Net Zero Emissions Target
Drew Hendry Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of our requirements, which has been recognised by the Committee on Climate Change, is our need to invest in the energy-intensive industries in particular, to improve their energy efficiency so that they can compete effectively and also to enable us to capture, store and, in some cases, use the carbon they generate. The commitment to carbon capture, use and storage is one of the steps we must take to meet those ambitions.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I also welcome the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), back to the Chamber—although she is no longer present—and echo others in thanking the Committee on Climate Change for its work.
We welcome the statement. It is important that we all work together to address this challenge. We especially welcome the intention to follow the Scottish Government by including aviation and shipping in the targets, but why not have the ambition to match the Scottish Government’s emissions plan? In Scotland, the target date for zero net emissions is 2045 rather than 2050, and the carbon-neutral target date is 2040. So let us see if we can step up that ambition.
Even before the actions contained in Scotland’s climate change plan, actual emissions were down 3.3% between 2016 and 2017 and down to nearly half of the emissions levels of 1990. The Secretary of State’s Government must be more ambitious. The Committee on Climate Change said that this is “feasible and deliverable”, as was mentioned in the Secretary of State’s statement. Will he also accept the committee’s recommendation which agrees with the CBI on the National Infrastructure Commission’s call that in the 2020s we really need to push ahead with renewables to meet the 2050 target?
The Secretary of State said that he is taking these actions to
“tackle one of the greatest threats to humanity”,
yet the Committee on Climate Change, the National Infrastructure Commission and the CBI all say that investment in onshore wind and solar has stalled for political reasons. The CBI has said we should take the politics off the table for onshore wind, so will the Secretary of State drop the Tory ideological opposition to onshore wind?
Finally, there is another choice other than nuclear: carbon capture and storage utilisation. St Fergus near Aberdeen could be operational quickly, by 2023 with the right investment and commitment. At minimum it could capture 5.7 gigatons, equivalent to 150 years-worth of all of Scotland’s 2016 gas emissions, so will the Secretary of State reverse the betrayal over Peterhead and that carbon capture programme being withdrawn and commit to investing in St Fergus, to deliver these benefits, not only for Scotland but for the UK and the rest of the planet?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He seemed to be welcoming the committee’s report but criticising the Government for not agreeing with its recommendation to set a date of 2045 for Scotland and 2050 for the United Kingdom. That was its clear advice and we are following it. There were particular reasons, such as the greater potential for afforestation in Scotland, why it regarded a 2045 target as appropriate. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss when I agree with the first part of what he said—that we should follow the committee’s advice—rather than the second part, which is that we should then disagree with it.
On the points about carbon capture and storage, part of the opportunity and requirement for net zero is that it is possible to take carbon out of the atmosphere, especially from industrial processes, and of course Scotland and its industrial clusters will have an important part to play in that.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the National Infrastructure Commission, and again I welcome his respect for its expert analysis. We support what it says about increasing renewables. I hope that in the same spirit he will support its recommendation that we should have more new nuclear power—something he opposed. I do not want to be excessively partisan on an issue that I know from my discussions with the Scottish Government is a common commitment that we make to maintain and increase our ambition and at the same time create jobs in every part of the UK including Scotland.
Oral Answers to Questions
Drew Hendry Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jake Berry
I would not question the authority, even-handedness and open-mindedness of House of Commons Library. I would direct my right hon. Friend to the debate that took place in Westminster Hall on 14 May, led by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), in which colleagues and the Government set out in considerable detail our ambition to drive jobs, growth and prosperity in all parts of our United Kingdom through this fund.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Research from the independent Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions has shown that Scotland stands to lose nearly €1 billion of funding if the UK Government do not match EU funding after 2020. Given what the Minister has said about his responsibilities, will he tell us which of the 10 candidates for Prime Minister have given guarantees to replace every penny of this funding and retain Holyrood’s role in disbursing it?
Jake Berry
It is welcome that the hon. Gentleman wants to play such an active and full part in the Conservative leadership election, but he knows, as I do, that decisions about the UK shared prosperity fund, on quantum and all other matters, will be taken during the comprehensive spending review and the consultation. I would say to him that the Scottish Government must absolutely play their part in being an advocate for the areas of Scotland that share this Government’s ambition to create jobs, wealth and growth through the UK shared prosperity fund, mirroring in many ways what is being achieved through European funds.
Drew Hendry
The public will have heard that answer, which is clearly insufficient and not good enough. The highlands and islands alone stand to lose €180 million, and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said that he is willing to grab control of devolved spending. Is it any wonder that the Scottish public are now looking to Scotland being an independent nation state in Europe with an equal seat at the table, rather than this shambles?
Jake Berry
Well, Mr Speaker, if you want a strong demonstration that this country is better together, you need look no further than the highlands and islands growth deal, a partnership between the UK Government and the Scottish Government that is changing lives for people across the highlands and islands. That is a demonstration in one Government policy of why this Union should stay together.
National Minimum Wage Naming Scheme
Drew Hendry Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. She is absolutely correct that in our good work plan we announced our intention to consult on a single labour market enforcement body. Our good work plan was a major step forward for the Government. I should point out to Opposition Members that the good work plan is the biggest reformation of workers’ rights for 20 years. It is this Government who are doing it and I am proud to be part of it.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Government’s wage policy simply is not delivering for those who need it. Under the Tories, FTSE 100 chief executive pay has gone up by two thirds; when will the Minister finally deliver for those who are not rich and match the Scottish living wage? Incidentally, the Scottish living wage is now paid by 1,300 employers in Scotland—more than a quarter of all the living wage employers in the UK. Outside London, that means a wage of £9.55 an hour paid to all workers, including those aged under 25 whom the Tories have left behind. If the Minister cannot commit to that, she should devolve powers so that the SNP Scottish Government can. Given that nearly 370,000 workers on national minimum wage contracts are being underpaid, will she commit to implementing in full the recommendations in the Low Pay Commission’s report on non-compliance and enforcement, including on naming rounds for those who do not comply?
