UK Space Industry

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We now come to the Back-Bench debate on the future of the UK space industry. To move the motion, I call the man in the Irn-Bru mask, Owen Thompson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Use of the data that we can gather from space is important in so many different ways that can contribute to so much that we can take forward.

Innovations by companies such as AAC Clyde Space, Spire Global and Alba Orbital are already driving this world-class agenda. We are leading the way in rocket development in Europe through firms such as Skyrora in my Midlothian constituency and Orbex in Forres. We are making progress in the research and analysis side of the industry, and companies such as Ecometrica, Carbomap and Space Intelligence are helping to move Edinburgh towards becoming the space data capital of Europe. Edinburgh is the only place in the world to work with a NASA robot, the Valkyrie, outside of its headquarters.

Key industry players such as Ukrainian-born Skyrora boss Volodymyr Levykin tell me that they moved here because of the connections, the skilled workforce and our suitability as a place to live. Scotland is developing a space industry ecosystem, and the more it develops, the more it triggers further exponential growth. The Scottish Government were therefore right to identify space as a key priority for future growth. Their support has helped to give the burgeoning young industry a shape and structure, with the ambition to be Europe’s leading space nation and capture a £4 billion share of the global space market by 2030.

The Scottish Space Leadership Council has helped to bring together key figures from the public and private sectors, to ensure that their views are represented at all levels of government and to drive growth and collaboration, but we need co-ordination across all levels of government. A space strategy has often been promised, but we are still waiting to see it delivered. I am sure those watching today’s debate will be as keen as I am to hear what the Minister has to say on that front. To take things forward, we need to get low-cost access to space from UK soil. It is good news that seven UK spaceport sites are working together through the Spaceport Alliance to support launch activity. It is also good news that the space hub to be built in Sutherland’s A’ Mhòine peninsula received planning permission last year. With locational advantages for flight paths and access to orbits that 95% of small satellite launches require, it is now set to be a national centre for vertical launch and could support 400 jobs in the highlands and islands by 2025.

Yet getting the regulations in place is at times more like moving through treacle than rocketing away into a new space future. We need to get the regulations to permit rocket launches, to give clarity about how the system will work and to get it right. The framework was set up in the Space Industry Act 2018, but it is still not in place, and we still await the outcome of the consultation process. When we hear the results, I certainly hope that the Government will have listened carefully to industry voices and taken their concerns on board. So far there has been a lot of dither and interdepartmental confusion, and unfortunately a lack of determined leadership from the Government on these regulatory issues. I might be tempted, Madam Deputy Speaker, to suggest that a rocket somewhere might be helpful, but I shall resist. However, it is not always clear who is in the driving seat, if anyone.

We cannot jeopardise the achievements of an innovative home-grown industry by letting it drift and losing out on launch capability to neighbouring nations. The Minister will be aware of the real threat of international competition to UK launch businesses. One of our home-grown companies, Skyrora, has already tested a rocket with a 26 km altitude, but it had to do so from Iceland, where the regulations were taken forward, with all the essential safety aspects, but more quickly and far more favourably than has been managed here.

The concern is that the licence application process for launch will take far too long to process, resulting in the industry being uncompetitive. I hope the Minister can assure the House in her response today that there is a development strategy in place that embraces all parts of the space industry and has a clear imperative around which the Government, regulators and industry can coalesce to ensure the full potential of space ambition.

I was slightly concerned that, despite not having our home-grown regulation sorted, the Government were so happy and keen to sign the transatlantic technology safeguards agreement, to enable US launches from UK soil, potentially to the detriment of the industry here. The TSA was signed last June and announced by press release, but the text was not made public until October. Many industry players in the UK say they did not have a chance to read and comment on the plans until that point and had not been consulted on the details, nor was there an opportunity for questions and debate in this place, despite the promise given in response to written questions that I submitted. This might turn out to be a benign agreement, as the UK Government have claimed, but there has been no process to scrutinise it, and some aspects certainly raised the concern that UK start-ups could be ousted for big US-based corporate players.

The Government must do more to allay industry fears that it could transpire to be an exclusivity agreement, and they must reassure the industry that they understand and are sensitive to the commercial context in which these companies operate. The industry remains in the dark about how the agreement will actually function in practice, and it will only see the impact once it starts to acquire export licences. That kind of scenario testing should have been conducted openly and transparently beforehand.

Some might question why we are talking about space at all, in the midst of a public health emergency and when people cannot feed their families, but space shapes all our lives. The sector helps to keep us safe, and it is precisely the sort of high-skilled growth industry that we need to support to drive the economy to recover.

There is also a responsibility—the green role that could be carved out by the space industry, which the Scottish Government are certainly very keen to pursue. Space is central to tackling environmental and social justice issues around the globe. Forget the outdated image of a space race, with astronauts boldly going where no one has gone before. The future will be very much focused on making things better where we are now. Data from satellites plays a crucial role in the fight against climate change and finding solutions for major issues that scar our planet. Some 35 of the 45 essential climate variables defined by the UN are measured from space. Similarly, of the 17 sustainable development goals set by the UN with an aim of ending poverty by 2030, satellite data plays a critical role in 13.

Data from earth observation satellites has been used to combat wildfire spread in the Amazon, to monitor glacier melt and air pollutants, to aid disaster relief operations, to measure ozone damage, to measure damage from natural disasters, such as the Fuego volcano, to track and predict malaria outbreaks and to tackle illegal deforestation and pirate fishing vessels.

It is great to see Scotland leading the way. Satellites built and launched in Scotland can monitor the environment in ways not previously possible, including mapping global carbon levels. Glasgow University and Strathclyde University focus on that work with their innovation district, and I welcome plans for the new £5 million satellite centre involving the universities of Edinburgh and Leeds, which will use cutting-edge satellite technology to help combat climate change, including helping lower the risk of people being affected by flooding.

Rocket launches do not exactly have a reputation for being green, but the new space industry must be an environmentally responsible one. Efforts must be made to reduce harmful emissions at launches, and I would like to see a role for environmental regulators such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in regulating spaceflight. The good news is that modern micro-launches being developed are a world away from the traditional massive gas guzzling old ones. Orbex, for example, built a micro-launcher fuelled by bio propane, which produces 90% fewer emissions than standard kerosene. Skyrora has successfully tested a fuel called Ecosene, which is created from plastic waste that would otherwise have gone to landfill.

In conclusion, the UK space industry is a massively positive story, but to ensure a happy ending, the Government must: give clarity on their long-term strategic goals; sort out the regulations with urgency; improve the level of scrutiny and consultation in their agreements; show an understanding and sensitivity to market forces; and show ambition in harnessing the potential of space in boosting our post-covid recovery and in tackling climate change. We are at the edge of a vast universe of possibilities for the space sector, so it is vital now that the Government provide the necessary vision, energy and direction to propel us forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

As Members are aware, there is a three-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Employment Rights: Government Plans

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I advise the House that Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have had an erosion of protections and rights over many years, and we have to deal with it and review it comprehensively.

This also includes British Airways, whose use of fire and rehire was described by the cross-party Transport Committee as

“a calculated attempt to take advantage of the pandemic to cut…jobs”

and weaken the terms and conditions of its remaining employees, and it deemed this “a national disgrace”. The Leader of the Opposition was right to call for fire and rehire tactics to be outlawed, saying:

“These tactics punish good employers, hit working people hard and harm our economy. After a decade of pay restraint—that’s the last thing working people need, and in the middle of a deep recession— it’s the last thing our economy needs.”

