Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning

Debate between Dominic Raab and Seema Malhotra

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of “just in time” supplies for manufacturing purposes. That is precisely why we configured the White Paper proposals in the way that we did. It must be the case that in any scenario, on all sides, we try to avoid—and we do avoid—any erection of new trade barriers. Given the continental supply of cars to this country, it is clear that that would be harmful on both sides, but probably disproportionately on the other side.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Following discussions with the Secretary of State on Friday, Michel Barnier said that the backstop was critical to the conclusion of the negotiations, because without a backstop there would be no agreement. He has asked the Secretary of State and his team to provide his own team with the data that is needed for the work on the nature, location and modality of the controls that will be necessary on the Irish border. When will the Secretary of State be supplying that data to Michel Barnier, and will he also be making it available to the House?

[Dominic Raab]

I think that most of it is already in the public domain, but I will entertain any reasonable request that we receive from our EU partners in a constructive way. The hon. Lady should be under no illusions about the fact that Michel Barnier is seeking to make the case for regulatory checks along the Irish sea. We have made it very clear that we would need to be very careful about that, and that we will not countenance any customs border down the Irish sea.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Dominic Raab and Seema Malhotra

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

[Dominic Raab]

Perhaps I can give way to my right hon. Friend when I come on to her amendments.

I turn to amendment 203, tabled by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, and to the related amendments 353 and 354. They would remove clause 6(7) and partially reinsert it into clause 14. Clause 6(7) provides key definitions of terms in the Bill that are crucial for the proper interpretation and full understanding of its content. Subsection (7) aims to alleviate any potential confusion and ensure that there is no vagueness or ambiguity about the different types of retained law mentioned in the Bill. That is vital for those who read, implement and interpret the Bill, because of the different effects of each type of retained law. The placement of the definitions in clause 6 is specifically designed to make the Bill easier to navigate and more user-friendly, by placing the definitions close to where they are used and deployed in the text.

[Seema Malhotra]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dominic Raab]

I am going to make a bit of progress. Wider general definitions are set out in clause 14, and clause 15 provides an index of all the defined terms to make the Bill easier to use as a reference tool. To remove those definitions from clause 6 and only partially to reinsert them into clause 14, as the amendment would do, would undermine the certainty and clarity that we aim to provide.

Without statutory definitions of the different types of retained law, we would undermine the stability of our domestic legal regime after exit and exacerbate the burdens on the court system. Reinserting the definition of “retained domestic case law” into clause 14 would not alleviate that, because it would give rise to the question why that definition had been included, while others had not. Its placement in the body of clause 14, away from its original use in clause 4, would make the text far less easy to navigate—something that we are keen to avoid.

I turn to amendment 137, which is a joint SNP and Liberal Democrat amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). Clause 6(2) will allow our domestic courts and tribunals to take into account any decisions made by the European Court, an EU entity or the EU itself on or after exit day, if they consider it appropriate to do so. That will ensure that our courts are not bound by the decisions of the European Court, while enabling them to consider its subsequent case law if they believe it is appropriate to do so. It is widespread practice in our domestic courts to carry out a similar exercise with the judgments of courts in other jurisdictions—I am thinking particularly of Commonwealth and common law jurisdictions—so, in principle, there is nothing new or particularly different here.

The UK has always been an open and outward-looking country, and our legal traditions reflect that. We pay attention to developments in other jurisdictions, including common law jurisdictions, and we embrace the best that the world has to offer, but we do so on our terms and under our control. That is decided by our courts and, ultimately, it is subject to the legislative will and sovereignty of this House. Amendment 137 is therefore unnecessary, as the Bill already provides that post-exit decisions of the European Court can be considered by the domestic courts.

Amendment 137 would go further, however, in that it would require our courts and tribunals to pay due regard to any relevant decision of the European Court. What does “due regard” mean? It is not defined and, indeed, it is far from clear. It is evidently intended to go further than clause 6, and tacitly urges our courts to heed, follow or shadow the Luxembourg Court, but there is no clarity about what would count as due consideration. The amendment would alter the inherent discretion the UK courts already have to consider, without fetters, the case law in other jurisdictions, and it seeks to apply to the European Court a procedural requirement that is stronger but so vague that it is liable to create more, not less, confusion. I hope that I have tackled, or at least addressed the concerns that the hon. and learned Lady has expressed in her amendment, and I urge her not to press it.

I will now turn to amendment 303 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. I thank her for tabling this amendment and for explaining it, as she did, in a very constructive spirit. I recognise that she is representing the interests of her constituents with her customary tenacity, but I will take a few moments to set out why we have taken our approach to the issues and my difficulties with her amendment.

