United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Bill Esterson and Stephen Doughty

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I thoroughly enjoyed the very thoughtful and well analysed speech from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). I hope his hon. Friends will listen very carefully to what he says, which is incredibly important.

There are things I did not expect to be doing today. The first is to be quoting the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who spoke of the untold damage to the UK’s reputation of implementing these clauses which will break international law as soon as they hit the statute book. Something else I did not expect to be doing today, or ever, is quoting Margaret Thatcher. In 1975—before your time, Dame Eleanor—she said:

“Britain does not renounce Treaties. Indeed, to do so would damage our own integrity as well as international relations.”

In 1982, Mrs Thatcher said of Britain’s role:

“It is in upholding international law and teaching the nations of the world how to live”.

That last bit did not always go down so well, but, Dame Eleanor, you take the point. Mrs Thatcher believed, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead believes, in the rule of law and in the importance of upholding international law at all cost.

That is without citing Lord Howard, Lord Hague or Lord Lamont, and I mention them along with the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), as former Members of this House, in three cases, who are held in high regard, or used to be held in high regard, by members of Conservative party. Then we move on to the Confederation of British Industry: Carolyn Fairbairn spoke of the damage to our reputation and integrity. The Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland made a plea to the Government for sensible implementation of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, but its pleas have fallen, so far, on deaf ears.

As we heard earlier, the damage was done when the Northern Ireland Secretary told the House, as he did last week or the week before now—time passes so fast—that the Government intended to break international law, albeit in a “specific and limited way”. The Vienna convention is clear: it is not possible to use domestic law as an excuse for breaking international law. Article 5 of the withdrawal agreement makes it clear that it is not possible to do so, and Conservative Members all signed up to it at a general election and in here when they voted for it. They used to say that they revered those elders of their party—many of them would still say they do with Margaret Thatcher, of course—so how did it come to this?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making some incredibly powerful points. He is undoubtedly aware that today the world is celebrating the 75th anniversary of the United Nations. Does he find it curious that the UK Government have signed up to a statement that says:

“We will abide by international law… We will abide by the international agreements we have entered into and the commitments we have made”?

Is there not some stark hypocrisy going on there?

[Bill Esterson]

Hypocrisy, and nobody will believe it. No one will believe it because of their own words and, increasingly, their own actions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example.

What is this for—customs clearances, and because of a border in the Irish sea that the Government voted for? Have they raised it with the Joint Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) asked for the umpteenth time earlier? We would love to know in the wind-up. What of the dispute resolution system and the binding arbitration they have agreed to? Why is it no longer enough? Is this really about state aid, and the Damascene conversion of a Conservative party that last year only spent 0.38% of GDP on subsidies, while in Germany the figure was 1.38% and in Portugal as much as 1.69%? Tell us what this wonderful new world of support for our industries that the Government are proposing is, so we can scrutinise it.

The Government are not very good at scrutiny, are they? We found that out on the Trade Bill, and we continue to do so. They deny any opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, and it is the same here with these customs clearances and state aid. When it comes to state aid, we are now being told, although we cannot see the detail, that the Japanese deal will have a different state aid regime from the one they are proposing. Is it the one proposed by the Business Secretary or the one that the International Trade Secretary would prefer, with renegotiation of World Trade Organisation state aid rules? Tell us, so that we can scrutinise and make informed decisions before we vote on the provisions in this Bill.

I mention trade deals, and we know from numerous Members tonight and previously what the Speaker of the House of Representatives has said and what the former Vice-President and, I hope, future President, has said about the prospect for those trade deals, given this break of the Northern Ireland agreement and threat to the peace process. What is causing so much disquiet about what Conservative Members signed and voted for last year? Why are they ignoring the senior people in their party and Margaret Thatcher? Why the Damascene conversion to state aid? Broken promises, breaking the peace process and breaking the rule of law and international law—and they know it.

Draft Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Bill Esterson and Stephen Doughty

Monday 21st October 2019 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is an even greater pleasure than usual, Mr Hanson, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate you on becoming a grandad for the first time and I hope we will not detain you for too long from visiting your new grandchild, which I know you are keen to do—but I apologise that I will detain you for a little while.