We have repeatedly warned that the practice would become increasingly common, triggering a race to the bottom, and I take no delight in observing that this warning has come to fruition. Research published today by the TUC reveals that fire and rehire tactics have become widespread during the pandemic. Nearly one in 10 workers has been told to reapply for their jobs on worse terms and conditions since the first lockdown in March, and the picture is even bleaker for black, Asian and minority ethnic and young workers and working-class people. Far from levelling up, the Government is levelling down, with nearly a quarter of workers having experienced a downgrading of their terms during the crisis.

Fire and rehire is a dreadful abuse and allows bad employers to exploit their power and undercut good employers by depressing wages and taking demand out of the economy. It is all the more galling when those very companies have had public funds to help them to get through the pandemic. The economic response to the 2008 financial crisis in Britain was characterised by poor productivity and low wage growth. The Government fail to understand that well-paid, secure work is good for the economy, and greater security for workers would mean a stronger recovery. If the Government had listened to the Leader of the Opposition back in September, countless workers could have been spared painful cuts to their terms and conditions, but it is not too late for the Government to act. They can act now to introduce legislation to end fire and rehire and give working people the security they need. If they do that, they will have our full support.

Finally, I turn to the Government’s amendment, in which they say that

“the UK has one of the best employment rights records in the world”

and that the UK

“provides stronger protections than the EU”.

That is simply not the case. The UK ranks as the third least generous nation for paid leave and unemployment benefits out of the US and major European economies. A UNICEF analysis of indicators of national family-friendly policies has the UK at 34th on one index and 28th on another, lagging behind Romania, Malta and Slovakia and just edging ahead of Cyprus.

The Government’s amendment also “welcomes the opportunity” to strengthen protections for workers, but what are the Government doing with the opportunity that they so welcome? What have they been doing on fire and rehire? All we have had is sympathy and hand-wringing, when action was and still is required. Where were they on Rolls-Royce at Barnoldswick? It was Unite the union and the courage and determination of those brave workers that fought to secure their jobs, not this Government. What works best for the UK is what works best for its working people, and undermining their rights and protections does not cut it. Accordingly, Labour will not be supporting the Government’s amendment.

Why did the Secretary of State’s Department embark on this review, and how can it be that his Department has sought responses from companies without the consultation being published? Can he confirm that it is now dead in the water, or does he intend to bring it back at a later date? We were promised an employment Bill that would make Britain

“the best place in the world to work”.

The Opposition would very much welcome a Bill that did exactly that, but given his track record, we have major doubts. Perhaps he can tell the House when we will see that Bill introduced.

From this point on, it is about how we rebuild our country and secure our economy. That objective has to have working people—their interests and their health and wellbeing—right at the forefront. As a bare minimum, that has to include maintaining the basic protections that employees have had up to now and then building on them. Sadly, workers will find no hard evidence of this Government enhancing their rights and protections, but it is what they were promised, and it is what they are expecting, so we will be holding the Government to it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It will be no surprise to Members to learn that a very long list of people have indicated that they wish to speak. Not everyone will have the chance to do so, but we will begin with an immediate time limit of three minutes for Back Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

What I will mention is the introduction of the national living wage—[Interruption.] I will also mention the fact that we have doubled the personal allowance, which was at £6,450 when we came to office in 2010 and is now hitting £12,000. We take no lessons or lectures from the Labour party on helping the most vulnerable people in our society. This Government have a proud history of protecting and enhancing workers’ rights, and we are committed to making the UK absolutely the best place in the world to work.

Before I open the Floor to other Members for their contributions, I can confirm to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister will not be moved this evening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

For the avoidance of doubt, the Secretary of State has not moved the selected amendment, as he has just said, and therefore the question before the House remains the question already proposed, as on the Order Paper. We now go to the Scottish National party spokesman, Drew Hendry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]]

I wish to speak in favour of the motion in the name of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I declare at the outset that I am a member of the GMB and Unite unions.

The fact that the Government have consulted businesses on these changes shows that there is an outdated attitude towards industrial relations and workers’ rights at the heart of the Government. Good employment law protects the good employers from the bad. Employees are people; they are not tools that can just be laid aside on the whim of an employer. People have lives to lead, bills to pay, mortgages and rent; many of them have families that they need to support—to feed, to clothe and to plan holidays with. A contract of employment is a way of being able to plan ahead with security for those things. The terms should not be changed just on the whim of an unscrupulous employer.

Creating a culture where workers feel insecure in their jobs undermines the economy; it makes them less likely to spend money or to take out loans for bigger items. Creating such an environment is not just immoral but self-defeating, and attitudes need to change. Businesses need to understand that they need to act for the common good. It is no longer good enough for them to hide behind the fact that they are serving shareholders and to say, “This is why we are forced to rape the economy or pay poverty wages,” and fail to protect workers’ rights.

The covid pandemic, climate change and the state of the global finances make it imperative that we all work together for the common good. The solution is not to enfeeble workers or trample on their rights, yet companies such as British Gas and British Airways are telling their workers that they will be sacked and rehired on worse conditions. Those are hardly the British values that we want to promote globally.

British Gas/Centrica is sacking 20,000 of its workforce. It is telling them that they must sign new contracts dictated by the company or consider themselves to be sacked in April. Doing that at the time of a pandemic is grotesque. Centrica as a group had an operating profit of £901 million for 2019. In the first six months of 2020, the operating profit of its domestic heating business in the UK was £229 million, up 25% on the same period the previous year. Why are the workers who delivered that being treated so appallingly by that company?

I met workers from British Gas. Between them, they have many years of service to the company; some are the second or third generation in their family to work for British Gas. They are proud of the company that they work for; they value the jobs they do and the customers they serve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Member has exceeded his time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) [V]]

I must start by saying that I am slightly confused as to how the Opposition have concluded that UK employment rights are an area of weakness in which to attack the Government. So far, aside from the usual baseless scaremongering, I still have not heard much in the way of common sense, fact or understanding. The United Kingdom has one of the best records in workers’ rights in the world, going further than the EU in so many areas. As the Government have stated time and again, that is not going to change.

Now that we have left the EU and regained full control of our laws, we can use this historic moment to enhance workers’ rights, not row back on them, ensuring that we can be a high-wage, high-employment economy that works for everyone, as we do right by the millions and millions of people in this country who work hard, get on and do the right thing.

I think all in this place can agree that the global pandemic has changed almost everything in daily life, including the world of work. Perhaps at no other stage in any of our lifetimes has it been more crucial that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the workers, grafters and go-getters who knuckle down and get on with it—the hard-working people of this nation who can turn sparks of inspiration into the tangible outputs of a dynamic economy.

To take politics out of it, all of us in this place and all well-run businesses know that providing employees with safe, secure and rewarding work environments is the way to get the best out of them. The package of measures we will maintain and strengthen builds on some of the best examples of good practice that are already in Britain’s best businesses. Before I got into politics, I saw a whole range of workplaces: I pulled pints, laid bricks and shovelled pick ‘n’ mix at Woolworths. I saw how a workforce that is tret well is a workforce that goes above and beyond to deliver results.

