European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

My hon. Friend says it perfectly. We would be failing in our duty if we were simply to delegate all our decisions to the Prime Minister and say, “That’s it. Everything has been done.” Leaving the customs union or the single market was not on the ballot paper, and those are things on which we have a right to express our view.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

rose—

[Mr Leslie]

I want to conclude. The other problem with the deal is the future relationship, because when that motion comes, my constituents expect that it will be about not just the divorce proceedings, the money and the process of leaving, but what our future relationship will be. It must be. If there is simply a side of A4—a flimsy statement of words—with the famous fudge that we are so used to hearing about stapled as an annex to the back of it, that will be unacceptable. We have a duty to press Ministers to do a proper deal that safeguards our constituents’ interests. As MPs, we must ensure that we exercise pressure on the Government to do things properly.

The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield clearly now has the majority of the House with him, because we would not see the Government Chief Whip scuttling around so rapidly—I have never seen him move so quickly—trying to find a form of words. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take this opportunity to get his amendment in lieu in the Bill now and send it to the House of Lords. The Lords can always amend, change it or look at it again, and we can come back to this next week and do things properly. It is not our fault that only 12 hours were allocated to this whole ridiculous process; we could have had far longer. The Government have made their bed, and they must now lie in in it. They set up this process, and they cannot realistically complain, “Ooh, I didn’t have the chance to read this overnight.” If they want a particular change, they need to accept the will of the House. They can always table amendments in the House of Lords. That seems the best way forward.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Chris Leslie

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

[Mr Leslie]

There are ways of mending, improving and reforming animal safety standards within the European Union. We should be making the case to do that. We do not want to throw away the benefits that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents enjoy, such as being free from traffic jams—not all the time but on many occasions. If Dover has to institute all the necessary sanitary and phytosanitary checking and inspections, with all the warehousing arrangements and other obstacles and regulations that will be needed at the border because we have left the European Union, his constituents will be mightily annoyed by the bureaucracy that they will encounter.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Government had had the political will to do this, they could have ended live animal exports by now? There are already references in the EU treaties to public morals, so they could have done it if they had had the political will to do so. Also, if the Government really want to persuade us that they care as much about animal welfare as they claim to do, why on earth would they oppose the new clause? It will simply ensure that we do not have a gap when we leave the EU and before the new Bill, if it happens, comes in?

[Mr Leslie]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. In relation to specific issues relating to Brexit, the Government are finding, when the rubber hits the road, not only that there are potential problems such as the one relating to an American trade deal but that an awful lot of their constituents are saying, “Hang on a minute, what exactly are you doing about animal rights issues? Where will we be when we exit from these particular provisions?”

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Chris Leslie

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

If we do not have a transitional period after exit day and find ourselves moving to substantially different arrangements and a new set of alliances with member states of the European Union, we may have great turmoil in our economy, with a significant number of jobs moving to other jurisdictions. Most people in this debate—apart from the fabled hardliners on the fourth row back below the Gangway on the Conservative Benches—now accept that a transition is needed. The Prime Minister made that point in her Florence speech. However, if hon. Members look very closely at the Bill, they will see that there really is not much in it about the transitional arrangements. Exactly how it will take place has very much been left up in the air.

New clause 14 seeks clarification from the Government about how a transition will be put in place and operate. It simply calls for a report to be made by Ministers one month after the Bill has received Royal Assent to clarify a number of things. Principally, the report would clarify the question how retained EU law will be interpreted during the transitional period, and by extension, how the relationship with the European Court of Justice and many other aspects will operate during that period.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I very much support the new clause, but does the hon. Gentleman share my incredulity at the fact that the Government have not simply said, “Yes, of course we need to inform businesses and regulators about how retained EU law will be reinterpreted during the transition”? It is very odd that they have not recognised that this very basic and self-evident thing needs to be done.

[Mr Leslie]

I suspect that that is because the Government are struggling to get such a transition. They have admitted that one is necessary, which is a good step. In her Florence speech, the Prime Minister made that concession. In fact, it is probably the biggest single negotiating input that we have seen from the Government since the triggering of article 50.