Kelly Tolhurst
First, let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are not dropping the naming and shaming scheme. He was right to mention corporate governance and the issues around executive pay, which this Government take seriously and we are taking steps to address. He will know that the Low Pay Commission recommends national minimum wage levels to the Government. He mentioned the under-25s, but let me point out to him that almost nine in every 10 18 to 24-year-olds are paid above their wage bracket.
Oral Answers to Questions
Drew Hendry Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Skidmore
That will be part of the consultation. We will set out our final proposals for the guarantee as soon as possible—as I said, before the summer recess. In the meantime, the right signals are already emerging. Energy suppliers are voluntarily bringing forward smart export tariffs.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
As we have heard, rather than publish a smart export guarantee that actually works, the Tories plan to further stifle the industry by hiking VAT on solar. Is it not time that the Minister’s Government stopped the Tory war on renewables and started taking climate change seriously by following the leadership of Scotland’s First Minister and declaring a climate emergency?
Chris Skidmore
The hon. Gentleman fails to mention the success story that is solar photovoltaic. Over the past eight years since May 2010, under the coalition Government and this Government, 99% of capacity has been deployed. That is 49% of the total investment in the EU. We have installed more than twice as much solar capacity as any other European country—more than Germany, France and Australia combined. That is something he should welcome rather than talk down.
Drew Hendry
The Minister has his head in the sand over climate change. Last week, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee concluded that the UK could not credibly adopt a net zero emissions target without greater investment in new technologies. If the Tories will not act, when will they devolve the powers to Scotland, so the Scottish Government can show them how to do it?
Chris Skidmore
On the net zero target, we will obviously wait on the Committee on Climate Change report, which will be published on Thursday 2 May. I am sure the hon. Gentleman welcomes the Government’s success story on solar capacity and renewables. In comparison with the early 1990s, emissions have come down by 40% while the economy grew by 72%. There is more to do—there will always be more to do—but we are on the right track and doing the right thing. Solar capacity has reached 30 GW, compared with an estimate of 10 GW to 12 GW. We continue to ensure we exceed our targets.
Post Office Network
Drew Hendry Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this debate on a matter that is critical for many communities in Scotland and the other nations of the UK. She talked about the respect for, and recognition of, post offices. Few things upset communities more than a post office closure. She also pointed out the folly of the Tory Government’s non-intervention policy, and the parlous state of sub-postmasters, following the cuts that they have had to endure to their livelihoods.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned that it is good news that there is a new banking transaction deal, but why the six-month wait? There is no good reason for that. It should happen now. She talked about the consequences of poor pay, and the 1,016 temporarily closed branches, 134 of which—some 13%—are in Scotland. She talked about the effect of Crown branch closures, and the failure of the franchising system to recognise unions, which others mentioned, too.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) talked about his worried constituents and the desire to protect the network. It is a telling figure that one in five sub-postmasters is considering closing or reducing their services. His speech was good up to then—until he said, as is usual for the Tories, that he wants the Scottish Government to pick up after the failure of the Westminster Tory Government, without the powers or levers to be able to do so.
John Lamont
My point was that powers are available to the Scottish Government to support the provision of financial services through the post office network—a point that the Library has just confirmed. There are opportunities available to the Scottish Government to provide additional assistance beyond what the UK Government can provide, because post offices are a reserved matter. There are levers and powers available to the Scottish Government, if they choose to use them.
Drew Hendry
I do not intend to go too far off track, but I must respond. It is absolutely typical of the Tories to say that we have to fix every mess and failure at the expense of the Scottish public and services in Scotland. That is a ridiculous proposition.
Returning to the core debate, there was enormous consensus among hon Members. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) pointed out that businesses across communities lose money if post offices close. She said that people are cynical about the politics of the Westminster Government, who make no commitment to post offices and then wring their hands at the consequences. She talked about hand-counting thousands daily, and everything that involves. She talked about the post office being the last place for face-to-face contact in communities. It is more than just a commercial entity, and older and more vulnerable people are the most affected by closures.
It is telling that Later Life Ambitions, a pensioners’ organisation, points out that the post office is important in day-to-day life, because older people, who are often the most vulnerable people in society, rely on post offices. They are a lifeline; they offer access to pensions and benefits, and let people pay bills, get advice and even socialise. Does the Minister acknowledge that this is a social issue, too? For those who do not or cannot communicate digitally, post offices are very important. They are used by 42% of consumers over 65, and 31% of disabled consumers.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) talked about working with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, and about post offices needing to be run in the interests of people. That is absolutely correct. In talking about franchising policy, he highlighted that WHSmith has been voted worst retailer. It is notable that the jobs it advertises are particularly low-paying.