When it comes to workers’ rights, this nation is a world leader in countless areas, particularly when compared with the EU. For example, the EU has no requirement for a living wage. Here in the UK, it will be £10.50 an hour from 2024. The EU has no minimum requirement for sick pay. Here in the UK, it is 28 weeks. The EU’s minimum standard for maternity leave is just 14 weeks, compared to 52 weeks here in the UK. The EU’s minimum annual leave requirement is just 20 days, compared with a minimum of 28 days in the UK. Then there is the right to flexible working for all employees, on which this nation has led the way, and it has made a huge impact on the quality of life for so many families in my constituency and across the country. We introduced it and have maintained it in the UK since the early 2000s. The slow, glitchy and creaky EU agreed rules on it very recently, and it will offer the rights only to parents and carers.

I believe that one’s true character and nature is seen when the chips are down and crisis strikes. Even their staunchest critics would have to concede that this Government have stepped up. They know on what side their bread is buttered. When it comes to supporting businesses and workers, whether that is by taking unprecedented action to protect jobs and livelihoods across the UK—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has exceeded his time, and I have to be strict, as so many people are waiting to speak.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]]

Today is the Welsh Valentine’s day, so I wish all key workers and everyone in the Chamber dydd Santes Dwynwen hapus.

So here we are, and what I am listening to is absolutely disgraceful. Workers in this country are facing the biggest crisis in generations, yet the Government have decided to strip away the rights of those key workers who are keeping this country going, and we know that those with low paid jobs are going to lose out the most. Managers, directors and, yes, even Members of Parliament like us will not be the big losers in any erosion of employment rights. It will be those on zero-hour contracts, those at the beginning of their careers and, as usual, women who will be disproportionately affected.

The Prime Minister proudly told us that he would not do anything to undermine workers’ rights, yet here we are facing a shake-up of the protections that are in place to defend workers and consumers from unsafe situations. Earlier this evening, I heard the Secretary of State say that his Government’s record stood for itself. Well, if we want to catch a glimpse of what we can expect from this Government, we need look no further than how they treat their own workers—yes, their own civil servants at the DVLA offices in Swansea. During the first lockdown, my office was contacted by numerous constituents complaining that they had family members shielding and they were at high risk themselves, but during this lockdown the situation has escalated. Since September 2020, 535 cases of covid-19 have been recorded among DVLA staff, sparking an outbreak in the call centre that has been declared an incident across all other sites of the DVLA.

I have been inundated with calls since the news broke on a weekend, and before. Many people are petrified of going into work there, but they have all asked for anonymity because they are scared of a backlash from senior management if it is found out that they have complained. This is the senior management team that would not engage with the local health protection team. It is incredible that a formal notice under regulation 8 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Wales) Regulations 2020 had to be given in order to get the DVLA management to co-operate with the incident management team. Even this evening, I am receiving messages about this. This is utterly shocking behaviour from one of the biggest employers in Swansea, and that employer is this Government. This is a Government agency that is treating its staff in a wholly unacceptable way. That is unacceptable, but thanks to the First Minister in Wales, the PCS and other agencies, it is being dealt with—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her time. I am wondering whether people who are participating virtually know that there is a clock on their screen. I hope that they can see it, because three of the last five speakers have spoken past their three minutes. I hope that the system is working. If by any chance it is not, I hope that someone will tell the broadcasting team.

Energy White Paper

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

I would never describe my hon. Friend as tail-end Charlie; I think we have left the best till last. He raises an important point about skills, which a number of colleagues have talked about. We very much recognise the need to ensure that we train people up for the sunrise industries of the future, and we will look to address some of that in the refreshed industrial strategy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) was not quite last, because we have an amendment to the call list, so finally, I call Siobhan Baillie.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last, but not least. The Government have stated they will be ambitious in developing fusion power and, as the Secretary of State knows, I am ambitious about developing opportunities for Stroud. Business West and other groups are already making the case to use the decommissioned nuclear site in Berkeley as an opportunity for fusion, and rightly so. Will the Secretary of State tell us a little more about the potential benefits of fusion power for the climate, for energy and for jobs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I can now say that we definitely did leave the best till last—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) is not listening. My hon. Friend raises an important point. As she knows—in fact, this is set out on page 51 of the Energy White Paper—the Government have already committed over £400 million towards new UK fusion programmes. She will also know that this month we launched the spherical tokamak for energy production—STEP—programme and published an open call for communities across the UK to apply to be the host site. I encourage her to look at that and, should her constituents or anyone in the area want to apply, they should put their details forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am going to suspend the House for three minutes so that people can leave safely and the next cohort of Members can enter safely.

Future of Coal in the UK

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of coal in the UK.

Today’s debate is not about the past, nor is it really about the great traditions and solidarity of our mining communities, nor is it about the coaling stations that stretched around the world east of Suez powering an empire. An industry employing hundreds of thousands is long gone.

Britain has been a world leader in decarbonising our electricity sector. Emissions are down over 70% since 1990, despite usage being up. Renewables have transformed the mix, and I am proud to be part of a Government who are pressing forward with a real environmental agenda. We are going to end coal-powered electricity by the mid-2020s and are playing a leading role, alongside Canada, in that effort globally.

There is much more to be done on future technology. I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) and his all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen for what they are doing on turning theory into practice for steel manufacture, moving from coal to hydrogen. It is not there yet, and it is likely that it will take many years to come to fruition, but I welcome any further Government plans, as we have seen recently, to support technological change in this area.

While we search for the alternative to coal, we still need coal in the UK. Whether we dig it up here or someone else digs it up and ships it here, for the present and for the foreseeable future, we still need it. Although huge strides have been made in efficiency, we cannot operate blast furnaces for steel production without coking coal. Britain’s cement industry requires a massive amount, too. Both are critical to some of the large infrastructure projects that we are pushing ahead with at the moment. Even our heritage rail sector requires tens of thousands of tonnes every year.

Coal is not a trendy subject, but it is an important one. Too often in our history, coal and its production have been far too political. My fear is that the apparent drive against domestic coal production in the United Kingdom from Whitehall is unfair and unjust, and actually runs counter to reducing our carbon emissions, which we are all in favour of trying to do. Unfortunately, coal is again becoming a victim of politics. In making it so, we are making a mistake—economically, strategically and, crucially, environmentally.

Britain’s coalmining history needs a whistle-stop tour to take us up to the present. Few constituencies are more steeped in that history than mine of North West Durham and those of colleagues including the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), who sits across from me today.

Without two things, the industrial revolution that transformed the world from largely agrarian subsistence to the basis of what we see today would not have happened. Those two things were the agricultural revolution that immediately preceded it, and coal—the twin fuels for people and industry. That industrial heritage is present right across my stunning North West Durham constituency. Weardale, right up to Wearhead, had mine workings across it that stretch back to at least the 12th century, and it was ironstone and coal from other parts of the nearby north-east that initially set up Consett as an iron and steel hub.

It was the miners who formed one of the first mass unions and whose dispute in 1926 was the basis of the general strike. According to family legend, my great grandpa, who was a textile worker in Lancashire and active in his union, had been tasked with collecting the union’s funds to support the strike but, upon his return to Blackburn, was so terrified of the funds being stolen or of losing them that he had the cash, together with himself, locked up overnight in a cell in Blackburn police station.

The Bevin boys kept Britain working during the war. Wilson’s “white heat of technology” and the nuclear revolution saw a massive shift, with more pits closing than at any other time. The fantastic “A Year in the Life” of Craghead colliery, filmed from 1968 to 1969 in the constituency of the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), which neighbours mine, is a superb documentary about that time, which I recommend to anyone.

