Scottish Devolution Settlement: Retained EU Law

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) on introducing the debate. It is incredible, in an hour-and-half debate on such an important subject, that I am standing to sum up less than half an hour after it began. That shows a lack of care from many Conservatives, particularly the Scottish Tories.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) said, where are the Scottish Tories? They continually challenge the SNP when we talk about power grabs by the Westminster Government. They always ask us to name one power that has been taken away from the Scottish Parliament. As we have heard, this abolition of EU retained law is not a single power grab, it is a carte blanche undoing of devolution. It allows the UK Government to force standards in Scotland. When trade deals are signed and Westminster wants to diverge from the EU, the Internal Market Bill, for example, can be used to railroad and force those standards on Scotland. It is disgraceful that the Scottish Tories are not here to make a case for the Government and why they want to do this.

It could be argued that Scotland did not technically have full powers in all these remits because it was EU law, but the point of EU law in regulations is that it was agreed by member states. Scotland will no longer have the facility to keep EU retained law and that alignment, if the Westminster Government have their say. We have to remember that the EU single market is the biggest single market in the world. Why do the UK Government want to diverge from standards that allow access to the biggest market in the world? It makes no sense, but again it is a throwback to the British empire and bringing back British sovereignty. It is a falsehood—a fallacy.

We previously heard from Brexiteers that the good thing about being able to diverge from the EU is that we can improve environmental standards. I spoke last week in a debate about sewage discharges into watercourses and on beaches. Before coming to this place, I was a sewerage civil engineer, and I saw at first hand how the Tory Government back then resisted EU legislation to clean up beaches. The UK was known as the dirty man of Europe, and it is no surprise that, now that we have left the EU, the rest of the UK is having a problem with sewage discharges. It cannot be a coincidence. Given that you represent a coastal community, Mrs Murray, you must have concerns about water quality and the sewage discharges that this Government seem to be allowing.

Another Brexit falsehood is the so-called sea of opportunity. Fishing communities were told that they were going to benefit from Brexit, but unfortunately they were sold a pup, to mix my metaphors. That again is proof that whatever the Brexiteers promise never comes to fruition—they are just false promises.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute pointed out, it is ridiculous that we are looking at overturning almost 2,500 pieces of legislation by some false 2023 deadline when we do not even have a functioning Government. That process is retained under the control of the Secretary of State. Previously, he was all about parliamentary sovereignty and scrutiny, but that seems to have gone out the window now that he is a member of the Cabinet. We only have to look at the Henry VIII powers inserted into the Energy Prices Bill on Monday to see that the Government are taking back control on one level—they are taking back control from MPs in the House of Commons. I have grave concerns about that.

As my hon. Friend said, this is about food standards and animal welfare. It is about maintaining standards and having checks in place. Another Brexit dividend is that we do not have enough vets because we have ended freedom of movement—it is ridiculous, and it just shows Brexiteers’ blinkeredness. As my hon. Friend said, this is an existential threat to Scottish agriculture. It is actually an existential threat to the devolution settlement.

On deregulation, I mentioned workers’ rights, and Frances O’Grady of the TUC has highlighted concerns about that. In his speech on the ten-minute rule Bill yesterday, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) attacked workers’ rights and said that the EU working time directive has allowed idleness. That is the attitude. I am sure you have read “Britannia Unchained”, Mrs Murray, which was co-authored by the Prime Minister, who attacked British workers for being lazy, idle and unproductive. That is the attitude at the top of the Government, so what hope do we have when EU retained law is completely abolished?

That brings me to the official Opposition. Of course, Labour has promised to make Brexit work. It is also in favour of a hard Brexit. It does not want freedom of movement or to be in the single market, so what does it stand for when it comes to EU retained law? What is Labour’s vision for the future? It seems to me that it mirrors the Tory vision.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North rightly pointed out that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was forced on Scotland, but at the time we were reassured that the idea of retained EU law was somehow going to give us some continuity. It was going to give us protections, and it was shown that we were not going to diverge from the EU. Now the Government’s motives are absolutely clear: that was just another Brexit falsehood, and it is all about divergence and free market opportunities. Who cares about standards as long as it is a free market and prices come down? That is all they care about, not protecting workers’ rights, agriculture and food standards and hygiene.

Another silly example of this Government’s obsession with divergence from the EU is the weights and measures consultation. Why would we want to go back to imperial weights and measures? Scotland exports more manufactured goods to the rest of the world than to England, and weights and measures are important in that. Alignment with metric measurements is the way we do things. Why would we want to change? Last week, an article in New Civil Engineer magazine noted that using thumb measurements or inches might have been fine for a 16th-century carpenter, but today we have alignment with the biggest single market. Even the United States, despite being one of the few countries that still uses imperial measurements, aligns measurements for its exported goods with the metric system. Why would we want to go back on that? How much money would it cost to rip up what we do now? Again, it just shows the Brexit fantasy and falsehoods.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for raising this, because it is a fallacy that people would want to go back to those kinds of measurements. What the Business Secretary is trying to claim about going back to those measurements is just farcical. Could we perhaps talk about this matter in the bar tonight over 568 ml of beer?

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman is being slightly flippant, but he makes a good point. That is the thing: the EU did not force the UK to go metric. It was done willingly. The EU allowed pints and other things to be retained as measurements because it was not about the EU imposing its will, but about a sensible way forward over alignment. Of course, it is a rare thing for me to enjoy a 568 ml drink—or a pint—but I might come back and do that at some point.

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman, who is the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, telling us about Labour’s vision for making Brexit work, and why it will not align with the EU, why it does not want to rejoin the single market and why it does not want freedom of movement. I shall conclude there, because I really do want to hear from him and from the new Minister, whom I welcome to his place. Who knows how long he will be in his post, given the current chaos? I hope he will address these serious points and explain this Government’s rationale.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair for the first time, Mrs Murray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) on bringing this debate. We never know during these debates which Minister will actually turn up, because we are never quite sure who the Minister is. We are always online trying to search the departmental webpages, if they are ever updated properly, to find out who the Ministers are. I welcome the Minister present to his place.

It is very strange that no Scottish Conservative MPs are here to take part in this important debate, but maybe this is a vision of the future after the next general election, where there will be no Scottish Conservative MPs available to be here. I am very disappointed that it was not put on record earlier that the entire contribution of the Scottish Labour party is here participating in this debate, unlike the SNP—only a small fraction of that entire party is present. I think Labour wins that particular battle.

I want to say a few words about this particular debate, which is similar to a debate we had in this Chamber a few weeks ago on the devolution to Scotland of employment law. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this matter boils down to two things: one is an ideological attack on the rights and protections we have all enjoyed, whether in or out of the EU; the other is the Conservative Government who are putting these changes through. My contention in the previous debate was that this matter is not about two Parliaments up against each other, but about a UK Conservative Government making decisions that we find to be deplorable and not in line with what we would like to see. Perhaps a change of Government would make these things an awful lot easier to achieve.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Does the hon. Member agree with my substantive point that this is actually a power grab from this place against the Scottish Parliament? It is a power grab that gives primacy in law to what happens in Westminster, as opposed to areas that have hitherto been wholly devolved.

[Ian Murray]

The powers argument is a consequence of what the UK Government are trying to do. They want to get rid of all this EU law and this is the way they want to do it, so it is an ideologically driven piece of legislation and policy. The consequences of that are all the consequences he laid out in his speech.

There is one thing I want to say about power grabs. We have an argument—whether it be in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which is now on the statute book, or in this debate—where the Minister stands up and says, “This is a powers bonanza” and the SNP says, “It is a power grab”. It is probably neither, and it will depend on the decisions made by both Governments about what will happen, which is driven by the desire of the Scottish people. In the past few polls, nearly 70% of Scottish people want both Governments to work together. It surprises me that when the Scottish Government were talking about a power grab in the Internal Market Act, they were hiring all these new civil servants to deal with the new powers that were about to arrive. Of the 157 powers that have been repatriated from the European Union, 130 or 135 of them currently sit with the Scottish Government. These bland statements about power grabs and power bonanzas are rather unfortunate and are probably not of any use to the debate.

I agree with the hon. Member about the consequences that could happen if decisions in Westminster are made in line with how we think they will be made. We only have to look at our inboxes over the past few weeks to see the emails from all the nature organisations, such as the RSPB, as the hon. Member mentioned, Greenpeace and others, which were apoplectic at the possible consequences for protections from this attack on nature across the whole of the UK. The Minister has to tell us the driving force behind this. I think the Minister or the Secretary of State said that the reason for this piece of legislation is that if it was not in place removing or amended outdated EU laws could take several years. I ask the Minister to give us an example—if we did not have this Bill—of a piece of EU law that would take several years to repeal. I bet he cannot give us one because it is just another line from the Secretary of State’s speech that makes no reference to the reality of the situation.

The key point is that we were all told at the Brexit referendum that EU law would be repatriated to the EU, but it would be the minimum standard and it would be built on. We seem to have a bonfire of regulation and a clumsy drive from this Govt and the previous two Conservative Governments since the EU referendum to rip up regulations and turn the UK into the Singapore of Europe. Rather than working in the national interest, it is always about what is in the party’s interests.

Hon. Members have asked some questions. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) rightly talked about the impact on devolution. All these things have an impact on devolution. Asymmetric devolution across the United Kingdom gives us these kinds of issues, and it is driven by a Government that wishes to create them. We have a situation where the UK Government and the Scottish Government want to rip up the devolution settlement. That is just a fact. Whether the Government realise it, every time they bring a piece of retained EU legislation to this House, they just give succour to the nationalists who wish to rip up the devolution settlement to deliver independence.

While we have just had a huge discussion about this Conservative Government wrenching the UK out of the European Union with a hard Brexit, we have the hard Scexiteers here, who want to do exactly the same. [Interruption.] They like that, don’t they? They are hard Scexiteers who wish to do exactly the same, and it is not my words: it is the words of the economic paper that the First Minister launched on Monday. There would be a hard border between Scotland and England for goods, services and probably people. They want to seamlessly rejoin the EU with a 12% deficit, using someone else’s currency with no central bank as a lender of last resort with no money. The paper itself has been trashed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It was trashed by Robert McAlpine, who is a massive supporter of independence, who asks, “How do we get out of this crazy mess?” While we have a discussion about hard Brexiteers, we have three hard Scexiteers here—I will give way to one of them.

[Alan Brown]

I am trying not to bite here, but I will go back to the question I posed. The hon. Member mentioned a hard Brexit and said it is what the Tories are doing. Is it not the case that Labour favours a hard Brexit? The hon. Member has not mentioned why Labour is against re-joining the single market, nor defended why Labour is against freedom of movement. Does the hon. Member agree with the shadow Chancellor who thinks that the UK needs to process and deport people back to their countries more quickly? That seems to be the Labour view, and it is no different from the Government.

[Ian Murray]

That is more fantasy from the SNP. I find it strange that, when we have a Government on their knees bringing forward a piece of legislation that ultimately could undermine devolution, the main part of the hon. Member’s speech was an attack on the Labour party. That maybe tells us that our ascendancy in Scotland is worrying the SNP.

Let me say what would have happened. The hon. Member calls the Labour party hard Brexiteers; had the SNP not abstained on the amendment for the customs union it would have passed in Parliament—a matter of public record. The SNP spent less on the EU referendum than it did on the Shetland Scottish parliamentary byelection—to win 3,400 votes. The SNP asks about where we are as a country at the moment. It is perfectly practical for the Labour party, who wish to be the next Government, to try and make Brexit work. The first day that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) walks into No. 10 as the Prime Minister, he is going to face the circumstances of the day, not those that we may wish to find. The first task will be to make what we have got work, the second task will be to build and deepen that relationship with Europe, and the third task, which overarches all of that, is to do what is in the national interest. That is clear.

That shadow Chancellor was actually saying that part of the problem we have in this country with the immigration system is the Home Office not processing applications for asylum quickly enough, which leaves the massive backlog of tens of thousands that we have at the moment. If hon. Members had listened to what she actually said, that is what she was referring to—which I think is SNP policy? If the Home Office was processing applications in a timely manner, and in a humane way, we could get through applications much quicker, lessening those issues.

Where was I with the hard Scexiteers? I think we had gone through that. I will get on to some of the issues raised about what the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill will do. I hope the Minister will tell us what the Government’s plans are, because this is essentially a theoretical Bill about trashing, amending, or otherwise, EU retained law in this country. The Government always have those grand phrases, but they do not tell us what they are going to do. Can the Minister answer my first question: what would take several years if it was not in the Bill? Will the Minister give us an example about what he wishes to do with some of those regulations? I would be happy to listen to that.

The Labour party wants to use that platform to put in a new deal for working people. That is a prime policy example. That would give people workers’ rights from day one and it would build on EU regulations that we have already had. Incidentally, the UK has always gold-plated EU regulations. In fact, Conservative Governments have always gold-plated EU regulations. The Labour party would end fire and rehire and zero-hour contracts—is that part of the Government’s strategy? We would make work more family friendly and flexible. We would strengthen trade union rights, which would raise pay and conditions. We would roll out fair pay agreements, and we would use Government procurement to ensure that we could lift standards, pay, conditions and skills right across the country.

Our new deal for working people is a practical example of what we would do with regulations, rather than a Bill that says we will rip up every piece of EU regulation without saying what we would do instead, while, at the same time, undermining devolution.

I will ask one final, two-part question to the Minister. What discussions is he having with the devolved Administrations about the Bill, and about trying to achieve a consensus so that legislative consent motions can be passed? The Sewel convention—which was right—was put on a statutory footing under the Scotland Act 2016 by an amendment brought forward by the Labour party. We cannot just disregard that; the Sewel convention is clear that the UK Government will not legislate in devolved areas where they do not need to. If they do, a legislative consent motion must be positively passed by the Scottish Parliament—not the Scottish Government. What discussions is he having to make sure those legislative consent motions can come forward?

I am grateful that the debate has been brought forward, and that we have had the hard Scexiteers and hard Brexiteers arguing over the EU. However, yet again we have had a combined 37 minutes from three SNP Members, and they have not told us one iota about how they can get back into the European Union with the huge deficits they have, no currency, no central bank, no lender of last resort and no immigration policy—[Interruption.] Now they are claiming that I am slagging them off, but they spent a lot of their speeches slagging off the Labour party. I look forward to the Minister answering some questions, and maybe at some point in the future we will get some answers from the SNP as well.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

I welcome the Minister to his place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dean Russell]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments, but no—we need to make sure that there is certainty on this issue. Having that date is absolutely essential to make sure that we are working towards it and ensuring that there is commonality in the way we work across these regulations and laws. Ultimately, however, this is what the British people—people across the United Kingdom—voted for. I appreciate that saying that may open up a whole load of new interventions, so I will hesitate to go down that rabbit hole.

This Bill will provide both the UK Government and the devolved Governments with the powers to amend, repeal and replace these laws more quickly and more easily than before. It will enable the devolved Governments to establish a more nimble, innovative and UK-specific regulatory approach, in order to go further and faster to seize the opportunities of Brexit.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute mentioned devolved Governments quite a few times and I understand the reasons for that. I just want to make it absolutely clear, and I will reiterate this because it is so important, that the decisions for those in devolved Governments to make—the choice to preserve, amend or repeal retained EU law in their areas—are theirs to make. I will come on to this again a bit later in my comments.

The measures in the Bill are UK-wide. This will ensure that citizens and businesses across all four nations of the UK are able to realise the benefits of Brexit. Nothing in our proposed legislation affects the devolution settlements. The proposed legislation will not restrict the competence of either the devolved legislatures or the devolved Governments. In fact, the powers in the Bill will give the devolved Governments greater flexibility to decide how they should regulate those areas that are currently governed by retained EU law in the future.

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Brendan O'Hara]

rose—

[Dean Russell]

I give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South.

[Ian Murray]

Perhaps the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) wants to make the same point. The Minister is refusing to give us examples, so let us give him an example and he can tell us whether it would be allowable. Say food regulations were reduced and chlorinated chicken in this country was allowed. What would stop a Scottish supermarket selling chlorinated chicken even if the Scottish Government, under those rules, would not allow that to happen in terms of their food safety responsibilities under devolution?

[Dean Russell]

I shall assume that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute wanted to make the same point. To be absolutely clear, the premise of the Bill is to enable the conversations to happen among the UK Government and the devolved Governments and to enable us to look at the best way to ensure that we have very high standards in our approach around a whole load of areas. It is not about trying to reduce the quality of food or any of those things. The UK has always had very high standards. I will come to that later in my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dean Russell]

I will come to that later, so the hon. Gentleman will get his answer. Ultimately, we are saying that where there is devolved competence and where there is engagement on that, absolutely we will work together on it.

I want to assure the House that the Government are committed to ensuring that the Bill works for all parts of the UK. We have carefully considered how it will impact each of the four nations, in close discussion with the devolved Governments, and it is of paramount importance that our legislatures function in a way that makes certain that we can continue to work together as one.

The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the Bill is consistent with the devolved arrangements, and we remain committed to respecting the devolution settlements and the Sewel convention. Indeed, the Business Secretary has made that commitment clear in his engagement with Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson. The Government have sought legislative consent from the devolved legislatures for the provisions in the Bill that engage the legislative consent motion process. Both I and the Business Secretary look forward to engaging with the devolved Governments on the process of seeking legislative consent as the Bill progresses through Parliament. Alongside that, the Business Secretary and I remain committed to engaging with our devolved counterparts as the Bill moves through. We will work together to address any concerns and ensure that the Bill works for all parts of the UK.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute asked about devolved settlements. We are not changing the constitutional settlement. The Scottish Government will still have control of areas within devolved competence, including food standards. On workers’ rights, the UK has one of the best records on workers’ rights—those high standards were never dependent on the EU—and we intend to continue them. Environmental protections will not be weakened. We want to ensure that environmental law is fit for purpose and able to drive improved environmental outcomes.

[Ian Murray]

The Minister has been hugely generous in taking interventions—he is a friendly Minister—but he is not quite answering the questions. He is pretending to answer the questions, but is not quite doing so. Let me give him a practical example. Before 31 December 2023, the EU law on food standards is revoked. The UK Government decide that chlorinated chicken is allowed into our food system in this country—currently, under EU retained law, it is not—and the Scottish Government, under their food standards devolved powers, decide that they will not allow that to happen. What happens? Do we end up with chlorinated chicken in Scotland? Or, with the Scottish Parliament having made that decision, will there be no chlorinated chicken on the shelves of Scottish supermarkets?

[Dean Russell]

To be clear, as I understand it, the preservation will be respected. If the Scottish Government want to preserve legislation within their competency, the UK will respect it. I think there is clarity on that. I am happy to write to hon. Members to confirm in more detail, but that is my understanding of the Bill. The premise at the moment is that we have to make sure that we get the Bill through to enable those activities to happen—to enable the work between the Governments and to deliver on those benefits for our citizens and businesses.

On food standards, the Government made a clear manifesto commitment that, in all trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. In any case, that is always going to be a high bar that we will deliver on.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute asked about impact assessments. There will be an impact assessment of the measures in the Bill during the passage of the Bill. The Bill is an enabling Bill. Further work will be done by Departments, while reviewing specific rules. That is why I am not getting drawn into specifics, because this is the framework for those conversations to be had and those conversations will then have impact assessments aligned to them.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made some comments about sewage. I want to be clear: we will not weaken protections. The UK is a world leader in environmental protections and we are committed to delivering our legally binding targets to halt nature’s decline by 2030. The Government have a clear environmental and climate goals set out in the 25-year environment plan and the net zero strategy. Any changes to environmental regulation will need to support the goals. This whole nonsense is repeatedly put out—that somehow we have voted as a Government to put more sewage in waterways. We have put more protections in place to stop it happening and we are the first Government to do that in decades. We have to be really clear in the accuracy of the language we use in Parliament. We have not voted to do that; we have actually improved measures around the environment.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North—I consider him a friend and would address him as my honourable friend—asked about the Public Bill Committee. I cannot say at the moment whether there will be a PBC or not. I am sure that will be decided in a matter of weeks.

For me, this is about ensuring that we help growth and that businesses can focus on doing business and not filling out forms. Ultimately, we need to ensure that individuals across the country know where they stand and that when they vote for their parliamentarian—their MP—they know that they have the right to change the rules and the law and do not have to wait for unelected bureaucrats elsewhere to do so.

The Bill is an essential piece of legislation. It will enable all four nations of the UK to capitalise on the regulatory autonomy offered by our departure from the EU and fully realise the opportunities of Brexit. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate in this debate that the Government are committed to devolution and working collaboratively and constructively with the devolved Governments. We need to make sure we are moving on and that the UK has the ability to make the laws that we were elected to do. We have an opportunity collectively to seize the opportunities of Brexit and cement ourselves as a leader in the global world.

Employment Law: Devolution to Scotland

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is great to have you in the Chair for this debate, Sir Edward. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for securing the debate. At the start of her contribution, she said she wanted the devolution of employment law, to get it away from the Tories. That has been the thrust of the debate.

If we look at the context of where we are since 2010—a long 12 years ago—we can see that in-work poverty, low pay and financial insecurity are up for workers across the country. Incomes have stagnated for over a decade and real-terms pay today is equal to, if not lower than, 2008 levels. Wages have suffered a decade of stagnation, and will continue to do so. It is the worst it has been in over a century. The latest figures show that the level of taxation for working people in this country is at its highest in 70 years, which will result in the largest fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s—who knows when that goes back to? The Living Wage Foundation, one of the great organisations of this country, estimates that over 1 key million workers are in insecure work, lacking basic rights and protections, and that across the whole of the economy, one in nine workers is in insecure work and lacking basic rights.

This is a great debate in which to pay tribute to our trade union colleagues, particularly the Trades Union Congress general secretary Frances O’Grady, for driving a lot of the issues forward. One thing the Government tend to forget is that the most successful companies in this country are those that have good relations with the trade unions and with their employees, where Government, the trade unions, employees and employers work together as partners to create an environment that provides high-quality jobs and pay. It can be done; I say it can be done because the Labour Government that came in in 1997 transformed workers’ rights in this country. I was not in this place at the time, but many of my colleagues who were tell stories of sitting through the night, overnight—maybe you did this yourself, Sir Edward—two, three or four nights in a row, trying to get national minimum wage legislation on to the statute book. That legislation took security guards in this country, who were on the equivalent of 30p an hour, up to a national minimum wage. Of course, now, the difficulty with the national minimum wage is that for too many, it has become a national maximum wage. That is why we need to move on to something much more progressive, and we have committed to do so in the next Labour Government.

All that, alongside the cost of living squeeze—the cost of living crisis—means that things are only getting worse for working people and for the vast majority of the population. Inequality is rising, not just for the individual but across the nations and regions of the UK. When the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), spoke in Downing Street this morning, he did not even mention levelling up; maybe that was because it was always a slogan, and levelling up does not actually exist. The new Prime Minister, as we have heard already in many of today’s contributions, has promised to outlaw the ability to strike and to break strikes by bringing in agency workers. She has called workers lazy and said that they need to graft more. A new Prime Minister is supposed to come in with a fresh broom to resolve some of the problems in our economy, but it looks like she will make them considerably worse for working people everywhere in the UK, wherever they live.

Some of today’s contributions have been absolutely correct about the consequences of those problems for working people. Everybody in the Government—including, I am sure, the Minister—said with consternation that the P&O fire and rehire was a total disgrace. They were calling in chief executives; they were in the House of Commons at the Dispatch Box. The Secretary of State for Transport derided P&O for what it was doing, yet nothing has happened on the back of that. It is correct that the private Member’s Bill on banning fire and rehire was talked out by this Government. Any reasonable Government would have done what always happens with private Members’ Bills: talk it out because they do not want it to be anyone else’s idea, and then take it on themselves and bring forward something that they could live with. However, there has been nothing on fire and rehire.

As we come out of the covid pandemic, if we set aside all the big issues around the cost of living and insecure work and look at employees and workers themselves, we see something really stark in our economy. I will not give away any confidences, but I know a lot of the British Airways staff quite well because we Members from Scotland travel up and down to London regularly. BA treated its staff abysmally—not just over covid, but for the decade before, whether it be on pension rights, pay and conditions, moving their centres of employment from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London, or consolidating all that by banning them from flying home on commercial flights.

When covid came and BA got rid of a lot of those staff, they went and got other jobs. Some have been re-employed in the industry, and when I speak to them, they tell me that they are now having a much better time working for a different employer. When covid finished and BA was desperate for staff, it went back to ask those people if they would like to be re-employed, and every single one of them said no, as we would expect. Those loyal BA staff had made that company the great British product that it is—employees always drive great products, services and businesses—but they were treated so abysmally that when the company came calling and said, “The proverbial has hit the fan. Will you come and help us?”, they said that they would not. That is partly why our airline industry is in such a bad state at the moment.

British Gas did the same with fire and rehire, so there is a litany of issues for the Government to consider.

[David Linden]

It is absolutely right that we give BA and British Gas an absolute bashing, but one organisation that started using fire and rehire quite early on was Asda, a number of years ago. In considering that litany of employers who have indulged in fire and rehire, it would be remiss of us not to call Asda out on that shameful practice, too.

[Ian Murray]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned Asda. We could probably spend the rest of the debate coming up with other companies that have done it. There is an argument to be had about whether we should criticise the companies directly, but they are operating within the legislation. If we do not want employers to use fire and rehire—they are looking after a different set of circumstances—we need to change the legislation to stop them doing so. That is why fire and rehire should have been banned.

This a similar debate to one we had maybe five or 10 years ago about zero-hours contracts. I remember when I was in the shadow team for Business, Innovation and Skills back in 2012, we commissioned Norman Pickavance, who had been the HR director at Morrisons—the supermarkets—to write a report on zero-hours contracts. His report said quite clearly that there were ways to ban zero-hours contracts in their entirety without affecting all the issues that the Government hid behind as excuses for not doing so. Ten years later, zero-hours contracts, the gig economy and forced self-employment are rampant, and there is no employment Bill to deal with them.

Will the Minister address the Government’s objection to the Taylor review? What is their objection? Why is there no Bill to enact its recommendations, and why is the new Prime Minister not introducing one? During a cost of living crisis, workers should not be sacked; they should be made more secure, because people should have confidence that a wage will come in so that they can at least partially pay their energy bills and other bills. We will see what happens on Thursday with the cost of living crisis and energy bills, but I suspect that the responsibility for paying energy bill debt will be passed from the Government to the consumer, which is certainly not something that we support.

I agree with the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who said that there are inconsistencies in devolution. Nobody ever said that devolution was perfect; it was never going to be perfect. Asymmetric devolution is, by its very nature, imperfect, but we have to find mechanisms to run through some of those issues. Devolution has always been a journey, as the hon. Gentleman himself admitted in mentioning Calman, Smith and others, and it will continue to be a journey, particularly for those who are committed to devolution—I am not sure that many in this Chamber are committed to it, with the exception perhaps of myself.

[David Linden]

And your colleague.

[Ian Murray]

Maybe. Well, I am not so sure if the Minister is—maybe she will tell us.

I do not want to get into the issue of bin strikes and so on—the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) mentioned the strikes—but they go to the heart of something that is infecting our politics at the moment. Our refuse collectors worked all through covid and did a marvellous job, but decided—quite rightly—to strike on the basis that they had been offered a 2% pay rise. People need fair pay rises, particularly the lowest paid. In all our councils across Scotland—it might be the same across England—we have probably the lowest-paid public sector workers out there. They are striking on the basis of pay rates.

We then had an unholy argument in Scotland about who was responsible for the strikes. Then, a few weeks later—one might reflect on adding one and one and getting maybe four, five or two—the First Minister put a funded deal on the table and the strikes were lifted. How can that not be the responsibility of the Scottish Government rather than of the Labour party in Edinburgh? That is beyond my comprehension. That is the kind of debate that we have had, rather than a sensible debate about whether employment law should be devolved to Scotland.

I know that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) has been back a while, but I have not had the opportunity to welcome her back. I wish her well in her continued recovery. Her speech showed that less is more, because she hit the nail on the head with regard to what we should be doing in employment law and getting it away from the Tories. My contention is that the best way to get it away from the Tories is to vote for a UK Labour Government, because it would be better to have a Labour Minister sitting on that side of the Chamber and putting forward Labour policies for workers’ rights.

Can I directly address the hon. Member for Glasgow East? I may misquote him here, but he said that the Scottish Labour party will have to explain why they oppose the devolution of employment law. We do not. The Scottish Labour party’s policy is to devolve employment law. I am not sure if the hon. Member for East Lothian was on the Smith Commission or whether it was his former colleague John Swinney, however, the reason employment law was not devolved was because the UK trade unions did not want that. They were concerned about devolving it without thinking through—

[David Linden]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Ian Murray]

If the hon. Member will let me finish the point. This is the fact of the Smith Commission. They did not think through the consequences of cross-border employment and cross-border companies and whether it would make at that particular time a much more difficult framework to operate on.

[David Linden]

Can I confirm on the record that the manifesto from the British Labour party for the next general election will have a clear, cast-iron commitment to devolve employment law to the Scottish Parliament?

[Ian Murray]

It will have a clear commitment to implement what we are currently doing in terms of the Labour party’s commission. I am not going to discuss what is in the commission in a Westminster Hall debate because it is being finalised and will be launched in the early part of November. However, the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed with some of the outcomes of that detailed work.

The commission is not about Scotland as such; it is about all the nations and regions that come under the umbrella of the UK. I know the hon. Gentleman does not believe in the UK, but we do and some of that is in there on devolution. That is the reason the Scottish Labour party, of which I am a member, is entitled to have a different set of policy perspectives from the UK party on a whole host of issues. Gordon Brown’s commission, which will be launched in November, will do some of that.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. His history is a wee bit wobbly. I gently say to him that not all the UK trade unions were opposed to the devolution of employment law, Unite being one of them. If I remember the exchanges I had with them during that debate, the hon. Gentleman was quoting the Trades Union Congress and not necessarily all the UK trade unions.

[Ian Murray]

I cannot recall who was and who was not, but the conversations that went on through the conduit of the TUC, which was responsible for taking those conversations forward, had come to the conclusion by speaking to their members that the UK trade unions would not want to devolve. Those positions may have moved since; in fact, I think the GMB’s position has moved since, which is hardly unsurprising given the state we have.

I am sorry the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) is not here after that rather difficult and strange intervention. In the time that I was the shadow Minister responsible for employment law, I sat across from the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Jo Swinson, who was a predecessor, successor and then predecessor again to the Scottish National party in East Dunbartonshire. She was the Minister at the time and took that Bill through the House of Commons, which not only did a whole host of anti-trade union things but extended the qualifying period for employment rights from one to two years. The Liberal Democrats are not sitting on the fence; they are quite clearly on the other side and trying desperately to climb back across the right side. I am disappointed that the hon. Lady came out with that because it undermines her arguments about what she needs to do.

I conclude with a canter through the question of what the Labour party would do. Our deputy leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), launched our fair work policies at conference last year for a new deal for working people. Launching that, she said it was an attempt to make Britain the best place in the world to work. I think it is an attempt to do that. We did not develop those policies in a vacuum of ideology, which is essentially what the previous Government have operated on—I hope the new Government will be slightly better—but by working with our trade union colleagues and employers, and working together to come up with something that can be implemented for the benefit of the economy and workers.

We would strengthen workers’ rights from day one. We would take away that two-year qualifying period and take it down to day one. That is the right thing to do and it gives people security. It cannot be right to be able to sack someone without a reason at one year and 364 days. In fact, the argument I have always made on that is that if we wait until one year and 364 days to find out if someone is good enough, the manager should be sacked for not doing their job properly. They could find out much earlier in the process if someone is good enough for the job they have been employed to do.

We would ban fire and rehire; that is a fairly straightforward thing to do, which would protect workers in this country and create good businesses. I went on holiday by ferry this year, but I just could not travel on P&O; I used another ferry company. When I saw that big P&O sign as I approached Dover, I just felt disgusted that a firm would do what P&O did to its employees at a time when they require their jobs and their wages more than at any time in the past.

Banning fire and rehire would also make work more family-friendly by helping to balance home, community and family life. We have done that before, through the maternity and paternity pay brought in during the last Labour Government. We would extend statutory maternity and paternity pay now that we are out of the European Union. Shared parental leave is a big issue. In fact, I agree with the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) regarding the uptake of shared parental leave, but I do not think it is a legal thing. I think it is a cultural thing and also about equal pay, because all the analysis shows that there is such a low uptake of shared parental leave because it is still the father who is the main or highest earner in a family, and sharing parental leave may be a cultural thing in terms of employers and employees asking for it. Those are some of the cultural barriers that we have to break down.

We would ban zero-hours contracts. All workers have the right to regular contracts and predictable hours, reasonable notice of changes in shifts, and wages paid in full for cancelled shifts. We would strengthen trade union rights, raising pay and conditions, and—crucially—we would use fair pay agreements to drive up the pay and conditions of all workers.

I did not want to be political in this debate, but some of my colleagues from the Scottish National party could not resist being political earlier, so I cannot resist now. One of the key things that a Government can use to drive up standards is procurement, and one of the biggest levers that the Scottish Government could pull, given the powers of the Scottish Parliament, is procurement, using it to drive up standards.

However, we have just seen £700 million of licences for ScotWind being issued to companies with no procurement specifications on wages, local employment, apprenticeships and all those kinds of workers’ rights. So, yes, devolving these matters might be the right thing to do, but my challenge to the SNP is not about the principle of devolution but to tell us what it would with it.