In a very telling speech that hit home with me as a fellow MP representing a rural community in the highlands and islands, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) shared concerns that post offices are being run down and prepared for privatisation. He talked about the catastrophic effect that can have on rural communities, particularly in the highlands and islands, where often there are huge distances between the services that people rely on. My hon. Friend talked about the stability policy of the UK Government; Argyll and Bute has lost 20% of its post offices, with six post office closures in the last two years. The drastically reduced funding has put post offices in a very vulnerable place, and the public have no faith in the UK Government protecting rural post office services. He was also right to point out the success of Cairndow, and to congratulate those people on taking matters positively into their own hands to try to do something for their communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) talked about the transaction charges, and so he should, because his work should be commended. I congratulate him on forcing action, not only through his Adjournment debate, but through continued pressure and engagement. He talked about the impact of the systemic degradation of services in towns and villages and, importantly, the issue of community designation. It is a good thing to have community designation, but the problem is that rural and semi-rural post offices are losing out, while cities can gain. The criteria are too black and white, especially the three-mile rule.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) talked about the unsustainable model imposed on the post office network, and shared his concerns about franchising. When there are bank closures in our communities, we have all been told, “Don’t worry; the post office network will pick up the slack.” He also talked about the toxic conditions for the people who run post offices, many of whom got into the job because they thought it was a great thing to do for their communities, a proper career and a valued position in the community. My goodness, how they have been let down by how they have been treated. He predicted a massive failure over the next five years if there is no action.
[Philip Davies in the Chair]
Post offices are not just business; they are focal points for many communities. This issue is about communities and their health and wellbeing, as well as the national and local economic impact. For many, the shiniest jewel in the crown has been prised out and cut up for the profit of those who do not rely on or even need a post office. In 2017, Citizens Advice found that people valued their community post office more than a local pub, a bank branch or a library. Does the Minister acknowledge that importance? In rural areas, 36% of businesses use post offices at least weekly, and 62% of small businesses use them at least once a month. Over 500,000 businesses are registered in rural areas—that is one in four companies—and they contribute more than £200 billion to the economy. These people are creatives and innovators who use post offices to send goods and pay bills. According to Citizens Advice, eight out of 10 of them will lose money if local post offices are closed. Will the Minister take notice of that?
We in the SNP—and others, as we have heard—are clear that we want our Post Office to remain robust, and to serve our businesses and communities, but that is not a priority under the UK Government’s management. Consequently, the Government should devolve power to us to ensure that the Post Office is protected. Under the current policy, there has been a mass exodus of postmasters, often leaving communities branchless. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw should be commended for arguing for fair hourly rates for postmasters, but the Minister must undertake to commission independent analysis and answer the big questions about fairness.
As we have heard, pay levels are leading to a major exodus of postmasters. Rather than watch the Post Office crumble, the UK Government should support postmasters and ensure fair remuneration. As was pointed out, the publicly owned Post Office’s North Star initiative is aiming for a £100 million profit by 2021. That is all very good, but postmasters’ pay has declined by £107 million since 2012. The majority of postmasters now earn less than the minimum wage. In many cases, they cannot even get out; their businesses are now too unattractive to sell.
The National Federation of SubPostmasters has raised the issue of sub-post office closures with the UK Government and the Government-owned Post Office Ltd. The federation’s spokesperson said:
“Our records show around two-thirds of closures are due to the resignation of the sub-postmaster— and a survey of our members conducted earlier this year gives an insight into why sub-postmasters are resigning. Income is dropping over time, the majority earn less than the national minimum wage for running their post office—and therefore earn less per hour than their staff—and as many as a third took no time off last year.
We agree with Marion Fellows that Scotland has been hit hard by sub-post office closures. This is a particular problem for rural areas in Scotland, as well as across the UK, where people rely on their local post office for vital postal and banking services.”
Action on transaction charges is welcome, but why wait? Why not give the same rates to local branches and main post offices? Around 90% of post offices in the highlands and islands are local branches, not main post offices. Will the Minister challenge that with the Post Office? As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw pointed out, there must be a vision for the post bank, and it should be properly funded.
There is more pressure on post offices than ever, given the loss of local banks through short-sighted closures by the Royal Bank of Scotland, Halifax Bank of Scotland and others. Now we find that TSB is starting the process of shortening hours, which is always the cynical first move in reducing a branch’s viability to the point where its closure can be justified. As we heard, all those banks say, “It’s okay, you can use the post office,” but we cannot if they have gone.
Even where post offices remain, Robert Cockburn, a constituent of mine who runs the post office in Drumnadrochit, says the workload is absolutely punishing. He often has to run his business as a single-manned operation, so while he goes behind the screen for the time it takes to deal with a transaction, he loses out on custom from people who come to his business and might have bought goods to help sustain him.
Brendan O'Hara
While we have been sitting here, I have received an email informing me that yet another bank branch in Argyll and Bute is planning to cut its numbers ahead, I believe, of closure. The TSB branch in Dunoon now says its customers have to travel what it calls 7 miles to their nearest branch, seemingly unaware that that journey involves a ferry and a bus. Yet again, it is death by 1,000 cuts to financial services in rural Scotland. Will my hon. Friend join me in utterly condemning that latest move.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I join him very robustly in condemning that move. As I said a moment ago, shortening hours is the first step towards making a branch unviable so it can no longer do business. The call then goes out, “Don’t worry, the post office will pick up the slack.” As we know, that is not always the case.
My constituent Mr Cockburn says it is punishing to run his post office. He told me:
“It is a combination of everything. The work that we have is onerous and does not pay enough money to cover your time. The business banking, for example, we get paid 23p per £1,000 that we count. That’s nothing. You think, on minimum wage, how long it takes you to count £1,000. If you make a mistake or”—
more commonly—
“if the customer’s made a mistake you have to double check it. We get paid for taking a parcel over the counter, but the Post Office took 6% away from us on that because they gave us a faster printer and said we could print labels faster. It’s ridiculous.”
A rural post office gets to print a label faster, and the Post Office cuts its money for doing so. That is ridiculous.
The UK Government must ensure that there are more incentives for new and existing postmasters to maintain and open post offices. Union officials rightly have been clear about the folly of closing Crown offices and franchising the service. As we have heard, franchises often advertise jobs at a lower rate than the Post Office pays. As the all-party parliamentary group on post offices found, the Post Office has no back-up plan in the event of WHSmith failing to deliver the service.