The end of mass employment in coalmining came in the two decades that followed, with politicised disputes in which all but the most fanatical ideologues would admit great fault from both union leaders and some politicians alike. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) will speak about his own experiences of being a miner later in the debate.

Now on to the present. I cannot do any form of justice to the history of mining in the time I have today, but the context provided is an important basis for where we find ourselves today. I am sure that Members may wish to debate the history in much more detail at another time, but I turn to the facts of the present, and I will take them one by one: the economic, the strategic and the environmental.

On the economic, these figures come from written parliamentary questions, the Office for National Statistics and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. First, tonnage: we import between 5 million and 10 million tonnes of coal a year. Money: that represents over £1 billion in net imports to the UK on an annual basis. That is multiples of many of our agricultural exports, and it is about the net value of the amount of cheese we import every year, which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade would agree is an absolute disgrace. The difference is in the bulk. Cheese is only 100,000 tonnes. We are talking about 10 million tonnes of coal that has to be shipped across the globe, and I will return to that point shortly.

Jobs: that is £1 billion a year that could be going into UK jobs as we look to transition from coal to other methods of fuelling industry over the next few years. I want to put that into context locally. After being sat on by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for three years, the new planned mine at Highthorn in Northumberland was rejected. That scheme was supported by all political parties and the Planning Inspectorate locally. The decision means that 250 good, well-paid jobs will not happen. To give an idea of the impact that this will have, the salaries alone would be the equivalent of the eat out to help out scheme for the whole north-east every year for the next five years, which is how long the site was planned to last for.

That brings me on to my second point about the present, on strategy. The mine had outline contracts with Port Talbot—because this is UK-wide—which would have taken coal for steelmaking. Instead, that coal will be imported from across the world. Of our net imports, approximately 40% of our coal comes from Russia and 20% from Colombia. The blast furnaces at Port Talbot could have been burning with British coal, but now they will be burning with Russian coal. We are literally forcing one of our key strategic industries to send pounds to Putin rather than supporting good jobs as we bridge to future technologies that will see our strategic heavy industry decarbonised further.

That brings me to my third point, on the environment, and I am afraid that this is where the argument against domestic coal production collapses entirely. Britain has a proud environmental record, and our domestic coal production has some of the highest environmental standards in the world. Our open-cast mines are properly dealt with and re-landscaped afterwards. Does anyone truly believe that that is the case in Russia, Colombia or even the United States? That is before we get to the staggering quantities of CO₂ emissions from shipping the bulk product halfway around the world. The Centre for Policy Studies recently estimated that transporting coal via either St Petersburg or Murmansk to the UK would emit between four and five times as much CO₂ as moving it domestically within the UK. US, Colombian and Australian imports all face the same stark environmental transport costs, and this is a bulk product.

That is just in terms of CO₂. One of the biggest environmental success stories of this Government has been our work to protect the world’s oceans, which I think all Conservative Members are incredibly proud of. Cargo ships shipping coal around the globe are not geared up to be the most environmentally friendly of beasts, and rusting hulks chugging oil and detritus across our oceans run totally counter to the great work that this Government have done to tackle microbeads, plastics and other pollution in our oceans. The thing about global warming is that it does not matter where CO₂ is emitted from; it all goes into our atmosphere worldwide. This is not something that we should try to export, because even if we wanted to, we could not.

Finally, I turn to the future. I am very proud that the UK has been at the forefront of making real environmental changes for the better. The Prime Minister’s recent announcement that he wants to lead the world in jobs of the future and delivering sound environmental policies is incredibly welcome, particularly in my region, in Teesside and in the neighbouring counties of North Yorkshire and Durham. Levelling up has to be a big part of that, and some of that will be down to transport. At this point in my speech, I would like to reinforce my little bid to the Government Front Bench for any support the Minister can give for the Consett to the Tyne railway. On the national bus strategy, I would really like to see a pilot project in Crook and Willington in County Durham. If there is anything that can be done for cycling and walking routes, particularly for Weardale and along the Derwent Walk, I would also really appreciate that.

My constituency had the last open-cast coalmine, which stopped production just a few months ago. The decision not to allow its expansion was taken by the local council, and that is absolutely fine. However, when local councils make decisions, like Northumberland has done—or like Cumbria, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) will mention later—to allow planning to go through on a cross-party basis, I hope that Ministers will consider the environmental costs of it not happening, and will not get sidetracked by greenwash.

Let me turn to the impending ban on the domestic use of coal. I have asked many parliamentary questions about this issue, but it is particularly relevant to mention while we are talking about emissions. Some families in my constituency, especially in the more rural parts, do not have an option apart from some form of solid fuel heating. Their choice is between household coal and oil, which is largely imported—even more than coal at the moment. Oil emits about 25% more carbon dioxide per kilogram than coal. Furthermore, there has been a recent push against coal and wet wood for household fires. Household coal emits 8.7 grams per kilogram of PM2.5—the particulates in the atmosphere. Dry wood emits 7.2 grams per kilogram, so they are very close. Wet wood emits 28 grams per kilogram, which is at least three times as high. I cannot understand how we are banning coal but not dry wood. It is sensible to ban wet wood on the basis of emissions, but it does not make sense to ban household coal, especially when these figures only take into account combustion, not transport costs. We all know that both wet and dry wood are bulkier to transport, so it makes no sense for coal to be excluded.

It would be remiss of me not to mention some of the major issues raised with me by the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, who I spoke to recently. We have been working on these issues together, and I have asked some questions about them. The first is the concessionary fuel fund, which is very important. As we look to decarbonise that, I would like to speak to Ministers to ensure that any money saved goes back to the miners, not to the Government. The second issue is miners’ pensions. I know that there are massive ongoing conversations with Conservative Members and the Government, and we look forward very much to taking part in those.

Today’s debate is about the future of coal production. I do not want to see Britain doing stuff on the cheap, offshoring our carbon footprint elsewhere, and tainting our really fantastic record on cutting carbon emissions in the UK. I want us to be driving the global environmental agenda—an agenda that we can be proud of as a party, as a Government and as a country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It is very good that so many colleagues wish to participate in this debate on such an important subject, but unfortunately that means that I have to impose an immediate time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches.

Exiting the European Union

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend mentioned Christmas and the former vicar in me sort of bubbled up, and I remembered all those terrible years when I had to sing “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” 77 times before we even got to Christmas eve; lots of vicars will not be upset if they do not have to sing it quite that often.

Let me turn to the serious point. As I understand it, the delay in getting any kind of deal with the European Union almost certainly means that the European Parliament may have to sit on 28 December. Is it not perfectly possible, given that we do not even know the Christmas recess dates for this House yet, that we too may have to sit on 28 or 29 December? There is nothing in this measure that makes it clear what would need to change, whether a deal is sorted or is not.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order, just before the shadow Minister responds to the intervention, she said herself that she will now be turning to the substance of the matter before us. As much as it is always interesting to consider the history and choir practice of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—

[Chris Bryant]

Not all of it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Oh, no. I did not say “all of it”—not by any manner of means.