Before we consider these regulations, we should consider the comments of the3million, the organisation representing the more than 3 million EU and EEA citizens resident in the United Kingdom. The organisation has described this measure as not being what was promised by the Government and says that it undermines promises made by the Government, which, of course, is something that the Democratic Unionist party has been only too familiar with in recent days.

What is it that we are considering today? We are considering the removal of the rights of EU, EEA, Swiss and Turkish nationals who are self-employed or business owners or operators in the United Kingdom. Who are these people and how will they be affected? They are thousands—potentially hundreds of thousands —of people who are working in professional services, entrepreneurs, people who operate start-up businesses, people who operate in IT and in professional and financial services, architects, or self-employed workers in the gig economy. There are serious potential consequences not just for them but for their staff, their customers and their suppliers—both for businesses and the self-employed—as well as for their families and the local economies in which they operate.

The Minister talked about the impact of the regulations; in fact, at one stage, he said that he was keen to move on to the impact. But there is no impact assessment, so how can we possibly know? This is a perennial discussion—it seems that we have been dealing with the issue long enough for it to be perennial and not just something of a repeated nature. Every time we have a set of these regulations, the impact assessment is lacking. Because this measure affects so many people, it is impossible for the Minister to say that it will not have a significant impact on the economy. He simply has no way of knowing that, because that investigation—that impact assessment—has not been carried out.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making strong points, with which I completely concur. He will note that the Minister used very careful words: he said “no further restrictions at the point of exit”. The fact that this matter is being considered in this way, rather than through the immigration Bill, will raise significant concerns about these rights changing in due course. We on the Select Committee on Home Affairs have looked at the subject many times. This issue did not come up, and we have discovered all sorts of problems with the existing EU settlement scheme, let alone with this provision, which many people were unaware of.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks, which I will address in some detail later.

Draft Intellectual Property (Exhaustion of Rights) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Bill Esterson and Stephen Doughty

Monday 21st January 2019 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. We now know what the £171,000 an hour is being spent on. I wonder how much the Committee will contribute towards that sum and whether we will get as far as an hour’s worth.

The draft regulations are yet another example of a no-deal preparation SI, which the Prime Minister could rule out at any time she wanted by announcing that she was taking no deal off the table. [Interruption.] I am being interrupted from a sedentary position, Mrs Moon. How strange.

The Prime Minister could have ruled out no deal in her statement earlier. I just checked what she said, and yet again she has chosen not to. It seems that the Chancellor and the Business Secretary are keen on doing so, and why on earth the Prime Minister cannot is beyond me. Frankly, if she wants to work across the parties, that is exactly what she will do, and she will find a majority in this Parliament for an alternative to no deal, if and when she eventually does that. [Interruption.] More muttering from a sedentary position. How strange, again.

The SI raises a number of issues and challenges. It raises the prospect of the import of cheap products that would undercut domestic producers and drive a coach and horses through our consumer arrangements in the event of no deal. Reasons abound for ruling out no deal, and that is one of them. I shall go through some of the points that were debated at great length in the House of Lords.

The draft regulations say that in the event of no deal, existing arrangements will continue. Those arrangements are at present in the area of EU trade where IP protection within the EU has ended or been exhausted. The Minister set that out fairly, I thought. Products from anywhere in the EU can be traded across the EU without restriction once IP protection has ended.

That so-called regional exhaustion applies within the EU but not to products from outside. EU case law largely uses an example from 1999 relating to an Austrian company called Silhouette, which produced sunglasses. Older designs from the company were sold to Bulgaria, which at the time was outside the EU. Another Austrian company chose to import those older models back into Austria and sell them at substantially lower prices than the current models were being sold for.

After lengthy legal consideration, the European Court decided that that contravened EU regulations. That is the case law currently relied on for this country’s arrangements, as it is in the other EU27 and EEA member countries across the continent of Europe. Significant concerns have been raised in the sector, and by the Alliance for Intellectual Property, about the potential for legal challenge under the draft regulations, and about whether EU case law will continue to be relied on once we have left the EU. Those concerns relate to leaving with or without a deal. However, the draft regulations are about leaving with no deal.