I have been talking to businesses and I know many hon. Members have done so, and we are hearing that if they do not have some clarity by January or February, they will have no choice but to put in place contingency plans for a no deal and the fabled cliff edge that we would reach at the end of March 2019. This goes beyond the financial services issues, because it applies to a number of sectors of the economy. We need to make sure that we have some certainty. That is why so much is on the shoulders of the Prime Minister in the December European Council meeting, when we are told that we might get some movement from the European Union on this issue.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Chris Leslie

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

The consequences of this aspect and many others are myriad. I hope that the House will begin to wake up and realise that we have been sold a pup with this programme order, which does not give us enough time to discuss all this. I have to move on.

The European Chemicals Agency is another example of something that will be ditched. Companies currently have to provide information about hazards, risks and the safe use of chemicals, but we will potentially leave that agency, with nothing in the White Paper about the alternative.

Another health and safety issue is aviation. What will we do about safe skies, and the regulation of aircraft parts, engines and many other aspects? What will we do about maritime safety? What happens if shipping disasters occur on or around our shores? What is the Government’s alternative? There is nothing in the White Paper.

Another minor issue—he said sarcastically—is the environment, and we will potentially leave the European Environment Agency. New clause 120 simply asks that we have a report within a month on what the Government’s plans should be.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I want to move on, if I may.

When it comes to education, science and research issues, we will leave the European Research Council, which is very important. Hon. Members may know about the Erasmus scheme, which means that all our constituents who currently want to study abroad for a few months can have that time recognised as part of their degree, but what will happen to that scheme? There is nothing in the White Paper. It does not say anything about students in our constituencies potentially losing out very significantly. What about satellite issues, plant variety issues, locational training and all sorts of issues?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Exactly. We need to use the two-year negotiation period wisely. We shall come on in Committee tomorrow to some of those particular issues.

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as well as having an environment policy, we need to make sure that it is enforceable? It is no good just moving it across, if we cannot bring enforcement to bear. Does he also agree with me that the European Investment Bank is a crucial issue, because it is a massive investor in renewable energy in this country? We need to know where we stand on that.

[Chris Leslie]

In that case, I will move on to new clause 122, which references the European Investment Bank. It deals with a series of economic and trade co-operation issues, which are again not referenced at all in the White Paper. Can you imagine, Mr Howarth, the Government producing a White Paper about the consequences of withdrawing from the European Union without even mentioning the European Investment Bank, in which, by the way, we currently have a 16% stake? It part-funds Crossrail and the Manchester Metrolink. This is a massively important institution, yet we are simply shrugging it off in a blasé way, saying “Trust the Prime Minister; it will all be fine”.

We should at least ask Ministers about the attitude of the British Government towards it, so I ask the Minister directly: what is the British Government’s attitude to our continued participation in the European Investment Bank? He needs to address that and other issues.

I had better move on and talk about a couple of other new clauses. I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, and it is frustrating that we do not have enough time properly to debate the issues. I am glad to see in their place a couple of hon. Members who might be interested in these things. New clauses 128 to 130 deal with the issue of the protected designation of the origins of goods and services—specifically, their protected geographical indication.

Hon. Members might well have relevant businesses within their constituencies. This is sometimes known as “the Stilton amendment”, so I am looking at the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara). I understand that Stilton is not necessarily made in North West Cambridgeshire, but the hon. Gentleman has the village of Stilton in his constituency. Similarly, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) will be well aware of the wonders of Fal oysters, which are protected under the protected geographical indication—PGI—scheme that applies to European trade. Whether they are called “the Stilton amendment” or “the Scotch whisky amendment”, the new clauses simply ask what the Government’s plan is for those protected products—much-cherished and much-valued not just where they are produced, but where they are consumed worldwide—if they lose their protected status? We could end up having knock-off Scotch whisky sold around the world without that protection. The same might apply to Scotch beef, Welsh lamb, Melton Mowbray pork pies, Arbroath smokies, Yorkshire Wensleydale, Newcastle Brown Ale and the Cornish pasty.