I hope the Minister has taken clear cognisance of what has been said during the debate by people representing their constituencies and communities, the vulnerable people who need these services most, and the postmasters who are being forced into subsistence living and locked into a business they simply cannot afford to get out of. This is a matter of having a social conscience and ensuring that communities have something they can rely on, not just now but into the future. If post offices are going to have to pick up the slack of bank closures and other things, they should be allowed to become sustainable in order to do that job.
Kelly Tolhurst
I give way to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry).
Drew Hendry
The Minister is making a powerful statement of commitment, but she has heard from around the Chamber the pressures faced by local post office sub-postmasters living on subsistence terms and struggling to maintain a living. Will she bring that enthusiasm, energy and commitment to sorting out their livelihoods and securing their post offices?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, because that is exactly what I hope to do.
Kelly Tolhurst
I appreciate that the hon. Lady would like me to announce that we will hold a review, but fundamentally, as I have outlined, the Post Office is a commercial entity operating in a competitive market. It is owned by the taxpayer, and it is right that we are challenged and that it is run efficiently.
I point out that the Post Office has been making a surplus. We now have a sustainable network and a surplus. We have moved on from a time when there were more than 7,000 post office closures and the Post Office was over £1 billion in debt. We are not in that place today. That has been achieved by maintaining the network and investing correctly. However, I have tried to show that I understand hon. Members’ concerns about the viability of postmasters and their pay. I hope I have already outlined and expressed my determination to get to the bottom of some of these challenges and to ensure that they are addressed by the Post Office.
Drew Hendry
The Minister is being generous in taking interventions, and I appreciate that. She speaks passionately about her commitment to investigating this, and has commented that she believes the network is sustainable and well invested in at the moment. Will she take that a step further by coming to speak to some of the people running local post offices, particularly in the highlands and islands? They might not recognise the fact that they are within three miles of communities or that they have that kind of investment, because that is not their lived experience. Will she take up that invitation?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that invitation. I do speak to postmasters and, if time allows, I will be happy to go and visit post offices in any part of the country, if possible. However, we really need to look at the network and understand the operation. Post Office Ltd operates more than 11,547 stores—a sustainable network. In many of those circumstances, there will be particular differences. Of those stores, 98% are franchises, which in effect are businesses in themselves. It is acceptable to expect that there will be some churn and there will be particular issues that need to be dealt with.
Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)
Drew Hendry Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). I actually agree with a large percentage of his very detailed contribution, particularly in relation to some of the protections that are going to be lost. Before I get started on the substance of my speech, may I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my shareholding in the digital marketing company, Teclan?
I am amazed at how blasé those on the Government and Labour Front Benches have been about this statutory instrument. It is one of the instruments that will directly affect consumers and business owners across the nations of the UK almost immediately. Geo-blocking legislation is there for a purpose: to ensure that there is fairness for companies. Instituting this SI without any other provisions causes unfairness anyway: having it in place is unfair, and removing it is unfair too. It is one of those consequences of Brexit that highlights the foolishness of this whole process. There is a way to avoid the SI and a hard Brexit. We need to understand that Westminster has failed to make any kind of decision, that we should revoke article 50 and that we should get to the point where we can bring the choice to the people, with the option to remain.
Returning to the substance of the measure, the EU have introduced geo-blocking—we were in partnership on the legislation—to balance the growth of online platforms, with a need to protect small and medium enterprises and consumers. It focuses on transparency and new options for redress. In short, it treats EU citizens—currently us—and other end users in the same manner. It does not take account of nationality, place of residence or the place of establishment. The European Union’s “Notice to stakeholders: withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU legislation in the field of geo-blocking” says that from the date of application the regulation
“prohibits discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment, including unjustified geo-blocking, in certain cross-border transactions between a trader and a customer in relation to the sales of goods and the provision of services within the EU. In particular, it provides for the following measures protecting customers: ban of discriminatory blocking or limiting customers' access to traders’ online interfaces (e.g. a website) and redirecting them to another online interface without the customer’s prior consent”.
That is the simple right for someone to get what they are looking for. The regulation imposes a prohibition on
traders to apply, in certain defined situations, on a discriminatory basis different conditions of access for customers to goods and services…informally known as ‘shop like a local’”
across the EU. The regulation provides for
“non-discrimination for reasons related to payment. As of the withdrawal date, natural persons residing in the United Kingdom (unless they have a nationality of a Member State) or undertakings established in the United Kingdom will not be able to benefit from Regulation (EU) 2018/302”.
There are no undertakings established by the UK Government, so there is a direct inequity.
The notice says that
“such persons or undertakings who wish to access websites in the EU will not benefit from the aforementioned ban related to access to traders’ online interfaces. This means that a trader could block, limit or redirect those customers to specific versions of his/her website which might be different from the one that the customers initially sought to access.”
Again, that is a clear removal of a right that we currently enjoy. The notice says that
“such persons or undertakings will not have the guarantee to be able to ‘shop like a local’ in the EU in the situations covered by Article 4 of the Regulation, including benefitting from the same prices and conditions relating to the delivery of goods and services as the locals (i.e. the customers of the trader's home Member State). For example, the off-line and on-line sales of goods and services, such as goods delivered or picked up in the EU territory, tickets for sports events or amusement parks in Member States, and the sale of electronically supplied services, such as hosting services, are areas where those customers will be affected…such persons or undertakings using payment means from the United Kingdom will not be protected against traders applying different conditions for a payment transaction from the ones offered to EU customers, or refused to complete the purchase for reasons related to payment, when (wanting to) pay electronically for goods or services.”
