Sheep Farming: No-deal EU Exit

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Helen Goodman

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Chapman]

I agree with the hon. Lady, and I will refer later in my speech to the report that she has mentioned.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Last week, I went to the Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Service. Its concern is that because the Government have failed to bring forward the Agriculture Bill, it is not clear whether the Government have the legal powers to make payments in the event of no-deal Brexit. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister must answer that point this evening?

[Jenny Chapman]

That is the first time I have heard that point made in the House; it is one that my hon. Friend and I discussed earlier today. She is absolutely right: farmers need to hear from the Minister what he intends to do about their payments, and we need to ensure that he has the power to make those payments. The principal problem for the sheep sector is that, according to the report the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) mentioned, under no deal the export of sheepmeat to the EU27 would be almost entirely wiped out, with the only exports being those via a tariff rate quota of less than 400 tonnes. Of course non-EU exports could increase over time, although the possible rise of around 5% would not be anywhere near enough to offset the loss of EU trade. Reduced trade with the EU would leave around one third of UK meat without a market.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Helen Goodman

Committee: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 6th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Chapman]

It is a real pleasure to be called to contribute. I wish to speak to new clause 80 and amendments 339 and 340 in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

New clause 80 would require a vote in the House on the financial settlement that the Government agree with the European Union. Further, it would require the House to be informed in its decision on that matter by reports from the Office for Budget Responsibility and the National Audit Office. Amendments 339 and 340 would prevent tax or fee-raising powers from being established via tertiary legislation and limit any fees that are levied by public bodies to the cost of the service that the fee is intended to cover.

I should start by referring Members to the third report of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee from September, which examined the Bill before us today. The report draws our intention to the fact that the delegated powers memorandum notes that those powers would enable

“the creation of tax-like charges, which go beyond recovering the direct cost of the provision of a service to a specific firm or individual, including to allow for potential cross-subsidisation or to cover the wider functions and running costs of a public body.”

The report alerts Parliament to the danger of allowing organisations full-cost recovery of their services without parliamentary scrutiny as it could allow them to gold-plate the services that they offer. As the report says:

“A tax-like charge means a tax.”

And it

“should not be allowed in subordinate legislation. They are matters for Parliament, a principle central to the Bill of Rights 1688. Regulations under clauses 7 and 9 cannot impose or increase taxation.33 But regulations under Schedule 4 may.”

The report goes on to make the point that that means that Ministers can tax. They can

“confer powers on public authorities to tax and they can do so in tertiary legislation that has no parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever.”

New clause 80 also addresses this issue of a lack of parliamentary oversight. As we all know, the Government are in the process of attempting to conclude the first phase of negotiations with the European Union. Part of that process is agreeing a financial settlement, which reflects the obligations that the United Kingdom has incurred as a result of its membership of the European Union. Labour has always been clear that Britain should meet its obligations. We cannot seriously hope to make new agreements on the international stage if we are seen to go back on what we have already agreed. Britain is a far better, fairer and more reliable ally than that.

As the Chancellor said when he attended the Treasury Committee today:

“I find it inconceivable that we as a nation would be walking away from an obligation that we recognised as an obligation.”

He continued:

“That is just not a credible scenario. That’s not the kind of country we are and frankly it would not make us a credible partner for future international agreements.”

On that, we are agreed. But we have also been clear that the deal must be fair to the taxpayer. Already the Government are attempting to bypass the scrutiny that should take place in this Chamber. This money belongs to the UK taxpayer and they have a right to know how much, and for what they are paying. It is true that the public interest in discovering more about the financial settlements that the Government intend to make with the EU is great, and that there will inevitably and rightly be extensive media coverage. The details, some certain and some speculative, will be pored over by commentators. Estimates will be made and objections proffered on the basis—sometimes, I venture to say—of inaccurate or incomplete information. That is not a satisfactory way to proceed. The House must get a grip of this process and demand the ability to scrutinise and take a view on the deals reached.

Our new clause argues that this House should have a vote, and also that the vote should be properly informed. Being properly informed means that independent analysis by the OBR and the NAO must be provided to assist this House in its consideration of the deal. We are going to need that, because the financial settlement will not be straightforward, and unvarnished truths will be hard to come by. Crudely speaking, the Government will try to make the amount look as reasonable as possible and the EU will try to show that it has everything that it thinks it is due.

