COP27

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I also associate myself with the comments about Alaa Abd el-Fattah.

I pay tribute again to the role of the former COP26 President, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), in the negotiations. Demoting him from the Cabinet sent entirely the wrong message, and I commend the dedication and diligence he brought to the position. The SNP very much welcomes the news of the landmark agreement on loss and damage.

The former COP26 President and many others, including our First Minister, have condemned the agreement’s glaring lack of a clear commitment to ending our dependence on fossil fuels. To keep 1.5° alive, we need urgent action. Will the UK Government commit to building a coalition ahead of COP28 to ensure that phasing down and out fossil fuels forms part of the agreement? Do the UK Government acknowledge that, to have any authority in making this argument, they must recognise the weakness of their own climate compatibility check for new oilfields, which seems designed to enable exploitation of fossil fuels rather than to control and drive them down?

Finally, will the UK Government support discussions, as highlighted at COP and by the Bridgetown agenda, on the reform of multinational development banks to better support climate objectives?

[Ms Ghani]

I think we all have warm words for the COP26 President and the leadership he has shown. Obviously, he will continue to provide that leadership, and people around the world will be looking at him to see what he says in the future and at what was delivered at COP27.

We are leading a coalition to ensure that we are driving down emissions and investing in alternative renewable fuel and energy. That will ensure that we are resilient and can provide the fuel and energy that our constituents need up and down the country. We need a mix of fuel and energy, which includes offshore and nuclear as well. Unfortunately, the party that the hon. Lady represents is dead set against nuclear energy, which would enable us to have efficient, clean, green, resilient, homegrown fuel, allowing us to have a much healthier discussion when it comes not only to fuel resilience, but to energy prices, too.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Deidre Brock Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for that, but we have had assurances from the Minister that he is going to engage with us. I think it behoves us all to get involved in that, and to represent all the people who are coming to us, because there is a great deal of knowledge that I am sure the Minister will be open to discussing with us.

I particular want to set out for the House this Government’s record on the environment. We are the greenest Government we have ever had. We have moved further and faster on environmental issues than any Government, not least through our Fisheries Act 2020, Agriculture Act 2020 and Environment Act 2021, which is a groundbreaking piece of legislation. The rest of the world was watching us as we brought this through our Parliament, and they are still watching us now to see how we are going to implement all its measures, because it does put us on a sustainable trajectory for the future. Indeed, we on the Conservative Benches did all vote for it.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I have just heard the news that the COP26 President has lost his position in Cabinet. Does the hon. Lady agree that that suggests this is a Government who are not fully committed to supporting the environment?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am obviously not party to all these things, but I believe the COP26 President is just not attending Cabinet but is keeping his position, and rightly so.

I was touching on our environmental record, and I know that the Minister for Climate certainly understands the need to uphold this record. We are a global leader on this, which is very appropriate with COP27 coming up. We cannot be seen to be backtracking on things on which we are actually considered to be a global leader. That is why we need to show that we can uphold our environmental protections, while also being able to grow the economy, as is necessary in what are very challenging times. In my view, there should not be any kind of conflict between having a fully functioning ecosystem and a growing economy, with secure food supplies and, indeed, increasing food production. It is quite possible to make it all work.

We have set a legally binding target to halt the decline of species abundance—basically nature—by 2030 and to start to bend that curve, but I would be the first person to say, and perhaps the right hon. Member for Leeds Central might agree, that while we have had environmental protections, they have not actually done a great job in protecting our nature. We have had a massive nature crash in this country, and that is what we have to sort out. We need to look at some of our system of protection and make it work better. We do not need to undermine what we are doing; we need it to function better for the UK.

Shale Gas Extraction

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. It is fundamentally important that the cash benefits go not to some faceless bureaucracy but to the individuals affected. In the United States, that has made the extraction of shale gas enormously popular, because people quite like improving their standard of living, and I think that the same is true in this country.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State explain exactly how the UK Government deciding to get rid of the fracking ban aligns with their COP26 commitments?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Using our domestic resources, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) mentioned earlier, reduces our carbon emissions —it is really straightforward.

Net Zero Strategy: High Court Ruling

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokes- person, Deidre Brock.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The judge ruled that the Minister could not have “rationally” reached the conclusions he did or made the decisions he did as a consequence of his lack of information in making the policy. If, as the judge ruled, the Minister could not have “rationally” made his decisions, on what irrational basis did he make them?

What confidence has the Minister that his Government’s climate policy can be fixed when both candidates for his party's leadership are at best lukewarm on climate issues, and at worst willing to sacrifice net zero? The Foreign Secretary said this morning that she would scrap the green levies, for example.

It is estimated that Scotland is missing out on 2,500 green jobs owing to the languid pace at which the UK Government are developing the renewables sector. Does the Minister agree that the UK Government should devolve financial powers to Scotland so that the Scottish Government can push forward renewables and clean technologies where the UK Government have failed to do so?