NHS (Government Spending)

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Chris Leslie

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

If my hon. Friends will allow me, I will give way in a moment. I want to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), when she implied that the Conservative party somehow has plans to support additional investment in the NHS. The Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded to the fact that the Government might be able to cobble together £2 billion of additional funding. According to page 65 of the Treasury Green Book—“Autumn Statement 2014”— £1.2 billion was supposed to come from reserves or underspends for the NHS, but there is absolutely no commitment for any additional money beyond 2015-16. I will give way to the Minister if he will explain where his party has identified resources to meet that commitment beyond 2015-16. Will he spell that out? [Interruption.] I do not think that he wants to. My hon. Friends will ensure that he explains later, as he has just promised, because the public need to know where the money will come from to meet the pressures we face.

The Conservatives also wanted to switch £750 million out of Public Health England and Health Education England as some kind of sticking plaster for the NHS. However, we must think about the impact switching money away from preventive systems such as inoculations and vaccinations would have. [Interruption.] The Liberal Democrat Minister of State thinks that that is a good idea, but it is not a sustainable way to provide funding for our NHS. He has to do his sums again, make tough decisions and find the additional resources. Of course, the Liberal Democrats have said that growth will somehow magic up the money for the NHS, which shows their lack of credibility.

It is no wonder that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that Labour is the most cautious party in ensuring that it fully funds its pledges. It is no wonder that the Government parties do not want the Office for Budget Responsibility to go anywhere near the costings for the promises of political parties.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when Government Members ask us to congratulate NHS staff, which we do, it seems a bit hollow when they will not even pay nurses a decent wage? Does he further agree that privatisation is fragmenting the NHS, making it much harder to deliver a good service for patients?

[Chris Leslie]

We have to do far more to create a joined-up health service and social care system. That is very much part of the 10-year plan for the NHS that we announced yesterday. Yes, this is a debate about resources and getting the investment in, but we have to do more than that.

I question why the Conservatives are not putting their plans for funding the NHS on the record. Is it that they do not have any plans to pay for it or, which is more likely, that they are committed to shrinking public service investment in this country? The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have signed off on projections that would shrink public services to just 35% of GDP by the end of the coming Parliament. [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) that there was nothing in the charter for budget responsibility about shrinking the state to 35% of GDP. That is his plan. Public services have not been at that level since the late 1930s—before the NHS even existed.

That is the Conservatives’ vision, but what would it mean for the NHS? We are fortunate in this country that charging makes up just 10% of a patient’s out-of-pocket expenses. That includes prescriptions, optical services and dental services. Let us just look at how it works in those countries where public services form just 35% or less of GDP. There are four such countries across the OECD. In Switzerland, where public services make up 32.8% of GDP, more than a quarter of a patient’s income goes towards the cost of treatments. It has an insurance system in which the patient effectively pays an excess: as with a car insurance system, the patient has to pay the first amount and it is deducted from the total bill. Patients in Switzerland typically pay £1,800 out of their own pockets. In Mexico, charging makes up 44% of out-of-pocket expenses, in Chile it is 32% and in Korea it is 36%. Korea has a co-payment system, which means that up to half the hospital costs have to be borne by the patient.

Such things happen in every country where less than 35% of GDP goes towards public services. The Conservatives want to head us in the direction of such pressures. An NHS free at the point of use is not sustainable under the Conservative plans, and the risk that charges will be introduced is great.

The Conservatives have form on this issue, because their 2005 manifesto, which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor authored, encouraged people to go private. They wanted a patient passport that would have introduced charges for people who wanted to jump the queue. I wonder whether my hon. Friends recall that. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor wanted such charges for basic medical treatments. I have another question for the Minister and, again, I will give way to him. Would the Conservative party still introduce those plans in the dreadful event that they won the next general election? I will give way to the Minister if he wants to say that that is categorically not part of his party’s plans.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

And not just towards London, as a lot of the major banks have had their appetites whetted to make big profits by focusing on overseas. That disconnect with locality has been part of the problem. One issue for debate—on another day, perhaps—is the idea of having a regional banking network. The German Sparkassen system has a geographic mandate that requires those banks to do business within a particular locality. That is a dynamic for making sure there is a direct relationship between the banker and the customer, particularly for small businesses, but on a retail basis as well. That is a very good idea whose time has probably come.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

May I interpret the hon. Gentleman’s warm words to mean that Labour would support my new clause 15 if there were a vote on it?

