. It is true, for instance, in sanitary and phytosanitary standards. It is usually not the standards themselves that are protectionist. There are examples of standards, such as the beef hormone standards, that I can say are protectionist because WTO cases have said they are protectionist—I just need to cite Geneva on those—but it is often done by having overly complicated conformity assessment requirements, and so on. There is definitely room for regulations that purport to be there simply to protect the public also to be protectionist. Usually, you have both aspects in the same regulation. But even in that sort of situation, I still think that the regulatory dimension is sufficient for there to be at least some type of domestic scrutiny over haggling that away.

[The Chair]

Q Do others have a view on that?

Dr Hestermeyer: There are certainly examples of standards being used only for protectionist purposes, but it is far more common for standards that one side sets to be perceived as protectionist by the other. Let us take hormone beef. There is real concern on the part of a lot of European consumers that hormone beef is not healthy. There is no direct scientific evidence to show that that is true, but the concern is nevertheless there. So the standard reflects the democratic choice of the populace—whether we think it is adequate or not. That is important to see. With any standard set, some sides will say, “This is protectionism,” and it is also rhetoric to attack the standard.

Jude Kirton-Darling: I guess the last point missing from that is that if we look at where trade agreements and trade policy have been controversial in recent years, it is when the perception is that standards held very dearly by the public for exactly those reasons are perceived to be negotiated away behind closed doors, with only a certain number of vested interests having access to the process. That is one more reason why having an open process, with parliamentary scrutiny and engagement, gives credibility to any final agreement, which at the end of the day has to have public support, after the negotiations. You build in societal acceptance through the process by engaging Parliament in an active way.

Dr Fowler: I would very much endorse that. If it is the case that some degree of secrecy or privacy is an advantage in one respect, there is probably a trade-off in terms of not being able to have that societal buy-in that might be wanted at the end of the process. There is a trade-off and losses if it is all done in private.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have half an hour left. Incidentally, Mr Peretz’s evidence is available in written format in the Committee Room.

[Anna McMorrin]

Q The Government claim that the process of replicating the trade agreements to which we are currently party as EU member states would be a simple roll-over process. Do you foresee any complications?

Professor Winters: Yes, I’m afraid that I do see complications of a technical nature and, in a sense, of a political nature as well. The technical complications concern rules of origin to begin with. Every trade agreement essentially has rules of origin that determine whether a good qualifies for zero-tariff entry. A typical rule of origin says that 50% of the value must be contributed from the country claiming the duty-free access. If we take a good that is exported to Korea that is made in the UK but with a 40% input from the EU and 30% input from the USA, it gets into Korea tariff-free because the UK plus the EU27 contribution is at 70% larger than the rule of origin requires. If we are outside and by ourselves we have only 30% of the content—the value of that good—and we would not get into Korea tariff-free if the Koreans applied the same rule.

Equally, there are cases coming the other way of goods that are exported to the EU where, for instance, Korea could export a good directly into the EU27 because it has a free trade agreement for a good produced in Korea. But if they send it into the UK and we insert it into something that we then seek to send to the EU, then it might not get in because Korean content will not count towards the UK content to meet the EU’s rule of origin.

What do you do about all this? You essentially have to do something called diagonal cumulation. Korea, the UK and the EU essentially have to agree that each of them retreat from its rule of origin the content of the other two as the defining origin. In that specific case, it would restore the status quo. That needs to be negotiated with the Koreans and the EU.

Other places where we have technical problems are in the splitting up of tariff-rate quotas. For instance, there are tariff-rate quotas in the agreement with Canada: that is an agreement to import a particular volume of goods tariff-free. This has to be settled on an EU28 basis, and now it has to be divided between the UK and the EU27. On occasions, there are clauses of these agreements that refer back to a body of law in the parties. In the financial services agreement with Korea, there is a reference to accepting goods into the Korean market that were introduced into the European market without asking any further questions as long as they are consistent with existing law and do not entail a modification of existing law. That existing law—if that clause makes any sense at all—was law when the agreement was signed; it is EU law. If we tried to introduce even an equivalent law, we would have to argue the case that it needs to be treated as such for us to get access to Korea for financial services. Those are the technical reasons why there are serious problems.