In 2020, the Met Office conducted a hypothetical thought experiment to determine what the weather would be like in 2050 if climate change accelerated as expected. Several of those projections are coming true now, 28 years early. Does the Minister not agree that it is vital for our plans to fight climate change to be up to the job, and that the next Prime Minister must remain completely committed to that fight?

[Greg Hands]

It is entirely wrong to say that any of the candidates to be the next Prime Minister are lukewarm on climate issues. On the contrary, the commitment to net zero from all the candidates—well, both the candidates in the last round—is absolute. I am a little surprised by the Scottish National party at times: this is the UK Government who brought COP26 to Glasgow and brought it to the attention of the world, and all that the SNP has done in the last year is snipe from the sidelines.

The hon. Lady mentioned jobs. There are already 430,000 people across the United Kingdom working in low-carbon businesses. The British energy security strategy will increase the number of clean jobs in the UK, supporting 90,000 jobs in offshore wind, 10,000 in solar power and 12,000 in the UK hydrogen industry by 2028. I think it is about time the SNP got behind our energy transition—supporting, for example, the move to nuclear power, which is a key part of decarbonised electricity generation—and got behind what the UK Government are doing on behalf of the people of Scotland, as well as the rest of the UK.

Fairness at Work and Power in Communities

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

In looking at the issue of power in our communities from a Scottish perspective, we cannot ignore this Government’s clear hostility to devolution in Scotland and the return of some powers to our country. They have clearly forgotten that it was devolution that revived any sort of Tory presence in Scotland after they lost all their seats there following the 1997 general election. Nevertheless, we hear that in 2020 the Prime Minister told a group of his MPs that the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament had been a “disaster” and a “mistake”. The Minister for Brexit Opportunities stated that he believed the constitution was vandalised with devolution and that the Tories must undo it. So I suppose it is no surprise that this programme for government includes more outright assaults on the devolved settlement. Take the ironically named Brexit freedoms Bill, which seeks to remove and restrict retained EU laws. This Bill, we are told, is to extend and apply across the UK, but many retained laws are incorporated into Acts of the Scottish Parliament. Many, indeed, focus on the standards this UK Government seem so determined to gut. Surely it should be for Holyrood to decide on their future, not this place and certainly not this Government.

The eternal quest of most Conservative Governments, the fabled bonfire of red tape, is promised so often but never really delivered. Indeed, we have seen the pile of red tape multiplied many times over by Brexit-created snarls, but the Prime Minister now promises a bonfire of retained EU legislation. That will see standards slump as the Tories rip away legislation that has protected Scottish interests for almost 50 years.

Brexiters have never shied away from hacking at workers’ rights, as we have heard from numerous hon. Members today. We in Scotland certainly do not trust this Government to maintain even our current standards in areas such as workers’ rights, food and the environment, and we have heard why from Conservative Members.

Remember, this is the Government who appointed the former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott to the Board of Trade. Apparently, he once bragged that he was able to fast-track international trade deals because he is not sidetracked by details such as environmental standards and workers’ rights.

Devolution and the power it returns to our communities in Scotland are being further eaten away by this Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda. In January, the House of Lords Constitution Committee’s report on the plan said that the UK Government are simply ignoring devolution and the calls for greater transparency on funding decisions. The Scottish Government have no role in deciding how this funding is allocated, and so which projects might align with their priorities, in order to deliver maximum benefit. This runs completely counter to the principles of devolution. The fact it has been created by a Government of a political hue that we in Scotland have not supported since the 1950s, with priorities and values that we in Scotland do not embrace, illustrates again why the power to make all our own decisions is the way forward for our country.

What guarantees can the Minister give us that the Scottish Parliament will not be forced to amend retained EU law? The Scottish Government intend to stay as closely aligned to EU legislation as possible. What power do Scotland’s Government, Scotland’s Parliament and, ultimately, Scotland’s people have if those decisions are stripped from their hands and made by Westminster?

Why are the UK Government now concerned about retained EU law not having received full democratic scrutiny when they are certainly not bothered about, say, international trade deals returning to this Chamber to be considered by hon. Members before they are signed? That is another question on which I fear we will get no reply from the Dispatch Box.

We were also told that lost EU funding will be replaced with equal, if not greater, funds. Those, I am afraid, are just more fibs from the cast members of Vote Leave. The Scottish Government calculated that £183 million a year is needed to replace the different EU funding streams that Scotland had previously received. This should mean that Scotland receives £549 million over the next three years, but we are getting only £212 million through the shared prosperity fund—a 60% cut in real terms that leaves us with real fears for the future of numerous community groups across my constituency of Edinburgh North and Leith, and across Scotland.

A particularly alarming admission that I must mention is the lack of any replacement for one of the most valued EU-funded schemes in Scotland, the LEADER programme, which supports more than 900 projects across rural Scotland, including 400 initiatives for young people and disadvantaged groups. The shared prosperity fund does not replace it, and nor can we see obvious opportunities to access similar support. When questioned in the Scottish Parliament on the rationale for levelling-up fund priority groups, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said:

“The conclusion about whether funding has been distributed equitably will come at the end of the process.”