The notice goes on to list the rights that we will lose as a result of not being able to participate in the legislation on geo-blocking.
David Linden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and Romanian knight for giving way. He has outlined some of the dangers involved in pursuing this Brexit nonsense. Does he agree that none of this was written on the side of a bus, whether in Inverness or anywhere else in the United Kingdom? The only thing we can do now is revoke article 50 and stop this madness.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend is right that that is the only way out of the hole being dug by the infighting in the Tory party, which is trying to settle a dispute that has lasted decades. This ham-fisted approach has left us in this guddle of Brexit and has put people in their homes at risk of losing out, of paying more and of being ripped off because we are losing these protections.
The regulations, as they stand, ban the blocking of access to websites and ban rerouting without a user’s consent, and they end payment discrimination through the revised payment services directive. People across the nations of the UK use online marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon on a daily basis. I would be surprised if there is a Member in this Chamber who has not received a parcel from one of those companies, and certainly all our constituents, bar a very few, will have received something from these online marketplaces. Both third party traders and the marketplace itself are subject to these regulations. That means loopholes will now open that allow people to exploit consumers across the nations of the UK. These regulations are about treating customers in the same way across the EU, and the regulations are enforced so that people are not affected in that way.
The Minister said in her opening remarks that the regulations cannot be replicated. She said very directly that the regulations are impossible to replicate or replace, but is not the truth of the matter that there is no interest in doing so? The Government are hellbent on trying to persuade their own Members and the rest of the House to support a deal that nobody wants to support, and they are avoiding responsibility for doing anything that would protect the people who will be affected by this nonsensical situation.
That abdication is leaving loopholes all over the place. Citizens are losing their rights and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, any promises to make that up are about as good as a Brexit handout or what is written on the side of a bus. There is nothing here that will give comfort to any of our consumers or small and medium-sized enterprises—the ones who are most likely to be directly affected by the removal of this legislation.
Based on these regulations, from 2019 the Commission will publish certain tariffs for parcel delivery services on a website so that consumers and e-retailers can easily compare domestic and cross-border tariffs between member states and between providers. The website will highlight the highest tariffs to encourage consumers and small e-retailers to look for a better deal, and national regulatory authorities will be required to assess certain tariffs that seem unreasonably high. Regulatory oversight of the growing number of parcel delivery service providers will also be increased.
I mention that because Scotland already suffers from geo-blocking under this Westminster system. I have lost count of the number of times I and other Members with rural communities have brought up the postcode discrimination in both online and distance-selling deliveries to Scotland. Some £33 million a year of unfair surcharges are paid in Scotland for deliveries. Citizens Advice Scotland says this particularly affects consumers in Scotland, with 1 million Scottish residents paying, on average, an extra £19 for deliveries. Some 72% of the extra charges for deliveries directly affect Scotland. This is a long-standing discrimination, and the removal of these regulations, which protect people, can only make matters worse, particularly for people living in rural communities.
When I say “rural communities,” believe it or not, I am talking about cities in Scotland. I am talking about areas of high population density because, as I say, we suffer postcode discrimination. For example, a constituent of mine was asked to pay an extra £90 to have a mobile phone delivered to Nairn. These protections are not being delivered by the UK Government now, so what hope do we have with this regulation disappearing? I have another good example of where the EU has been able to protect internally. A crash helmet can be delivered from London to Inverness for a £29 charge. The same item could be delivered from London to Croatia or Estonia for £9.99.
I fear that others across the nations of the UK will begin to experience some of the discrimination that we in Scotland have seen over a number of years, and not just in the highlands and islands but in the borders and across large parts of mainland Scotland, because they too will now be subject to these inequities, as other Members have admitted today in their contributions. It is a reprehensible situation.
This statutory instrument brings forward no replacement protections. It does not even address the issue. It is predicated solely on getting through the Prime Minister’s dodgy, duff, dead-duck deal. That is the sole reason for bringing this through without any attention to detail. More rights are being sacrificed on the altar of Brexit. This Government must now put this and the postcode injustices right, especially for Scotland but also to protect others across the nations of the UK who will now be affected. They should do the sensible thing and agree that it is a disaster, as the removal of this regulation shows that there is no good no-deal Brexit; it is just a calamity that should be ruled out. They should then revoke article 50 until we get an opportunity to take this back to the public and give them the choice of whether to remain in the EU, with all the protections they currently enjoy, before those are sacrificed for this wonky ambition of the infighting in the Tory party.
Of course, there is one absolutely guaranteed way for the people of Scotland to enjoy these vital European protections so that we will no longer suffer from geo-blocking, and that is for Scotland to take its place as a fully independent country in the European Union.
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Just to recap, the geo-blocking regulation is an EU regulation that came into effect on 3 December 2018. It is important to note that, up to the end of February, no claims had come forward to the Competition and Markets Authority. It does not apply to transactions that take place entirely within one EU member state.
The geo-blocking regulation prohibits certain forms of discrimination in the single market, specifically: blocking access to, or forced redirection away from, a website on the basis of an internet user’s location in the EU; discriminatory terms of access, which include but are not limited to price offered, on the basis of a customer’s location in the EU when selling goods delivered across a border but still within the EU, wholly online services, excluding copyright materials such as e-books, streamed movies, music and video games, or services delivered in a specific location, such as hotels and theme parks; discrimination in payment terms on the basis of a customer’s location.