[Chris Bryant]

You don’t know the half of it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think that is just as well. That which refers to his singing specifically of “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” is interesting, but not relevant. I am quite sure that the shadow Minister will come to the relevant points before us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

We can do better than that, of course, because we had word from the Prime Minister last week, who described devolution as “a disaster”. Conservative Members are playing fast and loose with the Union. They are playing fast and loose with the United Kingdom. They are playing fast and loose with devolution, and their attitude to devolution was shown from the very top by the Prime Minister. That surely answers my hon. Friend’s question.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We will stick to the terms of this statutory instrument, which is fairly narrow.

[Lucy Powell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is important to the statutory instrument, because I am not sure of its status. As my hon. Friend says, is it just another example of a total disregard for devolution and power sharing, further undermining that at such an important juncture. It is important to know whether, in writing to the devolved Administrations before laying the statutory instrument, the Government decided just to plough on anyway and totally disregard that consent, or whether consent is required on a retrospective basis. I really am at a loss on that and it makes me wonder whether we are discussing this statutory instrument on the basis on which we all thought we were discussing it, so I think that is an important point for the Minister to address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman is asking me, but I have absolutely no idea. Unfortunately, I have no responsibility whatsoever.

[Alan Brown]

I thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The way things are just now, I worry about why so many people are withdrawing. Hopefully, everything is all in order. We know that the Whips usually try to force people to speak in debates, especially debates that might be short or dry, so it is certainly unusual that the Whips have been pressuring their colleagues to withdraw from today’s debate.

I hope that you can show some forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker, because as I thought there were so many speakers in the previous debate, I did not expect to be called so early in this one, so my notes are a wee bit haphazard; hopefully, you can bear with me on that.

I must commend the shadow Minister for her speech and for the amount of information that she covered. She highlighted the deficiencies that the Minister did not cover. She said that, in actual fact, when we talk about the movement of goods, one of the key issues is what it means for businesses and whether they are ready for this. We can talk about divergence in standards of the EU, but are businesses ready for what will happen on 1 January 2021? Have the Government given enough support to businesses? When we turn on the radio just now, it tells us all, “Get ready for Brexit”. That is all very well, but it does not actually tell us what we need to do. What is the point telling us to get ready, when there is no information that is clearly accessible to businesses about what they need to do? Are IT systems up and running? The companies need to know what they have to do to be able to export, and that is before we even get to divergence.

Just today, ironically, my office got a letter from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which is supposed to be aimed at all businesses, but I can assure the Minister that although that letter might be a bit of propaganda, it does not clear up what businesses need to do going forwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

I am sure the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) will be entitled to a passport as well, but is not the point that Lorne sausage and Scotch whisky—the indicators of these vitally important products—are at risk because of the lack of the UK Government’s ability to conclude a deal with the EU? That is the kind of thing that ought to be being addressed through statutory instruments like this, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that is why it is relevant to this debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

For clarification, I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was in any way out of order in the points he made. I am just really concerned about the square sausage.

[Alan Brown]

Yes, so we all share the same good taste in food then.

I agree with the point my hon. Friend made. Following up his earlier point about the contribution from the other Benches, I actually thought, “Oh my goodness, I’m going to have to listen to another 15 Conservative MPs tell me how great Brexit is going to be, how they are taking back control, how this is just another step in the way of taking back control and there’ll be wonderful trade deals.” So in one way there is a blessing: I do not have to listen to 15 speeches the same. But in another way, it is disappointing that they have not turned up here to actually do their job and actually say what they wanted to say. That is disappointing.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I would be so bold as to put on the record that this Government have been guilty of cronyism. But that is not just in the context of Brexit or the pandemic. For example, there is also the cronyism in terms of Richard Desmond and the Westferry scandal. So I would caution my hon. Friend. It is not just in terms of the pandemic that the Government have been guilty of cronyism; it goes much wider than that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As the hon. Gentleman said, the point he has just made goes very wide, and very much wider than the particular statutory instrument before us. So I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will stick very strictly to the terms of the SI, which he has done very well so far in his long speech.

[Alan Brown]

Hopefully, I will not be too much longer—these notes might be deceiving.

A key point, as I said, is divergences and this is all about the movement of goods. Where are we with regards to the movement of goods in terms of a no deal? Are we still reliant on the EU making concessions, just because the UK is not in a position to check in common goods? If we are going to look at diverging, we have to be able to manage what we have got just now, never mind changing things going forward.

This was raised yesterday. The Minister at the Dispatch Box was not able to answer it but, on checking goods and the movement of goods, how many custom agents will be required? How many have been trained? Yesterday, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) highlighted that the Cabinet Secretary estimated that 50,000 customs agents are needed, but that it is also estimated that only 10,000 have been trained to date. The Minister could not clear that up. This Minister has been taking lots of notes, so although she has not intervened, I am expecting a lengthy response. I hope that she can tell us where we are with training and employing customs agents and whether there will be enough in place on 1 January 2021.

[Alan Brown]

Yes, it is very worrying. There has been very little preparation—all last-minute stuff. That is also why the Government are unable to engage with the devolved Administrations and businesses. They have not planned or done enough to get us to where they want to be—not where I or my hon. Friend want to be—in time for 1 January 2021.

The reality of Brexit preparations, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), was illustrated yesterday by the passing of the Kent borders regulations, which allow the police to stop lorry drivers entering Kent because of the fear of the utter chaos at the border in January. That shows how the UK Government have not done enough and that more work needs to be done. Clearly, all those issues matter in the immediate short term and need addressing in the long term before we start looking at divergences of standards.

Is there any planned divergence for agricultural standards? That has been touched on and is important. The UK Government resisted protecting those standards for future trade deals in the Agriculture Act 2020. What does the SI mean regarding the UK’s ability to diverge from the EU? While the UK wants to avoid challenge, what does that mean for the devolved nations in terms of the UK Government protecting themselves? Will they impose their will on the devolved nations? I mentioned the point earlier, but on divergences, will the internal market Bill become the kicker through the back door by allowing divergences to be forced on the devolved nations against their will?

We do not accept that the UK Government have any legitimacy in imposing divergence from the EU acquis on Scotland’s behalf as a member of the UK. On democratic principles, we do not consent to allow any withdrawal of Scotland from the EU. That applies to the withdrawal agreement and any subsequent legislation used to enforce the unwanted and undemocratic divergence from the EU, which Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain a member of.

We do not accept the economic impact of diverging from EU rules, and that also applies to leaving the transition period, particularly because, as we discussed, the economy faces unprecedented challenges as we try to recover from the covid pandemic. We do not support or accept the need for the UK internal market Bill, which potentially allows divergences to be forced on the devolved Administrations against their wishes. We really need better co-operative working from the UK Government.

It would be ironic, when there seemed to be consensus from the Opposition that they would not oppose the SI, if, unless we start to hear decent responses from the Minister, there was a vote on it after all.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I have been informed that the Member who is No. 5 on the call list has withdrawn from the debate, as have the Members who are Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. We therefore come directly to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Call me old-fashioned, but I thought that the usual convention for a winding-up speech is to respond to the debate. All the Minister appears to be doing is reading her civil service—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. That is not a point of order—it is a point about the content of the Minister’s speech, which is entirely a matter for the Minister, and she does not have very long, so we must let her finish.

[Amanda Solloway]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me once again stress that this SI itself does not introduce any changes for businesses.