That is an extraordinary admission from a Minister. Surely allocations should be continuously reviewed, evaluated and then reported; I am pleased to hear that the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who is no longer in her place, agrees on that. Shortfalls in this funding will likely mean the end of many organisations and services that have provided vital services to communities for years or even decades, damaging even further the fabric of our society. In the midst of a cost of living crisis and the biggest fall in living standards in recent memory, the Government’s flagship policy to rebalance power and resources swerves Scotland’s elected Parliament and leaves our communities with many, many pounds less in funding than we had with the EU. How can this be justified in a country where every local authority, all 32 of them, rejected Brexit? All this is not to mention outstanding questions—which I will not go into in detail, although I could—about what appear to be politically motivated choices made on those funds.

The people of Scotland trust the Scottish Parliament to make these decisions. The Prime Minister and his wrecking crew of Brexiters seem to think that devolution was enacted merely at the whim of a previous Administration and that it can simply be reversed with a wave of their aristocratic hands. They have clearly forgotten, so I will remind them, that in the 1997 devolution referendum almost three quarters of voters backed the re-establishment of a Scottish Parliament. It was, as David Cameron acknowledged, the settled will of the people. In the years since, that support has mushroomed, with polling from 2019 showing that 93% of the Scottish public were in favour of the Parliament’s existence. That demonstrates clearly the continuing support from communities in Scotland for power being returned to them, after more than 300 years of it being locked away from them down here.

Policies such as free prescriptions for everything from HRT to medicines for those with long-term conditions, and tuition-free university education, have broken from Conservative ideology at Westminster and meant real benefits for the people of Scotland. While Tory Government free-marketeers stubbornly refuse to meaningfully support people amid the cost of living crisis, the Scottish Government have used their limited powers to take measures such as increasing Scottish social security payments by 6% and doubling the Scottish child payment to £20 per child per week, with plans to increase it further by the end of the year. We have mitigated the impact of hated UK Government policies such as the bedroom tax and the benefits cap, at a cost to our Government of hundreds of millions of pounds per year.

Every day the UK Government fail to use their reserved powers to tackle the cost of living crisis, they show again, starkly, why independence is the only way for Scotland to build that fairer society we all want to see. It is no wonder that in last week’s council election the fortunes of the SNP and the Conservatives were so contrasting. The Tories suffered their worst result since 1990, whereas the SNP won its 11th election in a row. Following consecutive emphatic election wins, as well as a clear majority in the Scottish Parliament for another independence referendum, the mandate for that second vote should be beyond dispute. Furthermore, a new report on last year’s Holyrood election by the Scottish Election Study, carried out by six academics across the UK, concluded that it was “Independence Wot Won It” for the SNP Government. The study shows not only that the SNP holds broad support across a number of demographics, but it won more than half of the constituency ballot among voters born outside the UK, as well as a plurality of those born in England. Surely that is a testament to our outward-looking and progressive vision for Scotland’s future.

Finally, it would be remiss to talk about empowering our communities without making some remarks on the Online Safety Bill, which, if amended, could play an important role in protecting and enhancing democracy at a national and local level. There is much in the Bill that the SNP can support, but it disappoints in its lack of a credible plan to tackle online misinformation and disinformation, which is doing so much to weaken our democracy. We think the Bill should include robust measures on misinformation and disinformation, and the UK Government should follow the example of countries such as Sweden, Finland and Latvia in building up national information resilience programmes.

The Government might point to self-regulation by online platforms via the ads transparency centre, but we have learned that tens of thousands of ads went missing from Facebook’s ad archive in the final days of the 2019 general election. There are requirements for businesses, charities and public sector organisations to communicate honestly with the public about their online activities and products, but no such provision exists for political parties or campaign groups.

Neither the Advertising Standards Authority nor the Electoral Commission has the powers to enforce basic standards of honesty in electoral online advertising. Currently, a bad actor can run a huge volume of misleading online adverts and invest large amounts of money in breach of electoral law, and if that bad actor does not report it, or its activities are not uncovered and reported, there is no record of that advertising having been placed.

The various campaign groups that were established as unincorporated associations and sprang up like weeds just before the most recent Scottish elections used Facebook ads in particular to push political links, and in most cases it was not possible to establish who paid for the ads or the groups’ political links. The Government must look into and close the loophole that allows donations under the spending limit or directly to political candidates.

In closing, I urge the Government to take the issues I have outlined much more seriously than they have been taking them. They should examine closely the dark side of political advertising and take some real action. Democracy is under threat like never before, and without democracy there is no real power for our communities.