The Government will want to highlight estimates that show how payments will be less than half the €100 billion liability, once UK projects have been taken into account. As Alex Barker in the Financial Times put it last week:

“Ministers are banking on Treasury budget wizards making the exit price look as small as possible.”

The two sides in the negotiation could look at the same agreement and come up with net estimates that are quite different.

[Helen Goodman]

I am just puzzling over how the Government think this will work. Has my hon. Friend thought about this: it is highly likely that we will make not one big payment, but a number of payments over a period of time, which means that the payment could be spread into another Parliament? Given that no Parliament can bind its successor, how does she think that the Government can make this agreement?

[Jenny Chapman]

That is a very interesting point. As a fellow member of the Select Committee on Procedure for several years, I am not surprised that my hon. Friend has spotted this. I would be fascinated to hear what the Minister has to say about that when he gets to his feet later this evening.

Parliament ought to have the ability to debate, scrutinise and reach its own conclusion on this matter. If we do not, we will be the only people not tussling with it. This Parliament wants to do as the people said we should: take back control. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in response to an urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) that to give Parliament details about the settlement

“would not be in our national interest”—[Official Report, 29 November 2017; Vol. 632, c. 327.]

That is not good enough. She said that she will “update the House” when there is more to say, but we do not want to be updated; we want the ability to decide.

National Railway Museum and Ownership of National Assets

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Helen Goodman

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Helen Goodman]

I was just suggesting that if the Tornado was built in Darlington, Darlington should have the Tornado, but Shildon should have Locomotion No. 1.

[Jenny Chapman]

I see that this local rivalry could get out of hand! We would love the Tornado, but we are proud that the Tornado, made in Darlington, is being used and enjoyed regularly by passengers around the country, although we are thrilled when it comes back to the north-east, too. My hon. Friend has now made her point twice. Shall we leave it there for today and perhaps pick it up again in The Northern Echo some other time?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said, the growth of the railways changed this country. Without the railways, we would not have Middlesbrough or Saltburn; indeed, the whole shape of the north-east, and later the country, changed because of the railways, which were created, built, designed and invested in in the north-east of England. We take enormous pride in that, and we are concerned when assets are given away. There are serious questions for the National Railway Museum on this matter. I am sure that those questions can be answered, but to a town that struggles to support its own small railway museum—we struggle hard to keep it interesting and thriving—gifting an asset such as an engine seems rather odd.

We would like assurances on what a gift is. Is this more of a long-term loan? What safeguards are in place for the upkeep of the asset? How do we know that it will be cared for in the way we know it could be cared for? How do we know that it cannot be disposed of in future in a way that would be detrimental to our national heritage? It is pleasing that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) was able to answer some of those problems, but there is still a question mark over the concept of gifting in these instances.

I wonder whether such a relaxed approach would be taken if the asset were not part of our industrial heritage. What if it were a piece of fine art or a piece of statuary? Rules need to be applied in every case. Industrial heritage is just as important to my constituents as—

[Helen Goodman]

Italian art.

[Jenny Chapman]

As Italian art, for example.

The National Railway Museum is in a privileged position, in that it has all those assets in a wonderful location. Visiting it is an incredible experience, as is visiting the site at Shildon. I have enjoyed both, and families across the north-east enjoy them regularly. However, Head of Steam, which is the Darlington railway museum, is not as privileged, and as I have the Minister’s attention, I shall explain the situation that we are in.

The railway museum in Darlington is supported by the Friends of Darlington Railway Centre and Museum, by local residents and, principally, by Darlington council tax payers. We have benefited from Heritage Lottery Fund money for special projects, and we are very grateful for that, but we do not benefit from—my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North referred to this—any national strategic consideration of how these assets ought to be looked after and how they might be better promoted in the future.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said, the railway museum in Darlington is not free. It is closed on Mondays; indeed, at this time of year it is closed on Mondays and Tuesdays. From Wednesday to Sunday, it is open only from 11 am to 3.30 pm. To get in, adults need to pay £4.95; for young people, a visit costs £3.00. That museum is therefore at a considerable disadvantage compared with the nearby Shildon and York railway museums, important to our heritage though it is. It is to the credit of local people that they have managed to support the museum for as long as they have. I understand that this week, it being half-term, entrance is free.