The geo-blocking regulation could not function properly on a unilateral basis in a no-deal scenario. Effective enforcement outside the UK would be very difficult, because the UK would no longer operate within the EU’s consumer protection co-operation network or enforcement agencies. EU regulators would no longer be obliged to bring actions against businesses through EU mechanisms for cross-border co-operation. UK civil and commercial judgments, which were alluded to in the debate, would no longer be automatically enforced in the EU member state’s court, and the UK Government cannot unilaterally enforce the geo-blocking regulations throughout the EU without help from regulators in other member states.
Even if the geo-blocking regulations were not revoked, a no-deal exit from the EU would lead to a loss of protection for UK customers while imposing the same level of obligation for UK traders. The provisions of the geo-blocking regulation do not apply to transactions that occur solely within one country, so there is no benefit to retaining the version of the regulation that applies to the UK.
Let me outline the concerns relating to not revoking the EU regulation. EU consumers would receive preferential treatment in respect of UK traders, while UK consumers would be unlikely to receive any reciprocal benefits from EU traders. That is why we are proposing the revocation of the regulation. Revoking will preserve UK rights. It will not strip consumer rights, which will be lost in the event of a no-deal Brexit, but the regulation would continue to impose obligations on UK traders, with no benefits for UK consumers.
Let me answer some of the shadow Minister’s questions. He is concerned about the effect of this statutory instrument in a no-deal situation. I say to him: please support the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement. We have been extremely clear that we would like to uphold and maintain the highest standards of consumer protection in the UK. If we agree to the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement, we will be able to satisfy our ambition as a Government to maintain high consumer protections and to be able to enter into agreements and negotiations with the European Union so that we can maintain cross-border co-operation. That is what I would very much like to do. We should not only engage in the mutual exchange of information and evidence but work on a framework so that we can work collectively with the European Union on the wider detriment to consumers.
The shadow Minister asked about the impact assessment. He has rightly expressed concerns about impact assessments throughout the no-deal SI process. I have on many occasions tried to explain to him the reasoning behind what the Government have been doing in relation to some of these SIs. On this particular SI, we assessed the impact of the instrument to be de minimis because the costs are below £5 million. As the shadow Minister will know, that means that, in line with the better regulation framework, we did not need to carry out a full impact assessment. The assessment was that the maximum impact could be £1.2 million, based on around 75,000 businesses having to familiarise themselves with the new rules.
The shadow Minister also asked about consultation. On bringing forward this regulation, he wanted to know who we had spoken to and who we had engaged with. As he alluded to, we have consulted and spoken to business representative organisations, including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Retail Consortium, and the Association for UK Interactive Entertainment. The feedback was that they had no strong views on these regulations. However, we did publish a technical notice on 12 October 2018, which clearly laid out our plans for geo-blocking in the event of a no deal.
Let me re-emphasise a point. We have heard a lot today about a potential loss of rights for consumers. I have always been clear in any Committee in which I have spoken on bringing forward no-deal legislation that, whatever the outcome, we are both prepared for and committed to delivering on the high standard of consumer protections that we already have in the UK. We also have a track record of consumer protection in this country and of going above and beyond; in fact, many of the consumer protections in this country go further than those of the European Union.
Drew Hendry
The Minister says that this Government go further than many others. Can she therefore address the conundrum that I raised earlier: why are consumers in Scotland paying so much more for delivery, but being treated so badly compared with other consumers? Why is that still happening if what she is saying is a fact?
Kelly Tolhurst
I was going to come on to that, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it. He and many of his colleagues—as well as many of my hon. Friends—have raised the issue of Scotland’s surcharges for parcel delivery. He will know that I have been working with the Consumer Protection Partnership to see how we can ensure fairness across the British Isles, but I must remind the House that we are talking about individual parcel organisations—as opposed to the Royal Mail—using these surcharges. However, it is true that many organisations are unable to use Royal Mail to distribute their products throughout the country. I remain committed to working with colleagues across the House to resolve this issue and to enable fairness for consumers right across the UK. He is right to raise it and I do take his point.
I just want to return to the point that I was making about consumers. If we want to make sure that we are able to enter into good agreements in terms of cross-border participation and consumer protection and to work with the European Union, my view is—and I will be clear about this—that we should vote for the withdrawal agreement. [Interruption.] Hon. Members reject a no-deal Brexit, but they are not prepared to support something that is on the table that would enable us immediately to have those conversations—
Oral Answers to Questions
Drew Hendry Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Perry
I am sure that my hon. Friend, like me, welcomes the fact that we already have more than 13 GW of onshore wind installed. As she says, much of that is reaching the end of its life. Those plants can be repowered to generate more energy, and we expect them to be, but any application must be consistent with what local people want, so I expect developers to work closely with local communities to deliver that.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
In spite of what the Minister says, her Government’s nuclear dogma is holding back Scotland’s green growth. Having lost market confidence in the Moorside, Wylfa and Oldbury-on-Severn nuclear projects, will she get the message about nuclear’s terminal decline and start backing Scotland’s renewables growth revolution instead?
Claire Perry
The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that we welcome the fact that we have a diverse energy supply. As we have discussed, there are thousands of jobs to be created from renewables and also from our world-leading nuclear installations. We need a low-carbon, reliable, low-cost energy system, and thanks to the work we are doing, we think that over 70% of the UK’s energy supply will be zero-carbon in just 11 years.
Drew Hendry
The facts are that, compared with offshore wind, the Tory Hinkley project will saddle consumers with a 35% tax on energy bills. Given that this Government currently have no consequences for Ministers who switch policies, is this not the right time to take advantage of that, do the right thing and scrap this nuclear obsession?
Claire Perry
I just cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. He might make good headlines, but he knows that we should pride ourselves on having a diverse, low-cost energy system. We have to deliver energy security, and those thousands of highly skilled nuclear jobs, which are increasingly going to women, are a really good thing for the UK.