Subsidy Control Bill

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. We tried to work with all the devolved Administrations right the way through the process from beginning to end, and we have continued conversations with each of them over this period. Clearly there are, and will be, differences in the process. This needs to work for the whole of the United Kingdom, so I am keen that we continue the dialogue, whether it is with Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, to ensure that we can do as much as we can to reach agreement, though clearly that will not always be possible; that is the nature of dialogue.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Is the Minister not saying that ultimately, on these devolved matters, the English Government, as represented down here in Westminster, will have a power of veto over the decisions of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments?

[Paul Scully]

No. However, the UK Government have a reserved power over subsidy control, so it is the UK Government who act on that reserved power.

Finally, we have introduced an amendment specifying that the Secretary of State may provide statutory guidance to public authorities on pre-action information requests—that is, the provision of information following a request about a subsidy decision to an interested party that is considering whether to ask the Competition Appeal Tribunal to review the subsidy.

I shall now move on to two amendments related to levelling up. Lords amendment 50 makes it clear that addressing local or regional disadvantage is considered to be an equity rationale for the purpose of assessing compliance with principle A. This puts beyond any doubt that a subsidy to address local or regional disadvantage can be given, provided that the other principles and requirements of the regime are met. Lords amendment 9 exempts from the prohibition on relocation those relocation subsidies that have the effect of reducing social or economic disadvantage. The subsidy must, of course, also comply with the principles and other requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

It is disappointing that agriculture continues to be included in the Bill.

[Deidre Brock]

I am extremely disappointed that the views and concerns of the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the National Farmers Union across these islands, including NFU Scotland, about agricultural subsidies being in scope have been virtually ignored by this Government. They are certainly not reflected on the face of the Bill. Does my hon. Friend share those concerns?

Russian Oil Import Ban

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I hear the clamour for a tidal range facility in the Vale of Clwyd, and I am sympathetic towards it. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, be good enough to acknowledge that for the first time ever in the fourth auction round we have a tidal stream auction pot. We are committed to doing all we can to further the development of marine renewable energy.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State said that he was 100% behind renewables and he has mentioned the tidal stream pot, but I would like him to offer so much more support for tidal energy schemes, in which Scotland can play such an important role. It is a such a cleaner, greener and cheaper alternative to nuclear.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I recognise the hon. Lady’s commitment to tidal stream, and she will be good enough to notice that this is the first time that any British Government have committed to supporting any marine energy renewable project. There is always the clamour for more. We should do more, and we could do things more quickly, and I am happy to work with her and other Members across the House to see how best we can do that.

Subsidy Control Bill

Deidre Brock Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

That is absolutely right. It is not just about whether a particular subsidy breaches those principles, but as the hon. Member rightly points out, it is also a question of whether we can then spot that a pattern of cronyism is emerging. If a particular local council was giving out grants to its mates, we could see that much faster. That may not be breaching the subsidy control principle, but you can bet your bottom dollar that people would want to know about that and that the most almighty stink would be created.

That brings me on to the final group of my three groups of amendments, which is about the ability to challenge and check individual items or individual examples of a subsidy within a broader subsidy scheme. At the moment, if someone registers a subsidy scheme under the terms of the Bill, dishes out subsidies under that subsidy scheme and then basically ignores the terms of the subsidy scheme or misapplies them in some terrible way—because of cronyism, because they are just doing a bad job, or even fraudulently—nobody, under the terms of the Bill, can challenge the individual decisions being made. That cannot be right, and it seems daft. All I am saying is that we need to be able to challenge individual examples within a broader scheme, otherwise this transparency mechanism or challenge mechanism will be fundamentally flawed.

That is the modest proposal. So far, I have not heard a single argument that unpicks the logic of that. As far as I can see, there are three Departments of Government with a dog in this fight. There is Lord Frost, who is in charge of the Brexit dividend, and he ought to be thoroughly in favour of this because of the opportunity it offers. There is the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—he was here briefly just now, and I hope he will be back later—who is of course a good free marketeer and is thoroughly committed to improving productivity, so he should be in favour of this, too. Finally, there is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the guardian of taxpayers’ money. As I have said, we should be taking pride in the fact that we are one of the least heavily subsidising economies in the developed world, and we certainly were when we were part of the EU, so I cannot see that he is going to be objecting to it either.

As I sit down, I therefore just ask the Minister to please explain the logic behind opposing any of the arguments that not just I but others have been advancing. Will please explain who on earth thinks this is a bad idea, because I cannot find them or see them and I do not think anybody knows who they are?

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I rise to speak in support of all the amendments and new clauses in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself, but specifically new clause 1. I am aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands has already written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs specifically on this matter.

To begin with, I will tell a little story to illustrate that the apprehensions around this issue were long-standing, even before the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 passed into being, and now appear to be fully justified, especially when we take into consideration the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination contained in that Act. In late November 2020—on St Andrew’s Day, rather ironically—in the debate on the statement on the agricultural transition plan, I asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for assurances that the Bill, as it was then, would have absolutely no impact on Scotland’s ability to set support in Scotland independent of the system chosen for England. He responded that Scotland and the other devolved authorities

“will have more freedom than ever before to design a policy that they judge to be right for them. We will set up a joint group across the UK to do market surveillance, to ensure that there is not disturbance to the internal market”.—[Official Report, 30 November 2020; Vol. 685, c. 42.]