[Chris Leslie]

Well, personally I prefer our new clause 10, but that is a good try by the hon. Lady. She has raised this issue in the spirit of trying to generate consensus on it, but I hope that in the limited time available to us we focus on the principle of making sure we get those commitments from the Government, which we all want in order to help get this transparency about what is happening in localities, as well as making sure we look at the state-owned assets and think about how they might be applicable to a regional banking network.

Government amendment 5 looks at some issues to do with competition, although they are mostly to do with the nature of ring-fencing and changes that might happen to the ownership of ring-fencing. I want to ask the Minister a question about the tensions between some of the objectives in the Bill. Government amendment 5 inserts a new requirement to consider competition issues, which seems to be slightly in tension with the existing provision to make sure there is no significant adverse effect from changing the ring-fencing arrangements. Can he clarify that that tension is resolvable, and confirm that the duty to consider competition will take effect subject to clause 4(3)?

On Government new clause 1 and new schedule 1, can the Minister help us by talking about the practical implications of the amendment to the Companies Act 1985 omitting disclosures to the regulators, done for the purposes of helping them fulfil their functions under part VI of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000? In particular, this appears to stop such disclosures being exempt from section 449 of the Companies Act, which criminalises disclosure of information obtained in certain circumstances. What is the reasoning behind that change? Also, paragraph 2 of new schedule 1 amends section 376 of FISMA, changing “PRA-authorised” bodies to “PRA-regulated” bodies. Is that a significant change? Are there any bodies that are classed as PRA-regulated but which are not PRA-authorised? If so, which are they?

Our new clause 12 addresses the portability of bank accounts. I know that the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has been very active on this, and that she has tabled similar amendments. She has been vocal in favour of some of these changes, and has tabled a sensible set of proposals. I hope she would agree that we are mirroring each other on this question.

Our new clause 12 would mandate the Chancellor to publish a report on the adequacy of the current account redirection service and on a possible change in the law to compel all ring-fenced banks to introduce a current account redirection service that might include portability. The banks themselves have made proposals for a seven-day switching arrangement from this September. The Minister claimed in the Government’s response that they had secured that commitment, but that might be a little bit of exaggeration and spin; I suspect that the banks were heading in that direction, but I will let him off on this occasion. This all comes down to whether that seven-day switching will radically transform the convenience for the customer. It is all very well saying that there will be a year or so when some transactions from the existing current account will automatically be made into the new account, but I do not understand why that provision has been time-limited. Some people will forget that that provision expires after a certain number of months.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Chris Leslie

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend is 100% correct, and we have made our point; I now want to move on to issues of substance. There is a lack of time and we have to finish debating this group of amendments by 7 o’clock. It is ridiculous that the commission spent hours on these matters but only a tiny amount of time has been allocated to debating them today.

Government amendments 1 to 4 seem to be generally welcome with regard to the extension of the regulatory perimeter and the definitions of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. It is intriguing that amendment 4 centres on clarifying the definition of “failure”. It is very tempting to ask if they know what failure is, especially given their weak response to the parliamentary commission today, but I will move swiftly on.

Government amendments 7 to 10 also seem to be fairly unobjectionable, although there appears to be a drafting error in amendment 8. Why has the Minister decided that the proposed subsection (3) should be inserted ahead of subsection (2) of FSMA? Something seems to be amiss, but that is only a minor point.

More importantly, will the Minister talk about the tribunal to which a lot of the issues will be referred? What sort of tribunal will it be and where will it be situated? Will its work add to the functions of an existing tribunal? That is a small point, but I would be grateful if the Minister would address it.

Government amendments 11 to 13 seem to focus on drafting issues. I cannot really see what will be achieved by changing “subsidiary” to “body”, but I do not have anything to say about those smaller, drafting amendments.