These regulations give business greater certainty that as UK rules change they will not be rolled back after any legal challenges based on them. At the end of the transition period, EU treaty rights on the movement of goods stemming from articles 34 to 36 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union will be retained in UK law unless they are removed by this SI. The UK will have its own regulatory regime after the end of the transition period. However, if retained, these EU treaty rights could impact our ability to diverge from EU regulation in the future. The EU treaty rights prohibit quantitative restrictions of equivalent measures on imports and exports, meaning that divergence from the EU regulatory requirements could result in a challenge. This SI will remove the EU treaty rights flowing from articles 34 to 36 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union.

My Department published guidance on gov.uk on 1 September and 10 November detailing requirements on placing goods on the Northern Ireland market, as well as arrangements for access to the rest of the UK. My Department also issues regular transition bulletins that provide the latest readiness information. When the SI comes into force on 1 January 2021, it will protect our right to diverge from the EU regulations without being challenged under the EU treaty rights. I commend these regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Prohibition on Quantitative Restrictions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 9 November, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am going to suspend the House for a few minutes in order that we can have a change of Members and Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I call Minister Lucy Frazer to move motion 5. It is not moved, so I call the Leader of the House to motion 6. It is not moved, so I call the Leader of the House to move motion 7. It is not moved, so we come to motion 8, relating to virtual participation in debate.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that we have just clipped through three items of business and the Leader of the House has been handling the Dispatch Box, should the House not be suspended again so that the Dispatch Boxes can be sanitised and Members who want to participate in the next item of business can make sure that they are present?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I have taken the decision that, as we have just suspended and we have been sitting again for only two or three minutes, a further suspension is not necessary, and that the Leader of the House’s touching of the Dispatch Box was momentary.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the interests of physical hygiene, it may be the case that the Leader of the House will use the Government Dispatch Box next, but should he rise to move the next debate, there is a possibility, of course, that the Opposition Dispatch Box has been touched by another Member and should be cleaned in advance of the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) arriving.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s help in advising me on this matter, but I am satisfied that the necessary precautions have been taken to make sure that the Chamber and the Dispatch Boxes have been suitably cleaned and sanitised, and that we are that we are covid-compliant and that we will now proceed.

Exiting the European Union (Energy Conservation)

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member quite rightly corrects me; it is substantially shorter than I thought.

The provisions appear to be consistent with what was there before and what is there for the future, but that does not cover all the issues, important though it is that we get that right. It was not just a question of checking that the original SI had done the job of making the transition safely into UK law. There was a period during which we were effectively bound to EU law, and a number of changes took place that were to be implemented during that period between the passing of the first SI and this SI being introduced. This SI therefore had to do a number of additional things, to incorporate those changes into UK law for future purposes.

In so doing, a number of issues have arisen, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland protocol comes into question as far as those changes are concerned, as well as how Northern Ireland and Great Britain would be incorporated into the changes for exit on 1 January. The two things that have happened in the intervening period seem to throw up some difficulties, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on them.

The first is that the question of the status of the regulations has arisen as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, because Northern Ireland will now continue to be in the EU regulatory system for the purposes of the two directives and will continue to eco-label on EU badging. That appears to present a problem for the marketing of Northern Ireland-manufactured products in Great Britain. In the SI, those products have effectively been given leave to market in GB on EU labelling and efficiency bases, but with a clear marking of their origin, which is tracked into GB.

That issue may well have been resolved by this SI, but there also arises a problem the other way round. If goods are being marketed from Northern Ireland with EU eco-labelling on it and are subject to ecodesign regulations, it is important that those labels and the ecodesign standards are compatible within the UK. The UK Government have effectively provided an internal solution to that problem by ensuring that the new regulations on UK eco-labelling apply only to GB and not to Northern Ireland, and what comes in from Northern Ireland can be marketed in Great Britain without further additional labelling.

However, what about the marketing of Great Britain-manufactured and labelled goods into Northern Ireland? The SI mentions a possible solution to this, which I would like the Minister to comment on. It has been agreed that there should be a mark on the GB certification to allow those goods to be sold in Northern Ireland. I am not clear what that mark is, how it will be distinguished for the purpose of selling in Northern Ireland and how it will differentiate goods that are being sold from the EU in Northern Ireland, as opposed to being sold from Britain. That is particularly important because of goods from the Irish Republic.

As for the marketing of UK-manufactured goods in the EU, I expect that the UK will have to produce separate agreements on conforming to EU standards to market, and that the existence of a UK mark will not be sufficient to secure marketing arrangements. Can the Minister clarify that position and say whether the eco-labelling UK label will be sufficient for goods that are manufactured in the UK, but marketed in the EU, if those arrangements are in parallel? Would that be acceptable for marketing purposes, or will UK companies have to agree on an additional EU label, over and above the UK label, to secure those marketing opportunities? That is the first additional problem with which we must get to grips.

In addition, some of the changes in the directives issued between March and January are not due to be implemented until 2021. Although those measures should have passed into UK law between March and January, the UK Government opted not to include them in this SI, because they are not due to be implemented before we have left the EU. We may ask whether that is of any significance. Indeed, there is a question mark in my mind about whether or not it is significant, because one change that was made in the regulations prior to this period, and which therefore should have been implemented but will not come in until 2021, relates to lighting standards. It looks as if those who manufacture lighting products in Northern Ireland will have to apply further changes in lighting standards and eco-labelling in 2021, which will set Northern Ireland at odds with GB standards. As far as the UK is concerned, in Great Britain that element of EU law will not yet have been passed on at all, and it may or may not be in the future.

What plans does the Minister have subsequently to incorporate those changes into UK law, so that those standards will be the same? He will agree that this is not an academic point. There could be divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain on those standards, and that might take us further away from the simple question of putting on a mark, or providing a way leave.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I assumed he was aware—although he might not be—that in a motion such as this, which has a 90-minute limit, even though there is currently no pressure from other Members who wish to speak on this specific item of business, it is unusual for the Minister or shadow Minister to take more than 15 minutes to make their point. The hon. Gentleman has taken significantly more than 15 minutes so far, and although he would be right to argue that plenty of that 90-minute slot is left, on behalf of Members who are waiting elsewhere to speak in the next and subsequent items of business, I should point out that there is a lot more business for the House to get through today. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would consider truncating his remarks.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my defence, this is a particularly complicated statutory instrument and I have felt it necessary to try to lay it out in some detail to get to the heart of what we are trying to talk about. If I have taken rather longer than I might have done in that process, I am sorry, but I hope that I will be coming to the end of my remarks shortly.

Will the Minister set out what will be done about the lighting changes that have taken place in directives and how that can be reconciled with procedures in Northern Ireland and Great Britain? There is also no agreement yet, as I understand it, on access by Northern Ireland to the EU product database, which informs eco labelling and product standard activity. The UK is not supposed to have access to the database because it will be independent of the EU and will need to set up its own database in due course—or rather quickly I would have thought. However, if Northern Ireland is to continue to work on EU eco labelling criteria, it should have access to that database. Will the Minister tell us what is happening now about this apparent impasse?

You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we will not oppose this statutory instrument this afternoon, but I do hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us on some of the points that I have raised. I think that, at the end of this, he might perhaps agree with me that this is rather a mess, isn’t it?

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I presume from your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you do not want me to try to push this to the full 90 minutes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Correct.

[Alan Brown]

I will do my best.