The House will note that there was no answer to my question in that reply. However, shortly afterwards the Secretary of State reassured a fellow Conservative MP who had expressed fears on behalf of farmers in his English constituency that food production might not be supported under the new English scheme and that his farmers could

“be undercut by farmers, including in the devolved nations, who are subsidised for food production or by area, not just for stewardship”.—[Official Report, 30 November 2020; Vol. 685, c. 50.]

I wondered how he could give any such assurance if he intended keeping the UK Government’s nose out of our agricultural support choices, but I ken noo.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) has mentioned, at the heart of the problem is the broad recognition that agricultural subsidies do not fit neatly into standard subsidy control regimes. That is why agriculture has its own separate subsidy control arrangements in the EU through the common agricultural policy, and in the World Trade Organisation through the agreement on agriculture. Equally, while the trade and co-operation agreement has provided interim rules on subsidy control in the UK since Brexit, it does not apply to subsidies subject to the provisions of part 4 or annex 2 of the WTO agreement on agriculture, which relate to most agricultural subsidies.

The Scottish Government have asked the UK Government repeatedly why agriculture is included in this new regime when it is not included in most standard subsidy control regimes, but I understand that to date no satisfactory reason has been given. The Minister has responded that a majority of respondents to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy consultation thought it should be included, which seems jolly fair-minded of the Minister, we might think. On the other hand, the UK Government have so far chosen to ignore the serious concerns raised by the Scottish and Welsh Governments. The UK Government have refused to share the consultation responses with our Government, even the anonymised ones, which makes it even more difficult for Ministers and civil servants to understand the reasoning behind this decision or at least to assess whether the responses were weighted and, if so, how. The only reply that I have seen from the Government’s response to the consultation is that this hitherto accepted exemption has been removed in order to maintain a “consistent approach” and a broad sectoral scope. So it is some sort of tidying-up exercise, apparently.

Taken all together, this ratchets up what were considerable levels of concern to—I think it is fair to say—alarm not just in the Scottish and Welsh Governments and other devolved Administrations but in organisations such as the National Farmers Union of Scotland. There is less concern from the National Farmers Union of England. I wonder why that might be. It is worth reminding ourselves that the high percentage of less favoured areas in Scotland’s agricultural land—some 86%—is almost directly reversed in England, where it is only 12%. We have unique agricultural conditions and practices, so the need for a support system that recognises and understands that and takes it fully into account is vital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I very much sympathise and agree with the argument the hon. Lady is putting forward. In Northern Ireland we have the highest quality products, we have an export market that we want to retain, and we want to retain food security as well. She referred to the National Farmers Union of Scotland; the Ulster Farmers Union is also committed to retaining that. Does she agree that the Minister should consider this very seriously, with that in mind?

[Deidre Brock]

Yes, very much so. I agree with the hon. Gentleman because the excellent food produced in Scotland is also to be taken into account. I hope the Minister is listening carefully to what I am saying and will take it into account when he speaks. I would be interested to hear his point of view.

There is a risk that schedule 1 will constrain Scotland’s ability to tailor future policies to the needs of Scottish agriculture. There are concerns about how the regime will work for legacy common agricultural policy schemes delivering income payments and coupled support, and doubts about whether clauses 48 and 81 will allow devolved Governments to make changes where required in order to develop and progress agricultural policies in future. Additional difficulties and potential for legal challenge are created over what could effectively be the avoidable double-banking of subsidy control schemes through the application of the new regime. The Scottish Government are also concerned about the principle that a subsidy that does not unlawfully distort international law could still be challenged, as set out in our Cabinet Secretary’s letter to the Minister,

“on the basis that it does not minimise negative effects on competition or investment in the UK which is a principle that goes beyond the minimum required under the TCA”.

Apart from those numerous concerns, the inclusion of agriculture could dramatically weaken the role of what has been the agreed common frameworks process in this area, which was put in place specifically to manage policy divergence within the UK and any impacts that that might have on the UK internal market. I have been told that no other state in the world includes agricultural payments as subsidies. While I am not entirely sure that that is the case, it is certainly highly unusual. In May, the Minister indicated to the Cabinet Secretary that he was prepared to work on bespoke solutions in the regime that would recognise the particular needs of the agricultural sector, but there has been nothing so far and, I repeat, no real explanation of how it is all supposed to actually work. Perhaps it has been filed in the “too hard” bin, along with many other devolved Administrations’ concerns, or the “can’t be bothered” bin—I am not sure.

If agriculture is left in this Bill, that could create serious problems for devolved Governments in the delivery of their own policies on food production. If the Government are serious about protecting devolution, they will abandon their plans. I urge the House to hear the concerns voiced by Scotland’s devolved Government—I am sure we are going to hear from the Welsh Government as well, and potentially from the Northern Ireland Assembly—and support the inclusion of new clause 1.