Small Modular Reactors
Drew Hendry Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Paisley; I believe that this is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) on securing this debate. Normally, I would look around Westminster Hall and see all these friendly faces and think, “Great, it’s going to be a very consensual debate,” but a debate needs a dissenting voice and this afternoon’s debate will certainly hear one from me. Before I do that, however, I congratulate right hon. and hon. Members on the passionate case that they have made. I have been looking for words and points that I can agree with, and I do agree about the need to tackle the trilemma, particularly the issue of climate change and affordability. However, I cannot say that new nuclear is the way to do that and the small modular reactor development is not going to change that.
There has been a common theme among some hon. Members today that renewable energy is not reliable. In October last year, 98% of Scotland’s electricity was generated by wind power and we are on track to produce all of our electricity from renewables by 2020. That is possible through the Scottish National party’s environmental policy support.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has always been a passionate champion of nuclear; I understand that although, again, I cannot agree. The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) said that the safest and greenest power is nuclear. Actually, the safest and greenest power is renewables. There is no half-life and nothing to clean up. If he wants to come up and speak to some of the people who saw the clean-up at Dounreay to hear about the eye-watering cost and the danger to the public from that British nuclear project, he is welcome to do so. The fact that he once purchased a Lada car tells us everything about his choices. I will leave it at that.
The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) talked about generational depopulation. I absolutely agree that that must be tackled and there must be ways to do that, but nuclear does not fix it. We need a challenge on well-paid work.
Albert Owen
I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). In peripheral areas, the nuclear industry has been a saviour in many ways. It ensures longevity and skills. People who left school at the same time as me are still working in it. The hon. Lady highlighted that. We want renewables and nuclear, not either/or.
Drew Hendry
I understand that. The one thing I was agreeing with is that there must be more solutions on offer. There must be a mix, but I respectfully disagree about nuclear. I was going to highlight the hon. Gentleman’s support for renewable projects, which a couple of people have mentioned.
I will not use my time to go through every Member’s speech, but the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) made a powerful case. He incidentally made the Minister something of a deity and said that he was doing the Lord’s work. I am not sure which Lord, but we will come back to that.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) talked about the SMR competition. A warning about competitions from the UK Government can be found in Peterhead, where the carbon capture and storage competition was launched, and £100 million was spent before the £1 billion—[Interruption.] The Minister is trying to wave me away from that bit. The people of Peterhead will not forget the UK Government’s betrayal and the cancellation of that carbon capture project, which could have given the UK a five-year lead on carbon capture and storage. That is all gone.
Drew Hendry
I will not give way, because the other Front Benchers have to get in and I have to restrict my comments.
The first SMR is not due for 10 years. The costs are uncertain. There will probably be limited access to sites, planning delays and rising costs. The UK Government have pursued costly, dangerous nuclear energy over cheap renewables out of misplaced ideology. We have heard about the delays at Wylfa and the collapse of Woodside. That is the pursuit of ideology over pragmatism, and it does not work. The Government are letting people down.
The UK Government are already spending vast amounts on nuclear schemes about which there are safety concerns. They were about to lend £15 billion to Hitachi in Wales for Wylfa before the project collapsed because even that was not enough money. At Hinkley Point C, there is a £30 billion cost to the public sector. The Minister will argue that that is not the case, but the strike price amounts to what the public will be paying over that period to cover the cost of delays, complications, overspends and up-front costs. That is from the National Audit Office, not from me.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Will the Member draw his remarks to a conclusion?
Drew Hendry
The fact is that there is a very good future in renewable energy. If the Government set down their ideological opposition, particularly to wind and solar, they would be able to do a lot better in providing the mix that is required.
Richard Harrington
I very much regret that I do not have time to go through all the points raised by hon. Members. I am happy to go through them later with any of those Members, except of course the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry)—for the sake of Hansard, I am joking. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) on securing this excellent debate. The term “Trudy-isation” is beginning to enter our parliamentary language, and she has Trudy-ised the whole debate on small modular reactors.
The development of small modular reactors is very much at the core—excuse the pun—of the Government’s strategy for the development of nuclear power, which we know is an important part of the mix. I would like to answer in detail the shadow Minister’s questions about money, but I do not have the time. Suffice it to say that we are considering a consortium bid. Rolls-Royce is at the centre of that, but many other companies are involved. I obviously cannot go into detail, but this is of the magnitude of money that the shadow Minister mentioned, and it is very close to fruition. We worked closely with all members of the consortium to develop it.
The good thing about this debate is that every Member bar one was very much in favour of the development of nuclear energy, our sector deal and everything we are trying to do to make sure that nuclear remains an important part of our mix, for several reasons. There are security reasons. The point was made about the excellence of offshore and onshore wind and all sorts of wind, but the wind does not blow all the time. There is the green energy point of view, because this will develop a significant amount of carbon-free power. My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) quoted President Putin, who made the point that countries that have tried basically to have no nuclear or coal energy do not know what to do. We will not put ourselves in that position. Modular reactors are an important part of our future.
Times are changing and costs are going down. The shadow Minister made the point that we have to be very careful about the costs of small modular reactors. Those are very well known, which means that we have to look at scale. Building one was the original problem, particularly for the two sites at Moorside, which were mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and for Copeland. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) spoke so well about Anglesey. The hon. Lady who is the spokesperson for Plaid Cymru—
Richard Harrington
And she is the Westminster leader. I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), but I was trying to avoid making a mess of her constituency name, which I have done before—I will not fall for that one again. I will, however, have a good go at saying Trawsfynydd, because I have been there. It is an excellent site for small modular reactors, as are Anglesey, Moorside and many others. The good thing about them is the support of the local community for nuclear, because many have seen the benefits that nuclear has brought in the past, such as prosperity and good-quality, highly paid employment.