Clause 6 supports the Bill’s core aim of maximising certainty. It is in no one’s interests for there to be a legal cliff edge. The Bill means that the laws and rules we have now will, as far as possible, continue to apply. It seeks to take a snapshot of EU law immediately before exit day. The Government have been clear that in leaving the EU, we will be bringing to an end the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK. To maximise certainty, any question about the meaning of retained EU law will be determined in UK courts by reference to ECJ case law as it existed before our exit. Using any other starting point would be to change the law, which is not our objective. Our domestic courts and tribunals will no longer be bound by or required to have regard to any decisions of the European Court after that point, but they can do so if they consider it appropriate. These clear rules of interpretation are set out in clause 6.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Dominic Raab and Seema Malhotra

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

It is good to at least start on a point of consensus.

When I hear the leader of the Labour party or the shadow Chancellor talking about the economy, I sometimes feel that there is a parallel universe. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on “The Andrew Marr Show”. He explained that the economy was not growing fast enough. In fact, the British economy was the second fastest growing in the G7 last year, as it is this year, despite all the doom and gloom around Brexit. He needs to look at the economic facts.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that real wages are falling, which hon. Members have returned to on several occasions. I will talk about cost of living pressures, but the official figures are crystal clear. Real wages have been rising since September 2014 and, according to official data, are set to continue rising. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) wants to intervene, I would welcome that, but otherwise she should go and check the facts. The raw truth is that employment is at a record level, real wages have been rising since 2014, income inequality—I know that she, like me, cares about that—is at its lowest in 30 years, the FTSE is at a record level, and there has been a fresh wave of investment since the referendum, including, most recently, the commitment by James Dyson.

[Seema Malhotra]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although he may be able selectively to cite headline statistics, there is a reality in our constituencies that comes through in our casework? Schools and parents tell me about people not being able to afford school uniforms, and people are relying on food banks. Does he acknowledge that we need to face that reality and that our economy and economic policy should deal with those things?

[Mr Raab]

I welcome the acceptance of the official figures at least, which was implicit in what the hon. Lady said. I accept that there are cost of living pressures, not least given that inflation is creeping up, but let us face it: inflation is still well below the Bank of England’s headline 2% target. I will address cost of living challenges and what we should do about them, but we live in the real world and we should not chase the Labour party leadership’s socialist pipe dreams, because they will do nothing to deal with cost of living pressures other than precipitate a lack of confidence and investment in the economy and falling living standards as a result of increasing unemployment.

I thought that the hon. Lady was going to intervene to welcome Dyson’s investment in a new 517-acre research facility in Wiltshire. Jaguar Land Rover is investing in creating the new Velar model, which will be exclusively manufactured in Solihull. The wave of investment is coming right across the country. There is a resilience and strength in the British economy, and fresh investment and enthusiasm about the opportunities that lie ahead. Having said that, I want to be careful not to allow any sense of complacency to creep in.

This Budget is all about the whole package. In what I like to think is my still relatively limited time in this place, I have never known a Budget that has not involved compromise. Trying to put together a package is the serious business of government. Hon. Members of all parties can be quite quick to allow the positive stuff that we like, whether that is taxation cuts or extra investment—I have been guilty of that in the past—but we also have to ’fess up and face up to the difficult decisions that have to be made. That is the serious business not just of politics, but of government. Look at what the leader of the Labour party said yesterday; he and his party are so unfit to govern because they are not willing to face up to those difficult decisions.

Gender Balance on Corporate Boards

Debate between Dominic Raab and Seema Malhotra

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

I note that the hon. Gentleman did not take issue with the substance of my article—[Interruption.] No, listen to my point. He talked about the headline, but, as a media-savvy politician, he well knows that I had no hand in writing it. He also mentioned group-think, and I think that there is a substantive point there, although it might not be the one that he wanted to make. If he will bear with me, I will come to that shortly.

I was about to make the point that the Commission’s notion of equally qualified candidates is an utter fallacy. As anyone in the real business world knows, a rigorous recruitment process will always identify the best, the brightest, the top person for the job, on merit. My wife works for Google, and she was interviewed 10 times, even after they had got rid of all the other candidates. That is a good example of a cutting-edge, high-tech firm testing and testing until it finds the very best candidate.

The directive is not just anti-meritocratic; it would also damage business competitiveness. No one has yet mentioned that. The Government estimate that it would cost listed companies £9 million between now and 2020, with additional ongoing monitoring costs. There is a far greater cost involved, too, but people are just too politically correct to mention it.

[Seema Malhotra]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he meant when he said that the measure to increase diversity on boards would damage business competitiveness?

[Mr Raab]

If the hon. Lady will just have an iota of patience, I will come to the empirical evidence for that in a moment.

I want to cite some empirical research from Kenneth Ahern and Amy Dittmar of the business school of the university of Michigan, which examined the introduction of mandatory quotas in Norway from 2003. Looking assiduously at the impact on the boards, they found that the quotas damaged equity, asset and shareholder values in the companies affected. The report also found

“significant decreases in operating performance and higher costs as a result of the imposition of the quota.”