This sounds all very grand—"Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products”. I look forward to scrutinising and getting stuck into this legislation, but will it be about a cleaner, greener UK, or taking back control and leaving the EU? Well, no. There are actually 116 pages of legislation, nearly 100 pages of which are nice pictures of labels. Rather than taking back control, this is all about putting a Union Jack over what was formerly the EU flag on the labels on our appliances, which we all recognise, that tell us how energy efficient they are. The explanatory notes, at 10 pages, are nearly as long as the text in the regulations, which, again, says it all.

Noting what you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, about other important business coming later on, we have to ask: why is this legislation being debated in the main Chamber and not where SIs are usually done, which is in a Committee Room? It prompts the question of why the Government are bringing this legislation here anyway.

Will the Minister tell us whether a consultant was used to design these new labels and specifications included in the 100-odd pages, or was he able to do it in-house with civil servants? Did they come up with the new specification and the colour coding all by themselves, or did they have to go to someone external? Can he tell us what the advantage is of removing the EU language from the labels? Is that really necessary? In paragraphs 2.12, 2.15, 2.26 and 2.27 of the explanatory memorandum, reference is made to “fixing deficiencies” in retained legislation. Will the Minister confirm that no improvements or alterations have been made to coding and regulations other than, as has been already said, substituting references to EU legislation and EU bodies for references to UK bodies and adding a Union Jack to the labels, and that the measure just mirrors other regulations that have been incorporated, such as the power transformer amendment regulation? Does that mean there are no actual deficiencies in EU legislation to be fixed and that it is just about sorting UK legislation out before leaving the EU? If the Minister could confirm that, it would be good.

Can the Minister explain why there is just a one-year transition period for CE marking? As I tried to ask in my intervention earlier, for goods that arrive in the UK during that transition period but are not sold until later, when the regulations kick in for the new labels that must be displayed, will it just be a matter of the retailer swapping the label over to the new label without doing anything else, or will some other process have to be followed to provide certification?

Paragraph 10.1 of the explanatory memorandum states that stakeholders

“raised concerns about the limited timeframe being granted to implement the required”

changes. What has been done to help stakeholders with the timeframe, and what additional stakeholder engagement has taken place?

Paragraph 12.3 of the explanatory memorandum gives an estimate of the total cost to business under de minimis self-certification of £1.95 million. What is the total of all the various de minimis assessments that have come through the Minister’s Department? That £1.95 million cost itself is small, but if we keep adding up all these de minimis estimates, what is the estimated total cost to business of changes as a result of our leaving the EU?

Paragraph 2.25 of the explanatory memorandum gives details on compliance with the Northern Ireland protocol, which is good, but ironically, the UK Government seem to want to rip up that protocol, which was the whole point of the urgent question earlier today. Unfettered access for goods in Northern Ireland—for goods coming from Ireland and the EU, and for getting GB goods into Northern Ireland—would seem to be a really good advantage for distributors in Northern Ireland. Does that give Northern Ireland distributors an advantage over their GB mainland counterparts in business overheads and the checks and scrutiny they need to do?

Going forward, if there is a divergence in standards between the EU and the UK, how will the declaration of conformity for goods coming in and out of Northern Ireland to GB be implemented and checked? What discussions has the Minister’s Department had with counterparts in Northern Ireland?

It seems to me that even this simple replacement of labelling and updating of references to standards to comply with the EU—to make UK law valid and compliant as we exit the EU—is being left to the last minute. How are we supposed to believe that the UK is ready and okay to handle a no-deal exit, which the Government say will cause no problems whatsoever to business and transactions going forward?

As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) asked, what is the reality for GB goods being exported to the EU on exit? What arrangements are in place so that, going forward, these GB regulations that are coming into place will be accepted by the EU once the UK is a third country? Have any discussions taken place? Are any agreements in place, or is this all at the mercy of whether we get a deal or no deal? We do not have long left for that to be sorted out.

Let me conclude by asking the Minister this. Given that he is introducing legislation today that swaps flags and changes references from EU legislation to UK legislation while possibly missing key export issues that we need to understand, is he not embarrassed to be doing that from the Dispatch Box rather than in a Committee Room?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the Minister, I thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for having pointed out what an interesting piece of legislation this is. Very rarely do we get a fully illustrated instrument like this before us. I have never understood energy labels, but I have a much better idea now than I ever had before. I hope that many people will go to the Vote Office and pick up this draft statutory instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw attention to my having asked the Minister to give way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I think the Minister has concluded, so the hon. Gentleman’s opportunity has, I am afraid, passed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Between this item of business and the next, I ought to briefly suspend the House in order that the Dispatch Box and so on can be sanitised. I suspend the House for three minutes.

Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Owen Thompson]

We have seen a great degree of consensus this afternoon around the important part that the loan schemes have played. There has been recognition of the absolute need for the schemes, but it is almost as important—if not more important—that we take the opportunity to highlight any shortcomings and the challenges ahead. As we look forward, I certainly want there to be as many opportunities as possible to ensure that the debt burden on so many small businesses across our nations does not become the next crisis that ends up tearing the heart out of communities the length and breadth of the country. There also remain countless businesses that are not able to trade in any shape or form in many different industries and sectors. That needs to be addressed.

I thank all Members for their participation in the debate. I suspect that it is an issue that we will return to in the months ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House believes the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme is not adequately fulfilling its role for SMEs across the UK; and urges Government intervention to ensure that all businesses are provided with the financial support they need.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next time, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Offshore Wind Transmission Connections

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Duncan Baker]

My hon. Friend is right, and he highlights another important point. It has been a privilege to serve in this place since December 2019. Since then, we have held many meetings with—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has not done anything wrong, but it is five o’clock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

In your discussions—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

His.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am so sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my hon. Friend’s discussions with members of the offshore industry, has he formed a view that they are keen to adopt the new system? If so, have they indicated that the sooner they get clarity and the sooner the rules change to facilitate the new system, the better it will be for industry, the environment and our constituents?

De La Rue: Gateshead

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I am glad to have secured this debate on the Government response to job losses at the De La Rue site in Gateshead. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, take a particular interest in this debate, as you have a De La Rue site in your constituency of Epping Forest. I thank you for the concern you have expressed for the staff in Gateshead.

On 25 March 2018, I stood in this Chamber as a fairly new MP to ask an urgent question of the Home Office about the awarding of the contract to produce UK passports to Franco-Dutch company Gemalto rather than to De La Rue, which produced the passports at Team Valley in my constituency.

The De La Rue site, which quite literally prints money as well as producing passports, is one of the industrial jewels in the Gateshead crown. It produces high-quality, nationally important projects with great skill and in highly secure conditions. The staff are highly skilled and trained and well paid. These are quality jobs and staff are proud of the work they do. They do not just come from my constituency; they travel from a wide area around. Hon. Members from across the north-east will also have constituents who work at the site.

In 2018, despite huge public support for keeping passport production in the north-east and in the UK, despite newspaper campaigns and despite meetings with Government Ministers, the contract was eventually awarded to Gemalto. UK passport production was to be offshored, with blank books—a highly valuable commodity—being produced overseas and the personalisation being done in the UK.

Decisions were based primarily on cost in the procurement process that started in 2017. In my view, the Government should have taken a more strategic view from the start, as some other EU countries have done, believing that passport production is essentially a part of the integrity of our security system.

I do not absolve De La Rue’s senior management at the time for getting the price wrong, but my concern is for the staff who worked so hard and with such great pride to produce a secure quality passport for Great Britain. We must learn those lessons for the future when we reconsider the passport contract, but meanwhile, De La Rue employees are bearing the after-effects of that decision.