The potential for such legal challenges raises concerns about the continuation of arrangements. A competitor could try to import a product and say that EU case law no longer applies. I know that the Government’s intention is that the situation should not cause a problem. However, legal advice has been given to the sector that such legal action could last several years and hold up a final decision. There is nothing in the SI to state whether EU case law will continue to apply to maintain the arrangements that the Minister said he wants in the event of no deal.

The question is what would happen in the situation in question. The problem would be that competitors could challenge each other, imports could be held up, and all sorts of problems and delays could arise, leading to significant concern and difficulty for businesses and consumers in this country. In the House of Lords debate, Lord Stevenson described the draft regulations as creating a “dripping roast” for lawyers. Having looked at that debate and at the representations I have been given, I am afraid I have to agree. The draft regulations are very good news for lawyers, but not much use for businesses, consumers or workers.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I debated some of these issues at length a number of years ago, when the Intellectual Property Act 2014 was going through the House and during debates on some of the subsequent secondary legislation. This is an interesting issue and my hon. Friend makes some important points. Does he agree that there is great concern out there, particularly among those in smaller creative sectors such as musicians, self-employed people and people in the video games industry, about the chaos that will be created by the kind of Brexit the Government are pursuing and the risk that poses to their businesses?

EU Referendum: UK Steel Industry

Debate between Bill Esterson and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan, in this debate on an incredibly important subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and all my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate. They have represented their constituents superbly over the last weeks, months and—in some cases—years to try to protect the vitally important strategic industry of steel.

I also congratulate the trade unions on their work representing their members and the communities that they live in, in these incredibly difficult times. We have seen examples of the benefits of partnership working between local politicians, the devolved Governments, local Government and the representatives of working people in those communities.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to the trade unions and all those who have worked in partnership. Will he join me in paying tribute to the work of the Daily Mirror and its “Save our Steel” campaign? It has kept a focus on the issue, even today in the midst of everything else that is going on, to make sure that we all pay attention to what is happening in the steel industry.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the fine work of the Daily Mirror. Its campaign has raised awareness among the wider public of just how important steel is to the whole country.

We express regret that the Government did not act in a stronger way to try to save Redcar and that there was not greater engagement earlier on Redcar and elsewhere, but we have to focus on where the steel industry is and what can be done now, not least given the challenges following the vote to leave the European Union.

Steel has faced a profound crisis for quite some time. Plants that had been in profitable production for decades have closed. In Redcar, that brought to an end a century or more of steelmaking on the site. For other plants, the potential changes of ownership have been the source of considerable uncertainty and, of course, Brexit has piled uncertainty on top of what was already a very worrying situation.

Britain’s relationship to the EU and the rest of the world is now more unsettled than it has been for many generations. We have seen the immediate impact of the vote not just in the steel industry, but in this industry we have seen the planned sale of the Port Talbot steelworks put on hold. An estimated 15,000 jobs are directly at stake, with another 40,000 immediately affected through the supply chain. Then there are the risks, which my hon. Friends have raised, from the impact on the British Steel pension fund—that threatens the prosperity of more than 130,000 workers, and of course there is the threatened loss of a vital strategic industry. The time is now for decisive Government action to secure as much stability and certainty as possible.

Before the leave vote, the Government had started to act and to recognise, quite rightly, the strategic importance of the steel industry in this country. That recognition had included the potential for the Government to take a stake in the Port Talbot works—the Business Secretary had dropped his previous opposition to responsible ownership and had, at last, understood the importance of Government intervention in industry. As part of any deal, however, he was proposing to switch the indexing of British Steel pensions from the retail prices index measure of inflation to the far lower consumer prices index measure. Over time that would have amounted to a 15% cut in pensions being paid, and, as well as affecting the prosperity of British Steel pensioners, it suggested opening the door to similar pension raids in other sectors.

The proposal has quite rightly been resisted by the unions and also, notably, by other Government Departments. Addressing the crisis in steel at the expense of pensioners is simply not acceptable. Supporting our steel industry will require the Government to follow best practice from north America and Europe, and to develop an effective industrial strategy to support the industry. It will require willingness from the Government to support the pension fund.