Politically, we need a deal. If the transition is handled in any way that is fairly straightforward—although George has a proposal that is complicated but perhaps gets around it—it is possible that the transition will allow Korean goods into the UK tariff-free, but not UK goods into Korea tariff-free. Therefore, we really need a deal, and if you really need a deal, that is not the time to be negotiating.

[Anna McMorrin]

Q To follow up quickly, perhaps addressing Michael Clancy directly, what role do you believe the devolved Governments would have in trade negotiation prior to agreements being concluded? Do you think the Bill sets out suitable frameworks within which matters of devolved competence can be represented?

Michael Clancy: Under the Scotland Act 1998, paragraph 7 of schedule 5, international agreements, including trade agreements, are not within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. In that sense there is no formal role in agreeing international agreements. That being said, one of the things we have sought to promote throughout this process, with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, this Bill and associated measures, is that there should be some form of whole-of-governance conversation about getting things right. As we know, this Bill will affect the competence of Scottish Ministers and allow orders to be made that may amend, for instance, Acts of the Scottish Parliament, and measures from Wales and Northern Ireland too.

There is clearly an issue about how the Sewel convention or legislative consent convention is interpreted in respect of that. Under devolution guidance note 10, any proposals in UK Parliament legislation that seek to alter the legislative competence of the Parliament or of Scottish Ministers require the consent of the Parliament. That also applies to the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Therefore, there is an issue. Today in the Scottish Parliament there is a debate about legislative consent in respect of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and the Finance and Constitution Committee of the Scottish Parliament is currently consulting on the legislative consent memorandum on this Bill, where the Scottish Government have indicated that they would not recommend that the Parliament pass it.

It is a matter of political debate and discussion, and something that I know both the Scottish and UK Governments have in their sights in the concordat they are thinking about. That includes a framework for dealing with trade matters. There is a role, but I do not know it yet, because neither the Scottish nor the UK Government have told us what it is.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Q I would like to ask Professor Winters a question about part 3 of the Bill, which concerns trade information. Would you agree that the information that this Bill enables will help the Government to shape their export support programme? Are there any additional powers that you would like to see this part of the Bill contain?

Professor Winters: Information is very important, not least in my trade, for analysing what goes on. The case for collecting reasonable amounts of information, as long as it is cheap to do so, is very strong indeed, subject to the standard confidentiality requirements. I confess, on reading the Bill it did not strike me that there were obvious things that were missing, but I would not want to assert that I read it sufficiently carefully to say that nothing is missing. It is important that the Government have the right to collect information, and that information should be made as widely available as possible. The Government clearly need to make policy, but there needs to be public debate, too; it is not just the Government who need to discuss policy issues. I did not interpret this as being part of the Bill, but in general, information other than private or commercially confidential information really should be made available to a wide community of people to enable them to analyse policy.

Business of the House

Anna McMorrin Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

My hon. Friend is certainly more than welcome to apply for an Adjournment debate on such an issue. I would merely observe that that might be a matter for the particular company. As a commuter on that line, I hope that as a Government Minister I would not be seen to be in contravention of its corporate values and no longer be allowed to travel, because getting home might become quite difficult as a consequence.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

The UK Government have finally got round to launching their 25-year plan on the plastic bag levy, thereby, just six years later, catching up with the Welsh Labour Government. However, the plan lacks substance. It is full of missed opportunities and weak proposals, and it contains no laws. It is neither innovative nor radical; it is a cheap attempt by the Prime Minister to rebrand the Tories with greenwash. Will the Government commit to making a statement on the plan in the House, to allow for proper scrutiny?

[Paul Maynard]

I am disappointed that the hon. Lady seems a little churlish about what we are seeking to do. I hope that there are some issues on which we can unite across the House to do what is right for future generations. I caution her to wait and to get more information about what is being decided. I am sure this matter will be discussed at length across the House in the forthcoming business. She will learn more today and, I hope, more in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard]

I am sure there will be—

[Anna McMorrin]

Just answer the question.

[Paul Maynard]

If the hon. Lady would give me a chance to get my mouth in gear to actually say something, she might hear what I have to say. Unfortunately, my voice box does not operate at the same speed as everybody else’s, so please be patient.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) will agree that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be keen to make sure that the House is fully aware of all that we seek to do with our environmental plans. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait long to hear in this place what we are seeking to do. The Prime Minister is today making several important announcements, and I am sure we will have further opportunities to discuss them in the days and weeks to come.