Economic Crime

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) for speaking and giving his expertise on this. I, too, have a bit of a gammy ankle, so I will try not to fall over. He will find that if he sits on the Front Bench and leans against it, he will get a wee bit more support and will not have to wobble so much. That is a top tip from my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who has had a similar affliction recently.

This debate is incredibly important and timely, and I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing it. I feel as though this has almost been economic crime week for me in this place, because our Treasury Committee took its final evidence from Ministers on this issue on Monday. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister for Security and Borders were very clear that not enough is being done. That is probably the biggest understatement in this House this week. It is very evident that not enough is being done, because these crimes are going unprosecuted, victims are increasing in number and it feels as though nothing very much is happening to address it. It is incredibly worrying, as we see when we look at the figures, which indicate the scale of this. It can only indicate the scale of it because, by its very nature, economic crime can be very difficult to count; that money is gone—it is disappeared and it vanishes, never to be seen again.

I very much support the suggestion that all Members who have spoken so far have made of an offence of a failure to prevent economic crime. That is crucial, and I would tie it in to the online safety Bill that is coming, because that is a golden opportunity. The evidence we have had from almost every person who has come before the Treasury Committee to talk about this has been, “You have to get this in the online safety Bill.” They do not believe another good enough opportunity will come along quickly enough to deal with this issue. The Government are very good at saying, “Oh yes, when parliamentary time allows—we will look at this soon. We will do this in good time.” But we need to see it now, as this has been drifting long enough and action needs to be taken on it.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) mentioned that the Governor of the Bank of England, every other financial institution that has come before us and sent in evidence, independent experts, journalists and organisations such as the Royal United Services Institute—all kinds of people from all kinds of backgrounds—have said that more needs to be done, that there is an opportunity here and that it would be huge neglect on the part of the Government if they failed to take the opportunity that is in front of them right now. It is an opportunity that they have presented to this House in the form of this Bill. If they miss this chance, it will be a matter of significant detriment to all our constituents.

The biggest barrier is the lack of enforcement. The Government will point to very good laws that they have on money laundering, and things that they feel are useful to tackle financial and economic crime more broadly, but enforcement levels are woeful. The figure of only 1% of police resource going to something that is an increasing problem in our society is part of that. The enforcement agencies are doing their best, but they are a hotchpotch; they are a patchwork of different agencies all working away in their own wee world and not managing to connect all of these different things. People are drowning under suspicious activity reports, while those who ought to be filing them are not even bothering. There is a huge gap in enforcement.

As I have said ad nauseam in this place, in Bill Committees and everywhere else, Companies House is the front door to this. Graeme Biggar, the director general at the National Economic Crime Centre, spoke to the Treasury Committee on 25 January—I cannot believe that it was that far back, but it was—and said:

“It can be too easy to set up companies here, as we have seen repeatedly over the years. We have done some analysis recently on some of the laundromats that have come out of Russia and the former Soviet Union, and a disturbing proportion of the money that comes out of those laundromats—not much shy of 50% in one case—were laundered through UK corporate structures.”

He pointed out that not all of that money will have been in the UK or will have touched the UK, but it is the corporate structures themselves that have been facilitating this economic crime.

The Royal United Services Institute has said:

“The ease with which a company can be formed in the UK—within 24 hours, without showing any ID and for a mere £12—has contributed strongly to the UK corporate structures emerging as the money-launderers’ vehicle of choice over the past decade.”

It says the “vehicle of choice” for “money launderers”. This Government have proposed Companies House reform, but, while welcome, it does not go nearly far enough. It makes no sense to me that, if I want to apply for a driving licence or a passport to do my self-assessment tax return, I have to go through a whole gamut of Government verifying schemes. That is not the case, as I understand it, for setting up a company. All it will cost me is £12. The information that I put into the Companies House register may be complete and utter guff, because it has no one checking that information; it is just a repository of that information.

Some statistics were given in the reading material that has been pulled together. Four thousand beneficial owners are listed in the persons of significant control register who are under the age of two. I am sure that there are many prodigious under two-year-olds out there, but I do not think that they really should be beneficial owners of companies. There are five beneficial owners who control more than 6,000 companies. Again, there should be some kind of limit to the number of directorships that beneficial owners can hold, because it is very clear that these people can have no real role in the running of those companies, because there are far too many of them.

Even more worryingly, some of this has been facilitated through Facebook. A recent “File on 4” programme showed how people were being recruited as company directors via Facebook. Again, they had no role or responsibility in the company, but were being brought in as a means of making money. I ask the Government what they intend to do about this kind of fraudulent behaviour.