The first main issue of substance relates to our amendment 17 on the need for a thorough review process of the ring-fencing of retail banks, such that it augments what ought to be the electrification of the ring fence. We suggested this in Committee and it was a clear recommendation of the commission. It would be better to have a proper and independent review of the adequacy of ring-fencing every two years. We think that a more robust review process would be better than the Government’s PRA-led approach. It would be inadequate for the regulators to lead the process. We need a broader and more substantial review process to ensure successive ring-fencing.

Ultimately, as the commission itself has said, the jury is out on whether ring-fencing will work. It is fine in theory, but in order to keep a close eye on things—especially as these issues fall out of the media spotlight, as they inevitably will in the years to come—we must have a process in place that makes sure that we test, watch and scrutinise what happens.

The commission was right to be disappointed with the Government’s response. It noted that

“the Government did not accept our recommendation on potential ‘electrification’ with respect to the sector as a whole. As our First Report noted, crucial doubts remain about whether all the intended reforms can be put in place and, even if they are, whether this will be enough to prevent the Government from having to step in next time a crisis hits. In particular, we identified the possibility that the partial separation of a ring-fence may prove insufficient.”

That is why we feel that a more rigorous and thorough review process that involves the commissioning of independent members to produce, together with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, a report for Parliament would be far more effective. I do not want to take words out of the mouth of the hon. Member for Chichester, but he is right to say that if we leave it to the PRA to do this job and do not have a proper and more thorough process, there is a danger that the regulators will simply end up marking their own exam paper.

[Caroline Lucas]

Following the logic of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, does he not agree that a better way of restoring public faith in banks and, indeed, in politicians would be to legislate firmly now for the full legal separation of retail and investment banking? Even if that is not what a large number of financial institutions want, would it not be better for the taxpayer and the public?

[Chris Leslie]

We have tabled an amendment, which I shall discuss shortly, suggesting a clear back-stop power for the full separation of retail and investment banking across the board, in case ring-fencing does not work. We believe that we should give ring-fencing a chance, but it is important to note that the jury is still out on whether it will work. We just do not know. The Bill gives us the opportunity to ensure, as the commission recommended, that nobody has any truck with breaches of the ring fence. That must be the case both on a firm-by-firm basis for specific institutions and banks and for the sector as a whole.

Tax Fairness

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I want to make some progress. I will give way in a moment.

The divide between the richest and the least well off is getting broader, not narrower, and the situation is getting worse. The Government are cutting taxes for one group this year—the very richest in society—with 13,000 people earning £1 million a year getting a tax cut. That is astonishing. Could any other policy better typify the twisted logic of trickle-down economics than that one?

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I welcome the mansion tax as a step towards equality, but why will the Opposition not go further and tackle the absurdity of our council tax rates still being based on 1991 rates? A house valued at £1 million in 1991 pays only 0.3% of its worth, while a house valued at £40,000 pays 2.4%, which is eight times more. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is unfair and should be tackled?

[Chris Leslie]

It is important to listen to the Liberal Democrats’ proposal for a mansion tax. They believe that £2 billion could be raised in that way from properties worth £2 million or more to help those on low and middle incomes. In our view, any such revenue should fund the reintroduction of a 10p starting rate of income tax.

I would say to hon. Members, and particularly to Conservative Members who are struggling with the state of the current economic policy, that there are independent authorities and budget watchdogs to correct them when they wrongly assert that growth will not be affected by the cuts and the tax rises and that they are paying down the national debt, but they cannot pull the wool over the eyes of the public, who know what fairness is and who know that the choices made so far have been deeply unfair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I hope that my hon. Friend is not accusing the Liberal Democrats of consistency in their inconsistency—that would be a step too far.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about courage, so I wonder how far the official Opposition’s courage will go. Some £4.5 trillion is kept by the top 10% of wealthiest households, so the £2 billion that would be raised by a mansion tax, although welcome, is a tiny amount and would hardly bridge the chasm between the super-rich and the poorest. Given that, would the official Opposition support a genuine wealth tax?

[Chris Leslie]

I would be very interested to see the hon. Lady’s proposition, but I do not think it is necessary to go for that general approach that she takes. I say that because there are targeted ways in which we could try to build consensus on a property tax for high-value properties over £2 million and then use the revenue to help the vast majority of lower-income and middle-income families. That is the proposition before us today.