The loss of the passport contract meant the loss of 200 jobs as the contract came to an end, with a start date for the new contract of July 2019, but more job losses were to follow. In June 2019, a further 170 jobs were lost at Gateshead, from the currency production side. One of the two currency production lines printing banknotes was closed down as the company looked to reduce costs in the aftermath of the loss of their passport contract. Work was again transferred from Gateshead to the company’s other sites, including those in Gibraltar and Kenya.

To add insult to injury, chief executive Martin Sutherland stood down with a bonus worth more than 30% of his executive pay of £197,000, as staff pay was frozen, 48% of shareholders voted against De La Rue’s remuneration report in June 2019 and the future of the company looked very uncertain. Staff at the Gateshead site were facing redundancy. The Guardian wrote in November 2019:

“The farewell bonus for Sutherland, who finally departed last month, now looks like a wretched joke about a licence to print money.”

Sadly, it is not a joke for the staff who actually printed the money for De La Rue.

Each time I visited the site, I talked to staff, who are incredibly proud of the work they do and the responsibility that they carry. I talked to the union Unite about trying to save those jobs. Each time, top management told them that they would be looking to bring more work to Gateshead to replace the passport contract. None materialised.

Last week, as the company financial reports were released, news came of the proposal to end production of currency at Gateshead, with the loss of 255 jobs, leaving only 90 jobs in highly specialised functions at a site that just a few years ago had more than 600 jobs. For many staff not on shift when the stock markets opened, the news first reached them via the Chronicle website, social media, a text from friends or local TV and radio news. The staff deserve better than that.

Once again, work previously done in Gateshead will be moved to De La Rue’s other sites in the UK or overseas. There is a direct link between the decision to award the passport contract to Gemalto and the job losses across the Gateshead site. Because of the number of redundancies, there is now a consultation period of 45 days, so I will be working with Unite and echoing its call for this decision to be reversed and for work to be kept at the Gateshead site. Last week, I spoke to the current chief executive and chairman to let them know my anger at the decision and to support Unite’s call for it to be reversed. I will keep on pushing hard for that throughout the consultation period.

However, the Government have a responsibility in this too, and I am asking the Minister to help me and my colleagues to retain these skilled, high-quality jobs in the north-east. I want to know what the Government are going to do to ensure that jobs such as these are retained in the north-east. We simply cannot afford to lose them. These highly-skilled, well-paid jobs will help to stimulate our regional economy. We need sustainable jobs in the north-east. The Government say that they want to level up the north of England, so they must take practical and decisive action to keep those jobs and to secure more of them for our workers.

Behind those numbers are individuals, families and livelihoods. With the loss of those jobs comes a loss of security, of safety, of hope and of aspiration. Many will be shaken and shattered by this news, and those affected will emerge from the current pandemic even more uncertain about their futures. I join with Unite, the staff trade union, in calling for the company to reverse its plans and maintain production at its Gateshead site.

As I have already said, in 2018 and 2019 the previous management of De La Rue told staff at Gateshead that they would work to bring new work to the site and that the site was important to the company. Those promises were not delivered. Empty words mean nothing to people in my constituency, so I urge the Government to act now. They can start by ensuring that De La Rue’s site is maintained and that the contract to produce passports is returned to the UK as a matter of urgency. They can also help by taking action now to help me to keep those jobs in Gateshead. We must act with immediacy not only to protect local quality jobs, but to safeguard our local economy and strengthen our place in a rapidly changing world. The staff of De La Rue Gateshead deserve no less.

I will finish with one final irony. Today, almost one full year after the new contractor was due to take on the passport contract, some passports are still being produced by De La Rue staff on the Gateshead site in Team Valley in my constituency. That work is due to end at the end of June, just a few days from now. The remaining 80 passport staff will lose their jobs and passport production will cease on the site. I thank those staff and all the staff at the Gateshead site, and end with the hope that we will see a resurgence of the high-skilled, high-quality jobs we so need in the north-east.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Lady for graciously mentioning that I share her concerns, as De La Rue is a major employer in my Epping Forest constituency.

Caravan Industry: Hull and East Riding

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady has highlighted the importance of the caravan manufacturing industry, but it also depends on the people buying them and the caravan season. In Northern Ireland, we have announced that the caravan sector will reopen on 26 June. Would she love to see that happen for the caravan sector in England, so that the tourism sector can progress from that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point well, but I must point out that this is a very narrow debate, and we will stick to the rules. We are talking about the caravan industry in Hull and East Riding.

[Emma Hardy]

I am happy to support caravan manufacturing everywhere.

When lockdown began on 24 March, 3,361 caravan parks closed, along with 381 caravan dealerships. Restrictions on travel were introduced, and the public were ordered to stay at home. At a stroke, 2.4 million people were denied the use of their caravan, either static or towed. The result was that the entire caravan manufacturing industry came to an abrupt halt. Notwithstanding the requirements for effective social distancing and hygiene in workplaces, as no more orders were arriving on the companies’ books, 208 caravan manufacturers and 647 suppliers closed, and 90% of the workforce is currently furloughed. The manufacturers have been working hard, ensuring that their factories can reopen safely for their workers, and respecting the relevant distancing and hygiene guidance. However, the caravan industry is a seasonal business, with the prime selling and order period occurring between March and September. This lockdown could not have come at a worse time; it came right at the start of a crucial period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing this incredibly important debate. I want to reiterate some of the points she made.

We are incredibly proud of the caravan manufacturing industry in our neck of the woods. Those jobs are incredibly good jobs and they pay very well. In 2008-09, despite the previous Labour Government’s interventions to mitigate the damage from the economic crash, we saw tens of thousands of job losses in our region. The reality is this: most of those jobs have not been replaced. We have had investment from Siemens, and a massive £350 million investment in offshore wind turbine manufacturing, which we are incredibly grateful for as well, but the reality is that once those jobs are lost, we often never see them replaced. The frank truth is that we simply cannot afford to lose these incredibly good, well-paid, skilled manufacturing jobs in our region. As my hon. Friend has said, 90% of all static caravans are manufactured in Hull and the East Riding, 50% of all tourer caravans are manufactured in our area, and 30% of all motor homes as well.

We have got not much of an ask for the Minister. We need support, and we are very grateful to the Government for the support and the interventions they have made already, but we need that flexibility in the job retention scheme to be extended for this unique and specific industry, and we need the Government to think carefully about the business rate relief grants as well.

We will get over this, with support from the Government. We only need to get into next year and then the industry will absolutely be booming once again. My wife mentioned to me earlier today that she does not intend going abroad on holiday for quite some time, and it is true that staycations are going to be the thing in the next year or two. So, Minister, I finish with a plea—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not say, “So, Minister”; the hon. Gentleman has to say, through the Chair, “Will the Minister”. I am sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman in his tracks just as he was about to make his plea, but if I do not get this right from Members with experience in this Chamber, we will lose the rules whereby we keep order here, and it is very important that that should be done, especially for new Members to understand how things are done properly. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would just address the Chair.

[Karl Turner]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are absolutely right of course, and I take your advice on board, and apologise indeed.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I finish, as I was saying, on a plea to the Minister: if the Government support us now, that will be repaid tenfold in this manufacturing industry. Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker.