Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Geraint Davies and Greg Hands

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

13. What recent steps his Department has taken to help support the growth of community-owned energy projects.

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

We encourage community energy groups to work closely with local authorities to support the development of projects through UK-wide growth funding.

[Geraint Davies]

The Minister knows that community-owned local energy projects will be critical to delivering net zero and national security, and are often best delivered by co-operatives. However, he should also know that the minimum tariff paid by the big suppliers to the small suppliers is often too low to make many smaller suppliers viable. Will he look into that minimum tariff, and also work with the Co-operative party to support and fund the launch of new locally owned community energy projects?

[Greg Hands]

I should be happy to have a look at those tariffs, but I do not think that this would prevent us from supporting community energy projects as a Government. We have a very good track record in that regard, through previous funds and through, for example, the towns fund, run by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which has just awarded more than £23.6 million to Glastonbury Town Council. The projects involved include the Glastonbury clean energy project, whose purpose is investment in renewable energy generation and low-carbon transport infrastructure. There is a great deal going on in this space, but I am happy to look at the tariff question in particular.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Geraint Davies and Greg Hands

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Lady raises some very good points. I am looking forward to appearing before the House of Lords Committee on this very topic on Thursday. I am sure that her Committee has done important work on this. We want to make this process as affordable as possible for people. That is why we have introduced the boiler upgrade scheme. That is why we are spending £6.6 billion of public money in this Parliament on energy efficiency, making sure that those options are there and are affordable. That is one of our key aims, particularly if we are to get to 600,000 heat pumps per annum by 2028.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister may know that our gas pipes are capable of taking 40% hydrogen, as they did with coal gas. Will he meet me and also Professor Andrew Barron who works at Swansea University, which is pushing forward technology to take the hydrogen produced by renewable wind farms off peak, converting it and putting it into the gas grid and therefore reducing the carbon footprint of boiling an egg by 40%. Surely that is the best way forward in the short term to reduce our carbon footprint.

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. Late last year when I visited the Whitelee wind farm just south of Glasgow, the UK’s largest onshore wind farm and the second largest in Europe, I saw for myself the potential there for renewable energy to convert to hydrogen. The UK Government announced a facility to assist with that. Blending is also an important aspect that we will actively be looking at. Of course we will have a number of other important uses of hydrogen, notably in maritime, transportation and the decarbonisation of industry, and those are all in the frame for consideration for what will undoubtedly be our big need for hydrogen in the future.

Shale Gas Production

Debate between Geraint Davies and Greg Hands

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for renewables, nuclear and net zero, all three of which belong together, right at the centre of Government policy. He said that there was a gas supply crisis, but I would not characterise it that way. The UK has very secure sources of gas supply: around about 50% comes from the UK continental shelf; a further 30% comes from Norway, our great friend and NATO ally; and 20% is bought on the international market. There is obviously an issue with the price, but I do not share in my hon. Friend’s characterisation of a gas supply crisis.

Finally, my hon. Friend asked whether shale is an option. I repeat that Government policy in this area is unchanged: if people can show that the scientific base and the local community support is there, Government policy would be to allow shale if that turned out to be where those two key considerations led.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Council of Europe rapporteur on hydraulic fracturing, I know, as may the Minister, that 5% of the methane produced by fracking is leaked through fugitive emissions. As methane is 80 times worse for global warming than carbon dioxide, that makes fracking worse for global warming than coal, so instead of looking at fracking will the Minister redouble his efforts on renewables, in terms of wind farms in England and marine in Wales? Will he also look to store renewable energy in organic batteries which, when produced at scale, are cheap and do not result in pollutants?

[Greg Hands]

There were a few questions there. In respect of the data on emissions, it is impossible to judge what UK fracking emissions would look like because data has not been produced on that.

The hon. Gentleman says that fracking is worse than coal; I can be certain that there are more emissions in the production of liquefied natural gas than in the UK continental shelf natural gas. That is for sure—there is two and a half times as much. I would expect the hon. Gentleman to rally behind our call to maintain the UK continental shelf production that is currently ongoing and to import, hopefully, less LNG.

The hon. Gentleman talks about redoubling in respect of renewables. We have Europe’s largest installed offshore wind capacity, which we are already committed to quadrupling. That is twice the rate of the redoubling for which he called.

Edmonton EcoPark: Proposed Expansion

Debate between Geraint Davies and Greg Hands

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate.

The Edmonton incinerator was given development consent in February 2017 after the consideration of relevant issues, including potential environmental and health impacts. The Government have no statutory or financial basis for undertaking a cost review of the Edmonton project. That would be a matter for the local auditors, but I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend and, having heard what he said today, if I were a council tax payer in his constituency, I would be concerned about whether there is value for money in the project. He reports costs increasing from £650 million to £1.2 billion, which is a huge increase. I am not surprised to learn from him that local people are testing whether the North London Waste Authority has the necessary robust practices in place.

Let me lay out the process. All large energy-from-waste plants in England must comply with strict emission limits and cannot operate without a permit issued by the Environment Agency—in this case, the one granted in 2017. The Environment Agency assesses the emissions from new plants as part of its permitting process and consults the UK Health Security Agency on every application it receives. UKHSA’s position relating to incineration is that modern, well run and regulated municipal waste incinerators are not a significant risk to public health. I will come back in a moment to the arguments about weighing them up versus other means of waste disposal and waste avoidance. The concerns raised by my right hon. Friend’s GPs could usefully be directed towards the UK Health Security Agency, if he thinks that there is evidence that their conclusion does not abide with what is going on locally.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I want to make some more progress. I am going to describe the policy, and then I will respond to the points raised in the debate and, if I have time, I will take some interventions.

In relation to the Edmonton energy-from-waste plant, the Environment Agency issued a permit for the new plant in 2017. Once the plant becomes operational, the Environment Agency has pledged to perform regular inspections and audits to ensure that the plant is complying with the requirements of its permit.

I will now turn to the debate itself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green is coming up to 30 years in this House. He has had a wide variety of roles, including six years as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and has always been an extraordinary champion for his part of London. He is a fellow London MP and has been a brilliant representative on a huge number of fronts, not least this issue, working with local campaign groups. He has raised the issue with the Prime Minister, various Secretaries of State and me. He made some very strong points on value for money and the process.

A number of Members made the point about recycling falling short, and I agree with them. I represent two local authorities, and Hammersmith and Fulham has one of the worst recycling rates in the country, so I have every sympathy with my right hon. Friend and every other Member, including the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), when it comes to recycling.

My right hon. Friend said that there was only one bidder. It is not right for me to comment on the operation of the process, but I think he reported that the winner of the bid said that there was “massive oversizing”. I am not at all surprised that local taxpayers would be concerned to discover those reported comments from the chief executive of the bidding company.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) also spoke. Waste incineration with energy recovery should not compete with waste prevention, re-use or recycling. We do not see them as being competing technologies. Notwithstanding new technologies, which he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green raised, the evidence available shows that it remains the case that the carbon impact of most mixed waste streams is lower if sent to energy-from-waste plants than if sent to landfill. Obviously, that is not a comparison with recycling or waste reduction, but in terms of the strict comparison with landfill—I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I agree on this—energy from waste is better than from landfill. I am not suggesting that he was making an alternative point. I think that his point was that recycling is better. We do not disagree with that at all.

The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked about the doubling of incineration. I am afraid that I do not recognise that figure. That is not our understating of what is in the planning pipeline. In line with the commitment in DEFRA’s resources and waste strategy to monitor residual waste capacity, officials are currently assessing planned incinerator capacity against expected future residual waste arisings, so that we can understand what future incineration capacity may be required following the implementation of key commitments in the RWS. There is, therefore, an assessment of our overall waste capacity vis-à-vis the incinerator capacity. That is being carried out by DEFRA, which is the policy lead on the waste element, while I am the policy lead on the energy element.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) rightly drew attention to the tragic case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah and her mother Rosamund. We London politicians are all keenly aware of the findings in that case and the reverberations that it has had across London and the country for public policy on air quality and air pollution, which has been improving significantly in London since 2010. However, it is still not satisfactory for any of us as Londoners or London MPs. We still have a way to go, and the tragic case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah is a stark reminder of the important work that has to be done.

Carbon capture, utilisation and storage at the incinerator is a matter for local decision making, but the Government have very ambitious targets on CCUS, including 6 megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent by 2030, rising to 9 megatonnes by 2035. We have an industrial decarbonisation and hydrogen revenue support scheme to fund our new hydrogen and industrial CCUS business models. The Government take our air quality obligations extremely seriously, and we are already taking significant action to improve air quality. The Government absolutely recognise that there is more to do to protect people and the environment from the effects of air pollution, and that is why we are taking the action set out in our world-leading clean air strategy, which includes proposals to reduce emissions from domestic burning.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the Minister accept that the doubling of incineration that I mentioned is predicated on the 50 consent orders that have been given by BEIS—his Department—for new incinerators? The 2022 standards of technology and health, rather than those of 2017, should surely be applied to the Edmonton EcoPark incinerator, but the main point is that his Department is giving out development consent orders.

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, and I will go back and check that. My understanding is that that is not consistent with the consent orders that have been granted, but I will write to him on the detail as to whether we have the same set of figures and whether we are arguing at cross-purposes. I am very happy to write to him and give him some more detail.

Our clean air strategy includes proposals to reduce emissions from domestic burning, industry and farming, alongside stronger powers and an improved framework for local government to tackle more localised issues. The legacy of our reliance on landfill is responsible for around 75% of the carbon emissions from the waste sector, so it is not simply a matter of switching back to landfilling any non-recyclable waste. That is why we have been clear in the resources and waste strategy that we wish to reduce the level of municipal waste sent to landfill to 10% or less by 2035, and why we are actively exploring policy options to work towards eliminating all biodegradable waste to landfill by 2030.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has raised some serious concerns about the North London Waste Authority, the finances of the incinerator at Edmonton EcoPark, and whether it represents value for money. I have listened very carefully, and I am sure local taxpayers will be very concerned at what he reports to the House. I hope the waste authority responds in full, as I have done, to the points that he has raised today. In the meantime, I commend him for securing this important debate, and I hope I have laid out the Government’s views on the overall national policy behind waste and energy.

Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2022

Debate between Geraint Davies and Greg Hands

Monday 31st January 2022 General Committees

[Greg Hands]

I will certainly look into that in conjunction with the Minister for Industry; I will make sure that he is aware of the issue that the hon. Lady raises. As she rightly pointed out in her speech, allowances were allocated freely in 2021. The 2022 free allocation amounted to 42 million allowances, as it did the year before, and will be issued by 28 February 2022, in advance of the 2021 compliance deadline of 30 April 2022. There is good continuity of approach there.

By putting a price on carbon emissions, the UK ETS incentivises market participants to find the most cost-effective solutions to decarbonising. We understand, of course, that there is a risk of carbon leakage, which we mentioned just a moment ago in relation to the EU’s approach. The UK ETS authority, which is the four Governments in the United Kingdom together, will consult in the coming months on the trajectory of the scheme’s cap, particularly to keep it aligned to our net zero obligation. As part of that consultation, we intend to review our free allocation in the UK ETS, for which we will start a call for evidence in the spring. Energy prices, policy and taxes are all things that we keep under constant review—particularly taxes—so I can assure the hon. Lady that we already have a total review.

Turning to the points made by the hon. Member for Swansea West, in terms of Drax, it is important to recognise that policies are not specific to any particular company. Currently, installations that use only biomass are out of the scope of the ETS, but I can take away the points that he made and follow up on them. He mentioned British Airways flying in Australian sheep; I think he might have meant sheepmeat or lamb meat, rather than the sheep themselves. Having negotiated the Australian trade deal, I am pretty sure that the movement of sheep themselves would not be within scope.

[Geraint Davies]

Just for clarity, the point I was trying to make was simply that British Airways is buying up sheep farms in order to offset the aircraft it uses to send people on holiday or whatever, and—separately from that—that obviously gives rise to less sheep production in Wales. We have an open-door deal with Australia to allow exports of sheep, so we end up displacing consumption of Welsh sheep with consumption of Australian sheep and burning more carbon, which does not seem to be very good, either economically or environmentally.

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Gentleman is tempting me down the path of debating the Australia free trade agreement—

Net Zero Strategy and Heat and Buildings Strategy

Debate between Geraint Davies and Greg Hands

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s approach. As I said earlier, this strategy is going to need all of us—central Government, our key city and regional Mayors, the devolved Administrations, businesses, local government and others—to work together to get to net zero. I would be delighted to work with the local government sector. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for local government—the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—takes a keen interest in this agenda. I am sure that we will work together to ensure that local government plays an important and crucial role in getting to net zero by 2050.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister knows that steel made in Wales and the rest of the UK is half as carbon-intensive as undercutting steel from China. Moreover, our carbon footprint, although low on production at 4.8 tonnes per person is a much bigger 8 tonnes on consumption, because we now subcontract a lot of our manufacturing. Will he look carefully at pursuing a carbon border tax, so that we can play on an even playing field, support local jobs in manufacturing and steel, and help to tackle climate change? Will he announce and suggest that at COP26?

[Greg Hands]

The chair designate of COP26 says that carbon border adjustment mechanisms will not be part of the discussions at COP26, but the UK is closely watching that debate. We are looking at the European Union proposals. Of course, we need to ensure that they are World Trade Organisation-compatible and that they do not discriminate against the developing world, particularly much less developed countries. The CBAMs debate is very much alive and we continue to study it very closely indeed.

Free Schools and Academies in England

Debate between Geraint Davies and Greg Hands

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Greg Hands]

I disagree. I have already read out quite a bit of evidence from the statistics behind the academies outperforming the rest of the sector: 65% of those inspected saw their grades improve from inadequate to either good or outstanding, having been transformed into academies. Multi-academy trusts enable our best performing schools to help struggling schools improve all the time. The evidence speaks for itself in the statistics I read out earlier and in the Government’s overall improvement in school standards.

Returning to my point about where we need to improve, one size does not fit all for education. Schools cannot simply be transposed from one part of the country to another or rolled out in a cookie-cutter approach simply because they have worked in one format. There has to be room for local organic growth. I will put on the record my frustration with the Education and Skills Funding Agency, which must do better at working with schools to anticipate and resolve problems in site delivery. The Fulham Boys School, which has been waiting to move to its new site for some time now, has been particularly affected. The ESFA should, in this regard, harness local knowledge and relationships rather than necessarily relying on centralised procurement processes.

Schools need certainty to plan for their futures. I thank the current Secretary of State for meeting me and the school last summer—I know we have another school coming up—and trying to drive through the move to the new site in Heckfield Place in my constituency. I will quote again from the school’s headmaster, whose blog post title overdoes it the other way. It is entitled, “Why the free school movement will fail”, which I think is far too pessimistic. The title does not really match the content. He writes:

“My view, shaped over the last 4 years, is that bureaucrats’ delivery of Free school policy is directly frustrating government’s aspirations for it… Secondly, Free schools like FBS are constantly being frustrated and hampered by slow moving bureaucracy, red tape and ‘process’.”

I will add into the mix here that one of the most extraordinary meetings I ever had in Government, when I was a Minister, was taking the Fulham Boys School in to meet some of the ESFA officials. One official—admittedly, he was an outside contractor—said to the Fulham Boys School, which is also a Church of England school, “You are a faith school, so you must have belief that your school will open.” He could not offer specific reassurances on the site or when the contractors doing the site would be ready. He simply said to them that, as a faith school, they needed to believe. I do not know how religious you are, Mr Davies, but I would say that even the most evangelical of people would want to see something slightly more concrete than that on the table.

Unfortunately, progress has come to a grinding halt under Labour in Hammersmith and Fulham. The borough has failed to provide additional school places that are needed, particularly for the bulge in secondary school numbers that is coming up. Ironically, despite all these new schools, the borough now has the lowest figure for first-choice secondary school placements in England—it is absolutely rock bottom of that league table. Hammersmith and Fulham simply does not have enough places at quality schools that parents want their children to go to.

The council itself predicts that by 2027 there will be a deficit of 327 places for students between years 7 and 11, not including sixth form. That is 327 students without a place by the year 2027. Kensington and Chelsea also has a problem, as the figure there is projected to stand at 195 students by 2023-24. There is also something there that needs fixing. Creating additional secondary school places is a challenge in a constituency such as mine, especially finding sites in the two boroughs I represent, where land is incredibly expensive. We need to recognise some of the difficulty in doing that. It is easier said than done.

Nevertheless, the popularity of these schools at secondary level is evidenced by how over-subscribed they are. West London Free School receives nearly 10 applications for every year 7 place. At Lady Margaret School, which is a conversion to an academy, it is nearly seven applicants per place. These schools continually top parents’ lists of first preferences, and all of them outperform others in their area. It is, of course, great news that the Department for Education expects around another 1,000 maintained schools to become academies over the next two years, and that 110 new schools opening by 2020 will be free schools. There was also news in September that 53 new free schools and one university technical college will be creating up to 40,000 new school places.

That is the picture locally: excellence, popularity of these schools, and continuing drive from parents to create more of them. We have a deficit of school places and parents are demanding these kinds of innovative schools, but they are concerned—I will put my cards on the table—at what they are hearing from the Labour party about its plans. I was amazed at the speech by the shadow Secretary of State for Education at the Labour party conference. I doubt that you personally had the misfortune to be there, Mr Davies, because I know you are a sensible man, but she said—

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Hands, it is probably not a good idea to make assumptions about the Chair to which I cannot respond, but do continue.

[Greg Hands]

I apologise, Mr Davies. You are quite right, of course. The shadow Secretary of State for Education said:

“We’ll start by immediately ending the Tories’ academy and free schools programmes. They neither improve standards nor empower staff or parents.”

I put it to the Opposition spokesman today that I have outlined in 17 minutes a lot of the progress that has been made in my constituency and the popularity and success of these schools. Parents with children at the schools are alarmed at the Labour party’s position and what it might mean, particularly if they have a Labour council that also believes in his policy. I invite him to put on record that these parents and all the groups coming to see me now who want to set up new free schools have no reason to be afraid. There is an incredible diversity of parents and others looking to take advantage of this innovation, and it would be fantastic if we could hear from him that their fears are unfounded. I will sit down and give others an opportunity to contribute to the debate, but I look forward to hearing the responses from the Front Benchers in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

Thank you, Mr Davies. I will try to fill the remaining eight and a half minutes.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

You do not need to.

[Greg Hands]

That is helpful advice—it has been a little while since I have done one of these debates. However, as the time is available, I might say a few things.

This has been an excellent debate. I am delighted that the academies and free schools programmes are thriving and making such a difference to school standards across the country. As the Opposition spokesman pointed out, I had the pleasure and privilege of going to one of the best state schools in the country: Dr Challoner’s Grammar School in Amersham. That stood me in good stead for everything that came after. I have always been a strong believer in high-quality state education, which is what the Government have delivered over the past eight and a half years, and will continue to deliver.

As I said, the very centre of this movement is my constituency, and the two boroughs that my constituency forms part of: Hammersmith and Fulham, and Kensington and Chelsea. In those boroughs, 13 new free schools and academies have opened. It is an incredible achievement to open five new secondary schools, and eight additional primary schools, in the two smallest boroughs in London.

Often such things are very difficult. I remember when West London Free School opened in 2011 or 2012—it must have been almost the first free school. I remember speaking to the then leader of the council, the excellent Stephen Greenhalgh, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and the founder of the school. We talked about how we were going to make it possible, and it was quite hard, because people wishing to set up such a school face a number of obstacles. The sites can be very difficult. Most of those people are incredibly dedicated to seeing the schools delivered. I take a strong interest in how the Education and Skills Funding Agency works, and how such things might be improved. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to look at a continuing review of how that is done.

We have a crisis in our schools coming up locally, despite all the achievements. I mentioned the shortage of places in Hammersmith and Fulham. The current Labour council has sat on its hands for the past four and a half years and done nothing about it. After all the achievement in the preceding four years of the Conservative Government, combined with the Conservative council, in delivering all those new schools, nothing has been delivered in the past four years. The area will be short by 327 places. Reform has come to a shuddering halt.

My constituents will also be alarmed by what has been said by the Labour party. The Opposition spokesman today failed to repudiate what the shadow Secretary of State for Education said at the Labour party conference. She said:

“We’ll start by immediately ending the Tories’ academy and free schools programmes.”

I think the Opposition spokesman said, if I understood him correctly, that that would not mean the closure of the schools. However, they would be taken immediately back into—or put under for the first time—local authority control. That would be the abolition of free schools and academies in the way in which they currently operate, ending their autonomy. That will ring alarm bells in my constituency among so many parents whose children are currently at those schools, and among all the parent groups that come to see me to talk about establishing new schools.

There is an incredible diversity in education in my constituency. We have had amazing bilingual Anglo-French schools set up—feeders into the incredible Lycée Français Charles de Gaulle. Some new parent groups want to set up bilingual Spanish schools. I expect that at some point all these groups will come to me and say, “We are alarmed, Mr Hands, by what we hear is the policy of the Labour party—threatening the future of these schools before they have even been established.” I invite the Labour party to review and reconsider its policy, because it will be incredibly unpopular, and is incredibly unpopular in my part of London.

Some of the schools have an incredible record, and an incredibly diverse intake. Fulham Boys School, for example, is very proud of the fact that 40% of its children qualify for the pupil premium, while 15% come to it from a private school background. In a community such as mine, where there is not much in the middle, that school takes the full spectrum of pupils. At Ark Burlington Danes Academy in Shepherd’s Bush, nearly half the pupils are eligible for free school meals. Often such intakes are from the more deprived parts of the two boroughs, in the north, and most of those schools do a fantastic and brilliant job.

It would be a great shame to see that future threatened by a future Government. However, of course, as we all know, there is not going to be a future Labour Government coming up. I can tell parents that they can at least rest assured on that front. Nevertheless, it is a cause of concern in my constituency, and I hope that the Labour shadow team will reconsider their ideological approach to ending the programme, and reconsider what is in the best interests of parents and pupils at those schools, and future schools to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of free schools and academies in England.

Draft EU-Canada Trade Agreement Order

Debate between Geraint Davies and Greg Hands

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

I rise to speak very much in favour of ratifying this agreement, and I welcome the opportunity to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade, and to record my thanks to him for doing so much good work in the last two years to establish the Department for International Trade. I also thank the superb officials at the Department, who have worked tirelessly to get our independent trade policy up and running and heading in a successful direction. I also congratulate my successor as Minister for Trade Policy, my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), who I think will be leading the next debate. I welcome him to his position and wish him every good fortune in his important role, in which he has a lot coming up in the next couple of weeks.

I want to reflect on the extraordinary contribution by the shadow Secretary of State. It was an abuse of procedure to speak for 35 minutes in a 90-minute statutory instrument debate and to leave others, who actually want to speak about the content of the agreement and its implications, with just four minutes each. I listened to his explanation of what happened, or did not happen, in 2016, and I thought it not really in his interests, as we could also go back to his position in 2016 and 2017, when I think he said that staying in the customs union, which I believe is now his party’s policy, would be a disaster for the country. I should have thought he was the last person to want to draw attention to what people said two years ago.

Most importantly, we heard the shadow Secretary of State speak for 35 minutes but never got a straight answer as to what his position on the agreement actually is. I think he said he would like to renegotiate it. Now, not only would that have implications for an agreement that is already in place—the provisions have been in place since September—but is he also saying he would renegotiate all the other 40-plus EU agreements, rather than seek their transition into UK agreements? [Interruption.] I think he is saying from a sedentary position that he would like to renegotiate the whole lot.

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Greg Hands]

I will not take any interventions because there is no time.

I want to say three things. First, CETA itself, on its own merits, is a very good deal. It could be worth as much as £1.3 billion per annum to the UK economy. It removes all tariffs on industrial products and wines and spirits, and eliminates customs duties on ciders, wines and spirits. On the investment provisions, we must remember, as the Secretary of State laid out, that the UK is the fourth-largest source of investment into Canada and the UK is the second most popular destination for Canadian investment. It is also important for the EU’s trade agenda, as it will be the first EU trade agreement to be ratified since that with South Korea some six years ago. The UK is supportive of the EU’s trade agenda, partly because we believe in breaking down barriers ourselves, and partly because the UK will seek to maintain the substance of these agreements as we go forward after Brexit.

Last time around on CETA the official Opposition split three ways. We look forward to seeing what the official position of the Opposition is and what the practical position is of their various MPs.

Trade Bill

Debate between Geraint Davies and Greg Hands

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Members have talked about free trade, but Brexit is of course the biggest reversal of free trade in the UK’s history. Margaret Thatcher was a great proponent of the single market, which is the probably the greatest example of free trade in the world. She also did not like referendums and quoted Attlee, who said that they were the instrument of demagogues and dictators because of their use by Hitler. Unfortunately, we now appear to be withdrawing from the customs union and the single market. We are withdrawing from the EU, making ourselves much weaker in negotiations with other countries. We are also making the EU weaker. The EU is currently the biggest market in the world, but that title will go to China after we leave, so there will also be significant impacts on human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Of course, this Bill is not directly about our relationship with the EU, but we will be reducing our trade with it due to the tariffs that will be imposed if we do not have membership—I hope we will—of the single market and the customs union. This Bill is about our relationship with third parties—the 65 agreements—but it is not fit for purpose in that respect, because it does not do what it says on the can. It claims that it can guarantee the continuation of those 65 agreements on existing terms, but it is intuitively obvious from a business point of view that other countries will see Britain up against the wall, on its own and weaker, and they will demand better terms, whether lower quality, lower standards or lower prices. What is more—

[Greg Hands]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

I will let the Minister intervene, but he can respond to this as well. The EU has quotas for various countries, but other EU27 countries will want to take some of that business, and we will lose again and again.

[Greg Hands]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been listening to the debate or my previous interventions, but that process has already begun. We are in conversations with third parties and none of them is behaving in the manner that he is describing. Let me put his fears to one side: I cannot promise that we will be able to transition every single agreement, but nobody is behaving in that manner.

[Geraint Davies]

The Minister tells us that third parties are not behaving like that at the moment, so he implies that they will not behave like that in the future—what false logic; what naivety.. That is absolutely ridiculous. Any negotiator or country that sees Britain with its back to the wall, turning away from the biggest market in the world, will ask for more. If they did not say that they will give the money to Spain or wherever, they would not be doing their job. What is more, they will be dragging their heels, because they will know that the clock is ticking and that we need to get something sorted out. They have everything on their side. The Minister is so naive. All the negotiations over the past 40 years have been done by EU negotiators. We do not have the negotiating capacity. He is smiling glibly and pretending that it will be all right on the night, but it will not. People will remember what he has said today and how naive he was.

This Bill is simply not fit for purpose. It takes two to tango, and the Bill presumes, as the Minister does, that the EU will tango and not trip us up in the process.

The other facet of the Bill is secrecy and hiding what will happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said that the US-UK deal will be hidden for four years, and there are all sorts of fears about our having to import substandard food products from the US, including chlorinated chicken, which the Secretary of State looks forward to eating—his name is Fox—and hormone-impregnated meat. In the US, medicines are introduced into meat and asbestos is for sale. All those standards may end up coming through the back door under the cloak of darkness in these secret deals.

I know that the Bill is not about the US-UK relationship at the moment, but the Minister and the Secretary of State have mentioned CETA, which already enables certain changes to occur. There is a real risk that we will take on some of these problems. Indeed, there is a real risk that we will lose out on opportunities that the EU is creating, particularly in the trade relationship with Japan. That trade relationship will involve 600 million people and comprise 30% of the world’s GDP. The Europeans have built in environmental conditions, particularly through the Paris agreement, and other rights and protections that we enjoy in the EU, and the real problem is that downstream, due to both changing the existing bilateral relationships and as part of future trade relationships, the protections and rights we enjoy through our trade relationships in the EU will be bargained away. Whether it is human rights, environmental rights or consumer rights, those things are now inadvertently on the table, and that table is under the cloak of darkness, as there will not be public scrutiny.

There should be a guarantee of scrutiny, and we should ensure that the rights and protections we enjoy in the EU are sustained in future trade relationships. In my view, we should stay in at least a customs union, and ideally the customs union and the single market.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

As you know, Mr Speaker, it has become almost a tradition in this place to pronounce, when winding up a debate, that it has been interesting, thoughtful, helpful, vigorous or useful. This debate has been all those and more. Above all, it has been illuminating. It has illuminated the chaos of the stance of Her Majesty’s official Opposition, as did last night’s debate on the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill. It has revealed the deep divisions within Labour on anything to do with trade, customs and markets. It seems that whenever a Division is called on those matters—bear in mind, Mr Speaker, that it is of course the Opposition who call the Divisions—Labour descends into its own chaos.

When we considered the Queen’s Speech, 49 Labour Members backed an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) in favour of staying in the single market and the customs union. That was contrary to the manifesto on which they had fought only days earlier. On CETA, the EU’s free trade agreement with Canada, only 68 Labour Members followed the official line from the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and voted against it, whereas 86 voted with the Government and their free-trade instincts in favour of the agreement. As one of them put it, “If you can’t have a trade agreement with Justin Trudeau’s Canada, who can you have a trade agreement with?”

When we considered the Ways and Means motions for the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill just before Christmas, 28 Labour Members rebelled by backing an amendment in favour of staying in the customs union. Last night, 219 Labour Members voted against the Second Reading of that same Bill, which means that they are opposed to the UK’s having, post Brexit, any scheme of trade preferences for developing countries.

[Geraint Davies]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This speech is not about the Trade Bill; it is about the Opposition. The Minister had 10 minutes in which to talk about the Trade Bill.

EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

Debate between Geraint Davies and Greg Hands

Monday 6th February 2017 General Committees

[Geraint Davies]

I want to press the Minister on this point: there have been two Back-Bench business debates—one in November and one the previous November. There was a consensus on a vote in both debates that the international trade agreements—the transatlantic trade and investment partnership and CETA—should be scrutinised across Parliament in full parliamentary debates. With respect to the timetabling of the present matter, there have been three and a half months since the provisional agreement of CETA. There was a prior opportunity for the Government to call a debate. They could have done so in the knowledge that the Council of Foreign Ministers was going to sign. The Government could have timetabled it.

Instead, the Secretary of State was dragged kicking into the European Scrutiny Committee by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who demanded answers. At that point the Secretary of State said he would ensure that there was a full debate in Parliament, which he has not done. Now the issue has been hidden under the cloud of Brexit, so the media and others will take no notice of something that, if ICS goes forward, is a threat to our democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Will he answer the timetabling point again, and when he does will he also say whether he supports the ICS in principle?

[Greg Hands]

As I have already said, the ICS is not part of the provisional application.

[Geraint Davies]

Do you support it?

[Greg Hands]

Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the two Back-Bench business debates. As I understand it, they were not actually about CETA at all; they were about TTIP, which is not the agreement we are considering today. The European Parliament has pushed back its own debate on CETA to 15 February, which is significantly later than when it originally intended to debate and vote on this agreement. We are ensuring that our debate in the House of Commons takes place in advance of the European Parliament’s debate. That is the right thing to do, and I am confident that Members will back the decision today to go ahead with the provisional application of this agreement.

[Geraint Davies]

On a point of information, the debates were about international trade agreements and embraced TTIP and CETA. May I press the Minister on whether he agrees with ICS? He stated that it would not be applied, but does that not depend on how the Singapore agreement goes? He said that labour and environmental standards would not be reduced, but could they be increased, in particular with the advent of ICS? ICS would empower transnational companies, through arbitration courts, to sue the Government if they introduced new laws such as a tax on sugar to protect public health, or constraints on the effect that fracking could have on water quality, due to the extra cost or lost benefits resulting from those laws? According to him, the ICS provisions will not be ratified yet, but does he agree with ICS in principle?

[Greg Hands]

Let me try to take each of those two points. The UK has had its reservations about ICS, but importantly, that is part of the negotiation. We want and expect to see the details of ICS thrashed out in the coming months. The Commission and the Council have pledged to keep talking, and we are not alone in having reservations about ICS. We believe it is important to have investor protection in these agreements.

As for any decision to increase regulation, that comes back to nation states having the right to regulate. A right to regulate means an ability to decrease or increase regulation in accordance with whatever a Government and Parliament think is an appropriate course of action.

[Geraint Davies]

On saying that we will sign up to CETA and then do our own thing after Brexit, is the Minister aware that when CETA is fully signed, it will tie us into the agreement for 20 years and bind future Governments? We cannot just jump up and say, “We will have another agreement”, quite apart from the fact that it will be a worse agreement, because we have less negotiating power than the EU. Will he confirm that this is a 20-year agreement, and that he can give no firm undertaking that we can exit it?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will say two things. First, it does not stand to reason at all that the UK standing alone would negotiate a worse agreement than the European Union; he makes a massive set of assumptions there. Secondly, the 20-year provision relates only to investments made while CETA is in force in the UK, which there may or may not be, and while the UK is still party to CETA.

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

If we sign up to CETA and existing investors’ rights continue for 20 years, a fracking company that comes from the United States via a Canadian subsidiary could be subject to the capital tax concessions of 75% now in place for frackers, and to loose planning restrictions that meant that frackers could frack under your house, Sir Edward. Does the Minister agree that if a future Government decided that the planning constraints and tax concessions were too lenient, and wanted to focus on renewables, in line with the Paris agreement, the frackers could sue the Government, within a 20-year timeframe, for lost profit under ICS?

[Greg Hands]

That is an extremely hypothetical case. Let me be absolutely clear: CETA will no longer apply to the UK if it has been only provisionally applied. Only once CETA has been ratified by all EU member states and Canada can it be brought into force. Investments made during provisional application will not benefit from that sunset clause. The hon. Gentleman’s case is very unlikely to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

Can I answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific point on the ICS in a moment?

[Geraint Davies]

The Minister said his reservations about the ICS were about costs and choosing arbitrators and so on. He did not suggest that there was anything intrinsically wrong with the ICS. Does he agree with me that it is intrinsically unnecessary because investors are protected in Britain and Europe by three tiers of law: national, European law and the European Court of Human Rights? Similarly and in parallel in Canada, investors are protected by provincial courts, appeal courts and the Canadian Supreme Court.

Those established systems of public and contract law have protected trade between Canada and the EU in the past. The problem with the arbitration courts is that they are unnecessary, apart from the fact that they may be inherently dangerous to our democracy.

[Greg Hands]

Let me repeat that the ICS has not been provisionally applied. I know that I keep having to say that but it is an important point in relation to today’s debate. CETA confirms the right of state parties to regulate in the public interest. Non-discriminatory action by states should not give rise to a successful investor claim in the first place. A lot of the hon. Gentleman’s fears are not well grounded.

Tribunals can only award compensation to investors in the event of a breach of the agreement being proven. The ICS cannot force a state to amend or remove legislation. With this kind of thing, in a general sense it is important for there to be investor protection in trade agreements. How precisely that is done will be a matter for debate later. I will repeat that it is not part of what is being provisionally applied in this agreement.

[Geraint Davies]

With respect, the Minister has just said that arbitration courts cannot overturn legislation. What about the case of Ethyl v. Canada, which overturned a law to protect public health? What about the case of Metalclad v. Mexico? The authorities’ attempt to stop planning permission for a landfill that was polluting an entire town was overturned by an arbitration panel. The list goes on: the case of Cargill v. Mexico overturns a soft drinks tax of the sort that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) was trying to introduce here. There are consistent international examples of arbitration courts overturning publicly agreed, democratically agreed laws. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is not true.

[Greg Hands]

I am not aware of the specific cases the hon. Gentleman cites. I do not believe that we in the UK have been forced to change our regulation or our legal system as the result of an arbitration. The ICS cannot require us to change our laws; it is only a compensatory mechanism. Finally, I repeat that that is not what is provisionally applied under the CETA agreement.

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

Changing the subject, during the European Scrutiny Committee hearing the Minister and the Secretary of State said that the driving force behind signing up was our desire not to damage our relations with the EU and Canada, rather than the detail of whether the agreements might have a negative impact on our industries and, more important, our rights to decide. On the Minister’s final point, the issue here is that fining countries that pass laws to protect their citizens, public health, the environment or rights at work is intimidatory—it is the fine, the pressure, the cost. The ICS does not come in and literally write legislation. It says, “If the Government introduce a fizzy drinks tax, we will penalise you, so don’t. Let people have diabetes and die early.”

[Greg Hands]

It would have to be proved that that is a discriminatory action against a particular company, which I am not clear would be the case in the example the hon. Gentleman gives.

Let me return to the point about not wishing to damage relations with Canada. May I ask the hon. Gentleman—

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

The answer is this, Sir Edward. Starting “Line 10, leave out from “part;” to end and insert”, this amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea West continues: “regrets the signature and the provisional application in the coming months of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement; is of the opinion that the provisions regarding the Investment Court System are potentially harmful as they have the potential to empower corporate trade interests to the detriment of public bodies protecting the environment, food safety, public health and social rights”. This amendment expresses regret about the signature and the provisional application, even though the hon. Gentleman was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee that, at its meeting in September, agreed that the treaty should be signed.

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

Okay, then I will go on and ask a question. I will take up the matter with the House authorities. It is disgraceful.

The previous draft amendment, which the Minister read out, expressed concern about the implementation of the investment court system. There is enormous concern about this across Europe, which is why it has been taken out of the agreement and put to one side. Such expressions have been made across the Council of Europe, representing 830 million people, which passed a legal affairs resolution only the week before last stating that the ICS should at least be amended to be in accordance with the European Court of Human Rights, that there should be a one-year opt-out, and that fines should be strictly limited to actual damages. There is nothing anti-CETA about that amendment. It says that there are concerns, so there should be a debate. It is outrageous that the Minister got hold of that somehow—perhaps he can tell us who leaked it?

[Greg Hands]

Sir Edward, as I understand it, amendments can be tabled in the Public Bill Office and withdrawn, which is what I understand the status of the amendment I read out to have been. It was tabled, and it is perfectly possible for people to go in and see what amendments have been tabled. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, the amendment does express regret about the signature and the provisional application. I think the onus is on the official Opposition to work out what their position is on CETA. Are they in favour of CETA or against it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

We have had a good, wide-ranging and lengthy debate, which I welcome. I would like to address some of the important issues raised by members of the Committee, but first I make it clear that the NHS is not at risk from CETA. That is of fundamental importance to the Government. A careful assessment of the legal protections was carried out by lawyers, and we ensured that we were fully satisfied that the NHS is not at risk.

Nothing in CETA prevents the pursuit of legitimate public policy objectives, such as protecting the NHS. To reinforce that point, CETA does not get in the way of our sovereignty on any such matters. The joint interpretive instrument clearly states that the parties have the right to regulate in this manner. The UK can choose to protect public health—by regulating fizzy drinks, for example; that was one of the issues raised earlier. Linked to that is the fact that Governments are also allowed to protect labour rights—

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I am going to make progress first. There are a lot of points to answer after two hours of debate.

Linked to that is the fact that Governments are also allowed to protect labour rights and human rights. A fair, non-discriminatory and proportionate action taken by a member state Government, including to protect human rights, would not breach investment protection. Governments are also able to take action to protect the environment as they see fit. I want to restate that this Government support transparency and proper scrutiny of the agreement. We have followed the usual procedure and engaged extensively with the scrutiny Committees in both Houses, as I outlined. I will add more detail in a moment. Crucially, we have worked hard to secure this debate in advance of the vote on CETA in the European Parliament on 15 February.

To be clear, the Committee requested the debate on 7 September, ahead of the conference recess, which, as we all know, ran from 15 September to 10 October, so it was not possible to schedule the debate before then. CETA was fast-moving, and was originally scheduled for agreement at the end of September. It was only later on that it slipped to 18 October, and eventually 20 October. I hope that the hon. Member for Brent North understands that it has not been possible to schedule the debate on this timetable. The Government have, as has been noted, opened a TTIP reading room for parliamentarians; that is not dissimilar to the operations of the European Parliament. We warmly welcome that ability of Members of Parliament to engage. We have also written proactively to the scrutiny Committees in both Houses on the subject of ongoing trade negotiations; that goes back some time.

The Government are fully committed to transparency and consulting with a wide range of stakeholders during trade negotiations, including the devolved Administrations, while recognising that trade policy is reserved to the United Kingdom. We have provided updates to the devolved Administrations during the process, and my Department looks forward to consulting with them going forward.

On the investment court system of arbitration, the UK welcomes the investment protection provisions in CETA. We also welcome the clear statement of the right of Governments to regulate. We support the inclusion of dispute settlement provisions. It is important for there to be a dispute settlement procedure, but we continue to have concerns about the cost and effectiveness of the proposed ICS. The UK will continue to work with other member states to improve the system.

[Geraint Davies]

If we must have a dispute settlement system, how is it that we have had successful trade between Canada and the EU based on the fact that we have national courts, European law and the European Court of Human Rights in Europe, and provincial courts, the Supreme Court and appeal courts in Canada? Investors are happy. We do not need the system. No case has been made.

[Greg Hands]

Foreign investment is incredibly important to this country. It is also important that we protect our investors in markets such as Canada. It is important that we ensure those things are protected, while also protecting the right of member states and Parliament to legislate as they see fit, and the right to regulate. The UK will continue to work with other member states to improve the system. I restate that crucially, the ICS is not being provisionally applied here. Parliament and the UK will therefore have the option further to debate and scrutinise the system, and CETA in its entirety, as part of the ratification process.

In the time available, I will deal with as many of the many points raised as I can. The hon. Member for Brent North asked why there has been no impact assessment of ICS or its predecessor, ISDS. The answer is that ISDS has been in operation for some time. The UK Government have never had a successful case taken against us. All the cases listed earlier were not actions against the UK Government. I reinforce that the system does not, will not and cannot supersede national laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

The figure of £1.3 billion may be the same one that the hon. Gentleman cites, but I am confident that my figure is the result of modelling commissioned by the Government.

I was asked whether environmental standards can be increased. Article 24.3 of CETA specifically provides that parties are free to establish their own environmental standards. The hon. Member for Swansea West raised fracking. Contrary to what he said, CETA does not get in the way of the right to regulate. Exactly as we would expect, it does not give fracking companies the right to invest in the UK if they are in breach of UK national laws.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

No, because I am worried about finishing within the time limit.

Crucially, the mere loss of profit is not sufficient to ground a claim in the ICS process. Even if it were, it would not require us to change our laws. Why did we not raise reservations, as other countries did, and protect our public services? Well, we do have a few reservations in CETA, but we have never been subject to a trade dispute concerning public services. We are confident that if one arose, we would defend it.

On geographic indicators, CETA allows for future protection of geographic status, as I have already said. When the negotiations took place in 2011, there was insufficient trade in specific goods for us to qualify. However, it is incredibly important to think about the impact that CETA will have on our ability to export key UK products. I mentioned Scotch whisky earlier; UK cheeses will now be able to enter the Canadian market free of tariffs or other barriers. There will also be zero tariffs on industrial goods. There are a host of things, and all of them will be of immense benefit to the UK and all its constituent parts.

We have delivered on our undertaking to have a debate on CETA. The hon. Member for Brent North was right to draw attention to the European Scrutiny Committee’s request for a debate before the provisional application of CETA at the very latest, but there has not yet been provisional application; that is subject to the European Parliament’s vote on 15 February. Nor has the matter fully progressed through the Canadian Parliament. We are fully in conformity with the European Scrutiny Committee’s request. I urge Members to vote against the amendment.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Swansea West raised previous debates on international trade treaties. One fascinating aspect of this debate is where the official Opposition stand on these subjects. I am glad that he mentioned his debate on 15 January 2015, because two of the then Back Benchers who featured in that debate were the right hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who spoke out very strongly against TTIP and against this kind of international trade treaty.

[Geraint Davies]

The Minister will also remember the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) speaking strongly against this proposal, with reference to national sovereignty and interference. All sorts of people take all sorts of angles on this; that is why we need a debate. All we are saying is, “Have a debate”, because we cannot agree. It is absolutely outrageous to railroad democracy in this way, and it is a recipe for future railroading.

[Greg Hands]

I note that we have already had two and a quarter hours tonight—there has been quite a good debate. The hon. Gentleman is right that concerns have been voiced, but there is not necessarily outright opposition. We, too, have concerns about ICS, and I have raised some of them tonight. However, I have to point out that he is wholly opposed to CETA. At least, that is what he said last week.

[Geraint Davies]

I am not.

[Geraint Davies]

In essence, I am in favour of free trade, and I think CETA and TTIP could be blueprints for future trade. The issue is to get them right, and not to give them special powers whereby transnational companies can undermine our democracy and liberties.

[Greg Hands]

I am not going to dwell on this for too long. We heard this evening the hon. Member for Brent North make what sounded like a very long speech against the agreement; it now turns out that he is in favour of it. The hon. Member for Swansea West was strongly against it last week and called for debates on this subject previously, in which the leader of his party and the shadow Chancellor appeared with him. The hon. Member for Nottingham East, who is a member of the International Trade Committee, is not here this evening but may well have a different view. As for the Labour Whip, who knows where Labour Whips stand these days on party policy?

I have two other points. The hon. Member for Brent North talked about a study showing that apparently the UK would suffer a loss of exports. He carefully did not mention what that study was. I suspect it is the Tufts University study, which uses an approach that is useful for analysing a number of global macroeconomic issues, but is not suitable for trade policy analysis. The ICS is not a supranational court. It cannot override or amend national laws and is, in any case, not subject to provisional application. I urge all Committee members to support the original motion proposed by the Government.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

No, I will not. It was not possible to schedule a debate ahead of the extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council trade meeting on 18 October. It was strongly in the interests of the UK to signal political agreement at that Council. We worked hard to secure this debate—in advance, crucially, of the vote on CETA in the European Parliament on 15 February. Owing to the pressures of the legislative timetable, it has not been possible to have this debate in the main Chamber of the House, for reasons that are clear if Members look at the Annunciator.

I am pleased that we have had this opportunity to debate this important matter within the appropriate timetable. I urge the Committee to vote against the amendment. The Government are strongly committed to engaging further with Parliament as we move towards ratification of the agreement on a timely basis. I commend the Government’s motion to the Committee, and urge Members to support the motion and oppose the amendment.

Amendment proposed: line 10, leave out from “part;” to end and insert

“welcomes the prospect of enhanced trading relations between the United Kingdom and Canada; is disappointed that the Government has so far failed to provide a full debate on the floor of the House as recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee; notes that this is a mixed agreement which must be laid before Parliament for at least 21 sitting days, without the House having resolved that it should not be ratified, before the United Kingdom can ratify it; and believes that the Government should provide an opportunity for the House to come to a decision on this issue following a full debate on the floor of the House in advance of ratification.”—(Geraint Davies.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Geraint Davies and Greg Hands

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)]

I am very pleased to be closing the debate on this historic Budget as the first Conservative Chief Secretary on behalf of the first Conservative-only Government since 1997.

We have had a good debate. Indeed, we have had four good days of debate. For me, the most remarkable parts were the commanding speech from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on day one and the real passion from my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary. Almost as remarkable were the opening exchanges on Thursday; for the last five years of the Budget, day two saw set pieces between Ed Balls and Vince Cable, but not this year, as we, the Conservatives, took both of their seats on 7 May.

Today we have had five high-quality maiden speeches from the three great nations of England, Scotland and Wales. It was a particular pleasure to hear from my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick). She made a marvellous maiden speech, with a great tribute to her predecessor Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is actually my predecessor as well. We have another common predecessor; she told us how she appeared in the index of Alan Clark’s “Diaries” and the concern that had caused her husband.

Equally impressive was the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), who spoke with great poise, engagement and passion, although I have to say that most of her speech seemed to be directed at the Labour party. She said that Labour had left her family, not the other way round. I congratulate her on a memorable maiden speech and on her first-class honours degree.

From Wales, we heard from my new colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies). In what was a very entertaining speech he took us through his first day here—how he saw the mosaic of St David in the Central Lobby and his pride at being both Welsh and a Unionist, and how the Whips approached him sternly, with one Whip reminding him somewhat of his wife back home. I am wondering which member of the Whips Office that might have been. His speech was also peppered with references to all kinds of other battles and heroism.

Also from Scotland, we heard from the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). He made a very competent maiden speech and talked about life in Westminster and missing his family back in Scotland. I can tell him that that is not unique to those travelling from Scotland; it can happen to those of us who are MPs for London constituencies as well. He was generous about his predecessor, Pamela Nash, and talked about being the first Orcadian for 200 years to be an MP.

Again from Scotland, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) was generous to his predecessor, Michael Connarty, whom I knew well and served under on the European Scrutiny Committee, and gave us a radical, passionate and humorous speech. I wish him well.

A number of other Members also contributed to the debate, but I will not go into their speeches in detail. I was struck, however, by the fact that, although some Labour Members raised interesting points, so many of their speeches sounded like they were cut and pasted directly from their election hustings speeches and showed no recognition of what had happened on 7 May or what happened last week.

Let me now conclude the Budget debate. This is the Budget that gives Britain a pay rise and that cuts taxes for 29 million people. It is the Budget that protects our national security and that gives Britain the security of living within its means. To be fair, not all Labour Members ignored the results of the election or the Budget last week. The acting Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman)—[Hon. Members: “Where is she?”] That is a very good question. She might be in hiding. She reprimanded the shadow Health Secretary over the benefit cap, reminding him:

“You may have noticed that we lost the election”.

It is remarkable that he or anyone else could possibly have missed that fact. It is equally remarkable that she now appears to be on the right of her party. I do not think that she moved; I think the party has moved to the left. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who is so enthusiastic about our new national living wage that he wants it to be brought forward and to start sooner. It is resoundingly clear from this Budget debate that Labour has made no progress in economic policy since May.

[Geraint Davies]

Is not this a Sheriff of Nottingham Budget? Is not the Chief Secretary to the Treasury robbing the poor by removing their tax credits and giving to the rich by increasing the inheritance tax threshold? This Budget stinks, and his grubby hands are all over it.

[Greg Hands]

There you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman’s remarks epitomise everything that we have all been suspecting about the Labour party over the past 10 weeks—namely, that it has learned nothing from its defeat right across the UK on 7 May. It looks as though it intends to start this Parliament as it started the last one: in disarray, denying the deficit and failing to apologise for its past mistakes.

The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) lost the election, and the turning point was surely that moment in the TV debate when he denied that the Labour Government had spent too much. If they had not spent too much, how come there was no money left? Labour’s economic credibility was so bad that, at the election, it even lost the constituency of its own shadow Chancellor as well as those of half its Treasury team.

There was one senior Labour figure who avoided losing his seat, but he did so only by standing down voluntarily. That was the last Labour Chancellor, Alistair Darling. He is reported to have said something very interesting the day after the Budget, which was that Labour was “in disarray” and that it was

“paying the price of not having a credible economic policy.”

He hit the nail on the head. Labour’s response to the Budget has been totally incoherent. Who would have thought that a Labour Opposition could attack a policy to bring the minimum wage for workers from £6.50 up to a national living wage of £9 in the course of a Parliament? I invite the other parties to consider their positions. By the way, only the Labour party could have a leadership crisis without actually having a leader. If Labour Members vote against the Budget in a few minutes’ time, they will be voting against a national living wage, against dealing with the deficit and against meeting the UK’s NATO defence commitments. They will also be voting against £10 billion of extra investment in the NHS.

This is not a Government who shy from the tough decisions. It is right that higher wages, not welfare subsidies, should raise the standard of living of working families. It is right that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden. It is right that we should help and support our businesses to bring prosperity to this nation and it is right that we should build ourselves strong, stable and secure public finances. We are doing that. This has been a landmark Budget, delivering for the entire country a bright and prosperous future. There are still tough choices ahead, but I commend the Budget to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Geraint Davies and Greg Hands

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking his seat and on his fine maiden speech last week. He told us then:

“Our best days lie ahead.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 646.]

He is right, but only if we continue to get our deficit, and therefore our debts, under control. Thanks to the plans we have set out, we are set to eliminate the deficit altogether and deliver the tax cuts outlined in our manifesto. We are doing it with the strong endorsement last month of the British people.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

There are 800,000 fewer people earning more than £20,000 than there were in 2010. Is that why the Government have borrowed more in five years than Labour did in 13 years?

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Gentleman ignores the overall employment picture over the last Parliament, in which 2 million new jobs were created and unemployment fell by 1 million. It sounds to me as if the Labour party is starting this Parliament as it started the last one: in a mode of deficit denial and failing to face up to Britain’s problems.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Geraint Davies and Greg Hands

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

Amendment 125 suggests that instead of using the register of voters for calculating the relative size of constituencies, we should use the best estimate of eligible voters, so that each MP represents the same number of people who are eligible to vote, not the same number of people who happen to have registered. I propose that because of the demographic bias in respect of the categories of people who are more or less likely to register, and my contention is that all those people have the right to vote. They may at some point register if there are better registration systems, and they should not be denied a proportionate voice. I also contend that those Members, particularly on the Government Benches, who have argued that there is a systematic bias in favour of the Labour party because the average number of registered voters in Labour seats is less than the average number in Conservative seats miss the point that that bias does not exist when account is taken of the number of eligible voters—those aged over 18.

I do not intend to run through a comprehensive list, although I have been provided with figures from the Library. I pointed out earlier that in Bradford West there are 77,848 people over 18, yet only 62,519 are registered. In Holborn and St Pancras in London, there are 119,000 people aged over 18 and the number on the electorate is 86,000, and the electorate as a proportion of the 18-plus population is just 73%.

To summarise, the top line of my argument is that we must have the right basis for doing the calculation before we have a big argument about whether we should then apply other criteria, such as community and geography. We should establish fairly and squarely the basis of the argument put by the Government, and decide who we should be counting. I say that we should be counting those who are eligible to vote.

[Greg Hands]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument, I think, but does he think that there is an easy way that can be picked up in his amendment to tell the difference between a set of electors—say, US citizens living in the constituency that he just named—who are not able to vote under any circumstances, and those who would be able to vote but are simply not registered?

[Geraint Davies]

I should certainly like to help the hon. Gentleman on that point. What the amendment actually says is that we should use figures by the Office for National Statistics for who is estimated

“to be eligible to vote in United Kingdom parliamentary elections”.

Obviously, the question is how the ONS would make that estimate. The answer is by using a combination of the register of electors, the census and other data forms.

As has already been pointed out and as we all know by now, there is a systematic bias against the registration of certain categories of people—ethnic communities, people in private rented accommodation, 17 to 24-year-olds and, generally, those in poorer areas. Those poorer areas tend to be more likely to be represented by Labour MPs. That explains the difference in the average figures for registration. The problem that I have with the current thrust towards quickly redrawing the boundaries on the basis of registered voters is that clearly there will be a bias in that, so people from poorer communities will be under-represented. That is not effective or fair democracy.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Geraint Davies and Greg Hands

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill, although I shall talk mainly about part 2, on parliamentary boundary reviews, as somebody who was heavily involved in the boundary review in my own area of north London last time around. It was a very lengthy process that began in 2001 and ended in 2007. That is the important point—reviews are currently extremely long-winded affairs. It is crucial to understand that they are far too long and infrequent, and as a consequence we have electoral data that are far too dated to produce a modern electoral system and lead to far too many constituencies being either too small or too large when the boundary changes finally come in, as they did most recently this past May. In fact, the boundaries introduced then are based on electorates drawn up in 2000, so we have just kicked off with new boundaries that are already 10 years out of date.

Under the old system, we would normally be expected to have those boundaries for up to three Parliaments, which could mean that they are in place until such a time as 2024, for example. By that time, the electoral data will be a colossal 24 years out of date. In the last Parliament, the electoral data were already 16 years out of date in 2009. It is very important that we have more frequent and thorough boundary reviews based on current data.

I want to say a couple of quick words on the alternative vote, which I do not support. I will campaign for a no vote on AV, and if I had a free choice I would not put it to a referendum. However, it is clearly a constitutional matter, and it is important that such proposals should be put to referendums. I welcome the coalition Government’s commitment that such questions, including a proposal to change the voting system, should be put to a referendum. As it currently stands, and as I believe the Labour party offered to the Liberal Democrats in the abortive coalition negotiations in May, any Government can come along and arbitrarily decide to change the system through legislation without having a referendum. I therefore commend the Government for seeing that the matter needs a referendum, which will set an important precedent.

There are two possible objections to having more frequent boundary reviews, and especially to their being held every Parliament. One is cost, and the other is administrative inconvenience for Members of Parliament and others involved in electoral administration. Those are the only two possible objections to more frequent and regular boundary reviews, but unfortunately the Labour party has chosen not to have one of them as its grounds for objection. It is objecting, on absurd grounds, to the creation of equality for electors in a parliamentary constituency, something on which it and its predecessors have been campaigning since the early 19th century. Suddenly, Labour Members are the people defending the principle that constituents should be unequal, which is entirely wrong.

It is perfectly possible to have boundary reviews much more quickly. The previous one lasted six years, but the meat of it lasted about a year and a half from the time when the first proposals were made to the time when they were approved by the Boundary Commission. Thereafter, it mainly came down to approval by Parliament.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Hands]

I will give way once.

[Geraint Davies]

Given that it has been said that the savings would be £12 million, how many hundred million pounds does the hon. Gentleman estimate the reduction by 50 MPs will cost, given the judicial activity and so on that will happen?

[Greg Hands]

That is a bit of a red herring because judicial activity that is happening through the current system, with the local reviews, is extremely expensive. I personally think that those matters are not for the court or lawyers—they are administrative matters. They should never have been given over to QCs and other lawyers because they are simply not matters of law. We are considering reviews of how parliamentary boundaries are drawn, and they should be more frequent and more effective.

I want to end by examining the Labour party’s position. It has set out to oppose equal-sized parliamentary constituencies. Let us consider that for a moment. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) used the word “gerrymandering”. He should know better; his use of it was an abuse of the English language. One cannot describe a way of formulating a set of seats as gerrymandering, but one can so describe its execution, for example in an irregularly shaped constituency, particularly one made for party political purposes. However, that will be down to the Boundary Commission, so thankfully there cannot be any gerrymandering—we have an independent Boundary Commission to conduct the execution.

Let me mention three points of 19th-century history. The right hon. Gentleman studied law at university. Perhaps he is like Tony Blair, who, having completed his time in politics, thinks that he should have studied history instead of law. The Labour party did not exist in 1832, but many Labour party members believe that the Great Reform Act of 1832 presaged the development of the modern Labour party. Yet that was all about abolishing rotten boroughs and trying to create a system of parliamentary constituencies of equal size. Before that, we had constituencies such as Gatton with seven electors, Old Sarum with 13 electors, Dunwich with 32 electors and so on, while the whole of Yorkshire, including the great cities of Leeds, Sheffield and Hull, had some 20,000 electors.

I shall pray in aid the Chartists. The right hon. Gentleman knows that their people’s charter of 1838 is frequently cited as one of the origins of the modern Labour party. Many people in the Labour party hark back to the six points in the people’s charter. Point 5 is:

“Equal constituencies, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors; instead of allowing small constituencies to swamp the votes of larger ones.”

That is from the people’s charter of 1838, which Labour is seeking to revoke.

I welcome the commitment that AV is a constitutional matter. I welcome more frequent and faster boundary reviews, but I am afraid that Labour’s opposition to the Bill is cynical and self-serving. Their predecessors would be deeply ashamed of what they are doing today.