That is before I get to Scottish limited partnerships, which, again, I have talked about at length in this place. I pay tribute to Richard Smith, David Leask and Roger Mullin—my colleague who was in this place until 2017—for their constant plugging away on the subject of Scottish limited partnerships. The Government will say, and they would be correct to say, that since they brought in the reforms, the number of Scottish limited partnerships has reduced. However, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness pointed out, what has happened is a bit of a whack-a-mole strategy. As my good friend, colleague and employee Councillor Alexander Belic has said, the point of whack-a-mole is the increasing frequency of moles rather than an effective mole eradication effort. That is very true of financial crime and SLPs.

Many of those involved have moved to Northern Irish limited partnerships, English limited partnerships, trusts, other obscure company formations, or, as Colm Keena of The Irish Times has pointed out, Irish limited partnerships. There is therefore a wider consequence of this Government’s actions. I doubt very much that they informed the Irish Government that this was going to happen, only to leave them saying, “Oh, gosh, this is now on our doorstep. Now we have to deal with this international financial crime”. Some of those Irish limited partnerships had Scottish limited partnerships as their people of significant control, so it becomes a nesting doll of different companies, and we can never get to the centre of it and find out who really is in charge.

At the very heart of all that is this: if we reform Companies House, it will slam the door in the face of all of this. If we give Companies House an anti-money laundering supervisory role, if we tighten up the registration process, if we make it that a person has to prove that they are a real person before they can register a company, and if we put up the fees, we will take away a lot of this crime. The Government really should be looking at that very urgently, and the lack of urgency remains a significant concern to me.

I sat on the Bill Committee when the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill came through this House. The Government had a lack of interest in a great number of things, but it was funny how quickly they got interested in dirty Russian money when the Salisbury attack happened during the course of that Committee. All of a sudden they were very interested in doing something about that.

I also sat on the Joint Committee on the Draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill. We made very good recommendations and the Government replied, but they did not accept all of them—and now, tumbleweed. Nothing has happened; there is no urgency. When I questioned the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on Monday, I asked, “Are you actually going to bring it forward urgently?”. It does not feel urgent in the slightest, because there is nothing happening and nothing is changing.

The longer it goes on, the more I wonder who benefits from this delay. Is it the oligarchs and those to whom they donate? There are wider political implications of this delay—not just here, although there is an implication here for transparent structures such as unincorporated associations, which are set up in Scotland and fund parts of the Conservative party and the no campaign in Scotland.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend clearly shares my concerns and those of the Electoral Commission about unincorporated associations. Among a number of other troublesome characteristics, those that meet the threshold for registration with the Electoral Commission are not required to conduct permissibility checks on a relevant donation—a donation meant for political activity. Presumably, she would like to see those very much tightened up.

[Alison Thewliss]

I would; we should have strong registration requirements for donations to political parties, and there should be no ways of circumventing them.

Whether the money turns up as millions of pounds in Conservative party coffers, leads to the House of Lords in the end, or is just laundered from Russia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine or any number of other countries involved in SLPs and money laundering, we should be worried, because this issue goes to the very heart and fundament of our democracy. If we cannot guarantee where the money goes, who it influences, where it ends up and who it benefits, we are in real trouble as a democracy, as well as an economy.

It is really important that the online safety Bill deals more with frauds, scams and misleading info. As the right hon. Member for East Ham pointed out, if people take out paid advertising that costs a penny, they will get away with a lot more than if they generated it themselves and did not pay for it. That seems fundamentally wrong.

There is a lot of information being put about out there. Google, Facebook and some other companies have all appeared before us in the Treasury Committee, and they really did not do much by way of accounting for the behaviour of people using their platform for activity such as allowing others to register as company directors, trying to sell goods online and defrauding our constituents, or offering financial advice—that is a regulated sector, which makes that very serious behaviour. No one should be giving financial advice unless qualified to do so, but if hon. Members were to look at Instagram, they would find all number of accounts offering this advice or that advice, saying “Take these shares out” or “Do this and put your money here”. All this activity puts people at risk, whether it is user-generated or advertised, and it should be regulated properly so that people cannot use such platforms to defraud others and profit for themselves.

The nature of this world is changing. Lots of people are conducting their business on Instagram now, including lots of entirely legitimate people and businesses, many of which suffered when Instagram went down because they could no longer sell their pizzas or whatever they were selling online. We need to be mindful that the platforms have a responsibility to the people who use them to ensure that they cannot easily part with their money and be defrauded. Although faster payments are great in a number of ways in facilitating financial transactions, once that money is gone, it is very hard to get it back.

At the moment, the banks often get the money back for people, but there is no consequence for the platforms that facilitate the fraud. They do not have to pay anybody their money back. They allow this to happen and they get to just hold their hands up and say, “It’s not our fault. People should know better”. That is not good enough. The platforms are facilitating a good deal of this fraud. The Government will be failing in their duty to all our constituents if the online safety Bill does not address those levels of transactions where people are doing lots of business that way nowadays—if it does not hold to account those big, wealthy providers and platforms, both the ones that exist just now and those that will emerge in future, and make sure that they take responsibility for their actions.