I would be happy to debate this afterwards with the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) if she wants to quibble with the empirical evidence of this study, but let me cite its findings correctly:

“These results are consistent with boards of directors that lack sufficient experience to act as capable advisors.”

The point is that if we have tokenism of this kind, we get inexperienced people on the boards and it damages shareholder value. Equality and diversity policy must be about widening the talent pool. On that we all agree, and it is through that that we strengthen business competitiveness. Tokenism is utterly counter-productive.

Equally, high-flying women would see minimal benefits from this directive because it focuses only on non-executive directorships. In that sense, I agree with some of the comments of Opposition Members. That, of course, encourages tokenism. If we look again at the Norwegian example—it is the one place in Europe where mandatory quotas were introduced—research in 2011 by Dr Hakim of the London School of Economics showed that Norway, the pioneer of gender quotas, had no female executive directors at all. That is why this measure feels—to me and, I think, to many outside the cloistered politically correct Westminster village—like a political elite debating an issue that is relevant pretty much solely to a business elite. It is largely irrelevant to the challenges of the millions of working women who live in the real world.

Of course, to come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), there are still outdated attitudes in the City. There is a problem of group-think among those from similar backgrounds. I worked in the City before I went into the Foreign Office, and I saw that all the time. It is true in many professions, including—and it would be useful to see more acknowledgement of the fact—some of the politically correct institutions such as the Government Equalities Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which have an appalling imbalance in the gender composition of their staff. If anyone bothered to look at it, they would find it deeply hypocritical that these bodies are constantly lecturing others on the subject.

In terms of the City, which is what the directive is about, raw competitive forces are ensuring that companies look far more carefully at their boardroom composition to maximise their breadth of experience. It is taken far more seriously as a strategic business issue. McKinsey and various other firms have been cited with that in mind. I am confident, given the rates that we are seeing, that a rising flow of talented women into more senior positions will continue to break through the glass ceiling, which I do not deny we residually have.

We need to be careful, however, not to give succour to the very stereotypes of which we want to rid ourselves. The deputy leader of the Labour party notoriously suggested that we might not have suffered the financial crisis if we had had “Lehman Sisters” rather than Lehman Brothers. That sort of progressive prejudice, for want of a better term, is scarcely more subtle or savoury than the conventional kind. It is also—this is the interesting point for those who care to look at the evidence—positively refuted by the available empirical material. Research for the Bundesbank—hardly an institution regarded as lacking in rigour—that reviewed German boards between 1994 and 2010 found female board members tended to increase, not decrease, risk taking. The report attributes that to a public policy drive for more female directors, which resulted in the recruitment of less experienced women, as we discussed before. The issue was really about experience, not about gender. A similar review of Swedish boards found exactly the same. This kind of evidence punctures the prejudice promoted by people such as the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that men are somehow innately more reckless than women. Of course it depends on the individual and their personal character, not on crude gender stereotypes, which too often inform this debate and have too often informed this sort of proposal.

I welcome the Government’s reasoned opinion arguing that the directive does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, but let us be careful not to give the impression that we are making process points here. This directive is corrosive of a meritocratic vision of our society where we are gender blind and what matters is who people are and what they are capable of. If we really care about maximising opportunities for working women, we should be talking about such things as transferable parental leave and other family-friendly policies, which this coalition is adopting. We should be addressing the exorbitant costs of child care—

[Seema Malhotra]

rose—

[Mr Raab]

I will not give way, as I am conscious that others wish to speak and I have already given way to the hon. Lady.

The last Labour Government did nothing to address the soaring costs of child care, which is arguably the single biggest practical problem for working women today, so I am delighted that the Government are shortly to announce proposals to address it. These are the policies that will make a real difference in the real world.

Finally, let me touch on a point raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. It is about the tendency of those on the left to label and treat any form of ostensibly low representation in one area or one sector or another as inequality, then bluntly equating it with discrimination. This fails to recognise, in the words of the great British liberal thinker Isaiah Berlin, that from

“the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made.”

That tendency is destined to stoke up social tensions, not to ease them. If we bow to this and go down the path that quotas and positive discrimination tempt us to go down, we will open the floodgates to special interest politics, with every conceivable social group turning every gripe and grievance into an equality issue. We invite lobbying under the Equality Act 2010 based on gender, sexuality, ethnicity, faith, age, parenthood and even non-religious beliefs, but for those who bother to look at the Equality Act and at the list and number of protected characteristics, it becomes mind boggling. Instead of reducing these dividing lines as factors that determine people’s fate in life, we make them decisive. That is a major social mistake and I would argue against it at all costs.

I would like to see us build a meritocratic society where people are not judged according to tick-box criteria—one that recognises that, in a free country, perfect parity of representation is not only utopian but positively dangerous, and one that in the words of the great Martin Luther King judges people

“based on the content of their character”,

not on race, gender or any other arbitrary social dividing line. This directive is a social engineer’s dream and every meritocrat’s nightmare. I hope we send it back to Brussels and never see it again.