In the time that I have left—I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland should be left a couple of minutes at the end—I will talk briefly about the financing models. Clearly, one of the big problems about nuclear generally has been financing. Everyone knows that, and that the large chunk for current nuclear power stations is about £15 billion-plus, and could be £20 billion. That is a significant sum of money. The two projects we have talked about—Moorside and Wylfa in Anglesey—are not to take place in the timescale we had hoped for because of the financing.
However, I believe that the efforts we are putting into the regulated asset base model will open up nuclear again—a modern way to fund it. Institutions are very interested. On the small modular reactor side, my Department organised a very successful conference for the first time—in a high-tech area of the midlands, rather than one of the traditional sites—and quite a few financial institutions attended. We are in talks with the Treasury and inside the Department about developing that finance model. Logically, I believe it will work for smaller nuclear developments as well as large ones, because institutions obviously like to invest in smaller chunks.
The Government are very committed. We are helping small modular reactors. Apart from dealing with the consortium that I mentioned, we are providing funds to give the regulators the kinds of facilities necessary for the regulatory process. Quite a lot is going on, and I had wanted to speak for about 20 minutes on this subject. Earlier I was waving my hands at the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey not out of disrespect for him personally or because of anything he said, but because I wanted more time to go through my speech. However, I have galloped through the major points. I would just like formally to put on the record that the Government’s policy is firmly behind nuclear and very much behind—
Oral Answers to Questions
Drew Hendry Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
I am delighted to say that we work closely with the Scottish Government and universities and businesses across Scotland. One example is the sector deals that we have struck, including the life sciences sector deal, in which Scotland is strong, which means investment going into Scottish institutions and creating good jobs now and in the future.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
A recent survey by Ernst & Young found that 92% of Scottish firms do not feel fully ready for Brexit. They are being left adrift by this Government. Given the calamitous collapse of the phantom deal for the ferry company with no ships—the Seaborne Freight fiasco—does the Secretary of State stick by his comment that the contract was “prudent and responsible”?
Greg Clark
The Secretary of State for Transport gave a statement on that yesterday and was clear that no Government money had been put into that. When it comes to building confidence for businesses in Scotland, which I hope the hon. Gentleman and I want to do, he will know that the way to allay businesses’ concerns is to ensure that we conclude an agreement. There is one that has the support of businesses in Scotland and across the country, and I hope his party will back it.
Drew Hendry
That answer is simply not good enough. Even the former head of the civil service, Bob Kerslake, said that the fiasco will
“just confirm the view of many that this country is in a mess”.
If the UK Government cannot put in place their own services, will the Secretary of State support the SNP’s demand for the Chancellor to use the spring statement to provide firms with the fiscal support they need to put in place their own measures to get them through this Tory Brexit mess?
Greg Clark
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would raise fiscal matters, when some of the fiscal decisions taken in Scotland recently have further diminished investors’ confidence. For Scotland to be the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom is a terrible signal to not only workers but businesses.
Nissan in Sunderland
Drew Hendry Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I echo the sentiment that our thoughts should be with the workers at Nissan and elsewhere who are unsettled by this news.
The Secretary of State has put a brave face on this bad news. We all know that the issue of diesel and the change to petrol is part of it, as is the global review, but the cancellation of X-Trail has his Government’s handling of Brexit at its heart. Brexit, in itself, is bad enough, but it is being bungled beyond belief by a Government who have failed to listen to business. He talks about business wanting to back a deal, but he omits to say that they all say that any deal is worse than what we already have with the EU. Professor David Bailey, from Aston University, is an expert in the car industry, and he has pointed out:
“The Japanese carmakers came to the UK to access the single market”.
He went on to say that Brexit is
“a big shock for the Japanese producers.”
Nissan’s European chairman has been clear:
“The continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future”.
Nissan’s decision shows that international investors have no faith in this Government’s assurances about the economic impact of the Prime Minister’s rotten Brexit deal. If Brexit uncertainty is too great for one of the world’s best resourced manufacturers, what hope is there for small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of the economy? This Government’s continued failure can be demonstrated by the failure to top up the Tay Cities deal to support Michelin workers, so will the Secretary of State urge the Chancellor to make the spring statement a fiscal event that increases funds to support businesses impacted by Brexit? Will the Secretary of State, once and for all, rule out participation in the foolish game of failing to rule out no deal?
Greg Clark
First, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that a greater amount of financial investment is going into Sunderland than was anticipated in 2016; this is a long-term commitment that has been made by the firm. He should welcome that and reflect that the future jobs of those employed in Sunderland have been secured by that investment in the Qashqai. That is a welcome factor.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the company has expressed an urgent concern that we should resolve the question of Brexit, but he is wrong to say that the deal the Prime Minister has negotiated does not command the positive confidence of the industry. I have talked about Nissan, but let me mention the head of Ford in Europe, who said:
“It’s important that we get the agreement ratified that’s on the table at the moment”.
The chief executive of Aston Martin has said that it is “obvious” that the deal that we see
“meets the needs of all the requests we put forward as an industry and as Aston Martin.”
Toyota has said that it welcomes the announced deal, which
“would provide business with the certainty of a transition period and help avoid the significant production disruption a ‘No Deal’ outcome would have for ‘Just in Time’ supply chains in the automotive industry.”
I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that we should bring the uncertainty to an end, but the only way to do that is by backing a deal, and I commend to him the deal that has the support of every one of the employers in the automotive sector that I have quoted to him today.