I urge the Government to listen to everybody who has given evidence on this matter to the Treasury Committee, to the Work and Pensions Committee, and to our APPGs—to listen to those experts and not miss this opportunity to take action to protect our constituents, our economy and our democracy.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Deidre Brock Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The right hon. Member speaks of the baseload and the constant flow of energy from nuclear. Does he support the tidal energy efforts being made in Scotland? Would he support far more investment in that?

[Chris Skidmore]

I believe that we do not have a choice. We must look at every form of renewable energy, nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage and hydrogen to reach net zero. We cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good. Equally, in looking at how to decarbonise, there are no good and bad actors; the most important thing is outcomes. We have a target set for 2050 but cannot ignore that we wish to reduce our carbon emissions now. I therefore welcome any technology that can achieve that sooner rather than later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I was so hopeful that I was getting an answer there on the hundreds of billions of pounds that are being committed.

Returning to Hinkley Point C, we hear how advanced the project is and how well it is going, but the reality in terms of cost is that it is £4.5 billion over the initial estimates, which is 25% over budget. On progress, the commissioning date for unit one has now been put back to June 2026, instead of the anticipated 2025, but they also admit there is a programme risk of up to 15 months on top of that. That means that it could be September 2027 before unit 1 of Hinkley is operational and unit 2 will then follow a further year behind. So it is realistic to say that Hinkley Point C will not be fully operational until 2027-28, which is 10 years after we were initially told that Hinkley Point C was required to stop the lights going out. Given that the lights have not gone out, that undermines the original case for Hinkley.

We have to bear in mind that the EPR system has still not been shown to be successful. Flamanville in France is expected to start generating to the grid in 2024, 12 years late. Finland’s project has been delayed yet again, until next year, and it is 13 years late. Both have been crippled with spiralling cost increases.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Further to those costs, we know that the permanent safe disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants has not yet been achieved by any country. A 2018 study from the department of geology at the University of Kansas recently suggested that nuclear waste disposal would be two and a half to four times more expensive than has been estimated. Those costs will be passed on to those who come after us. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that these possibilities have been fully taken into account in the financing model?

[Alan Brown]

It will be no surprise to hear that I have no confidence that the true costs of nuclear waste disposal are actually included. We hear that this is rolled up in the strike rate for Hinkley, but if something happens and EDF goes out of operation, who will pick up the additional costs? It will clearly be the bill payers or the taxpayer. We hear about the fact that nuclear is supposed to be clean energy, but how can it be classed as clean energy when we are burying radioactive waste and having to store it for up to 1,000 years? That, to me, does not mean clean energy.

Taishan in China was held up as an exemplar EPR project when it was commissioned, but it has been offline since June this year due to safety concerns and rod damage. It is clear that the design and construction of EPR nuclear stations has still not been bottomed out properly. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), said, a reliance on French state-owned EDF and the Chinese state company China General Nuclear kind of undermines the argument about having sovereign energy security. It makes no sense.

Despite the cost and programme issues at Hinkley, we are told that Sizewell C will somehow be different. There will be cost savings from learning on Hinkley. The design will be replicated, saving more money, but the reality is that the site at Sizewell C is bound to have different ground conditions, different environmental considerations and different logistics and site constraints, which affects methods of working, and that means that we cannot build an exact duplicate station the same way.

Even if savings are realised on Sizewell C compared with Hinkley, what does that mean cost-wise? If Sizewell C saves 25% compared with Hinkley, that is still a capital cost outlay of £18 billion. Surely there are better ways to spend £18 billion. We heard from the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) about the number of jobs being created. If I was given £18 billion to £20 billion, I am sure that I could create 30,000 jobs —by the way, that is £730,000-odd a job in capital costs alone. That is not a good return.

On costs, we are told that a new deal signed under the proposed new funding model in the Bill will cost consumers only £1 a month during construction, but if we look at a 10-year construction period for Sizewell C, we see that that means that bill payers in 28 million households will pay £3.4 billion before it is operational. That is a further £3.4 billion in expenditure when that money could be better invested elsewhere.

We still do not know with this Bill what the long-term pay-back options will be. Will there be a further agreement on the strike rate or a minimum floor price on the sale of energy? What length of contract will bill payers be tied into once a RAB model for an agreement is signed off?

What else could we do with that amount of money? We could upgrade all homes to energy performance certificate band C. We could have wave and tidal generation. The UK Government are willing to introduce the Bill and commit hundreds of millions of pounds to nuclear—the Budget has £1.7 billion just for developing nuclear to a negotiation stage—but they will not even ringfence £24 million for wave and tidal in pot 2 of the forthcoming contracts for difference auction. The disparity is clear.

It is time the Government took their blinkers off. It will be a real disgrace if they do not provide a pathway for wave and tidal projects to scale up. Scotland is currently leading the world on the issue; the O2 tidal generator is operational and grid-connected in Orkney. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the request to ringfence a small amount of money in pot 2 of the forthcoming contracts for difference auction.