[David Linden]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman missed the point made in a number of our speeches when we talked precisely about the Scottish Government’s business pledge, which has baked within it various levers regarding how we use procurement. Which parts of the Scottish business pledge does he object to that the Scottish Government have already got in place?

[Ian Murray]

The main thing that I object to about the Scottish Government’s pledges and strategies and documents is that they tend to be launched with huge fanfare, including big front pages in the newspapers and pictures of the First Minister plastered all over the television, and then those pledges and documents go on to some shelf somewhere and sit there until they are relaunched again, about one or two years later. The proof is always in the pudding, but I am not sure that the Scottish Government even attempt to make the pudding; they just bring the recipe out now and again. That is my biggest criticism, because it happens on climate, on procurement and in other areas. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to answer the question directly, that is my objection.

There is no objection from Labour to the principle of the devolution of employment law. However, there are lots of issues to work through regarding what it would be like in practice. I want to hear what the Minister has to say about the employment practices of this country, her objection to the Taylor review and bringing its recommendations forward in a piece of legislation, and what the Government—the new Government—will do. Who knows? The Minister might be in the new Government. I see she has her phone on the table; perhaps it will ring shortly and she will have to excuse herself to run away and take a call.

Whatever the Minister’s answer to such a call is, the Government really have to look at what is happening now in the country—with the low growth, high inflation, high tax and stagnation that we have—and find a way to break out of that real problem in the economy. The best way to do that is to have a highly skilled, highly productive, highly stable workforce with career progression. Otherwise, we will end up in 20 years’ time still having the same arguments about why we have a problem in this country with productivity and why we also have a problem in this country with low pay and insecure work.

Crown Post Offices: Franchising

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing this debate. I will be brief because she has said everything that all of us in the Chamber would echo about the problems we have with this proposal.

I draw hon. Members’ attention to the Conservative manifesto back in 2010, which said that it would make the post office the front office of Government services. How hollow has that manifesto promise proved? In fact, we could be here all day picking holes in what the Conservative manifesto promised and what the Government have since delivered. To put that into context, we consistently have debates in this Chamber about the dilution of our post office services locally, whether Crown post offices, franchises or the postmasters and postmistresses who run our post offices, because it is not the front office of Government at all.

In 2011, £172 million of Government services went through our post offices. That fell to £168 million in 2012 and was down to £141 million by 2015. In 2017 it was down to £114 million and it dipped below the £100 million mark in the Post Office annual accounts in 2018, at £99 million. That is not the front office of Government; it is the Government withdrawing services from the very thing they are supposed to be protecting on behalf of our constituents.

We can add to that the history of the project. The Royal Mail and post offices were split off under the Postal Services Act 2011. The Royal Mail was subsequently privatised. The Government said they would look after the post office network, but we have seen that post office network withering on the vine since the Royal Mail and post offices were split up under that piece of legislation. Indeed, if we look at the share price of Royal Mail today—it is just over £2.50—we see that the Royal Mail may be in a bit of financial trouble. It is hardly a success for the taxpayers of this country or for the Royal Mail.

Franchising is difficult not just because successful franchising operations end up in WHSmith. We have heard of the problems with that. I draw hon. Members’ attention to the Consumer Futures report done in 2012, away back at the start of this process, which said how disastrous franchising into retailers such as WHSmith would be. That has proved to be correct. The Government at that time, when I was the shadow postal services Minister, said that the Consumer Futures report was built on incorrect data, but it has since proved to be absolutely correct when we look at the practice of franchising Royal Mail services.

The Morningside Crown post office in my constituency was a profitable branch at the top of Morningside Road. I can tell hon. Members how popular it was in terms of footfall, because that is where we do our street stalls in south Edinburgh. On a Saturday morning, there is no better place to be than outside the post office, with a stream of people going in and out, looking to engage with their Member of Parliament on various issues. That Crown post office came up for franchising, and the interesting thing about its franchise potential was that no other shop in the local area wished to take the franchised post office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan mentioned, when asked about its plan B if a franchisee does not come forward or if no franchisees satisfy the criteria for running a Crown post office, the Post Office does not have one; it has no idea.

I remember when we had a public meeting in Alloa with Gordon Banks, the former MP for Ochil and South Perthshire, when Crown post offices there were threatened with closure. Someone from the audience asked Post Office Ltd what would happen when either the franchisee failed or if no franchisee came forward, and the answer was that the Post Office itself would have to invest in the Crown post office. Perhaps we should invest in post offices before they are up for closure or franchising.

I have to pay tribute to Ibrahim Joulak, the sub-postmaster who runs the Bruntsfield post office in my constituency. He will take on the Crown post office by merging his small sub-postmaster’s post office and the Crown post office. However, franchised Crown post offices do not have all the services that we expect from the major Crown post offices, further diminishing our constituents’ use of the post office, which is a vicious circle for post offices that want to be self-sustaining.

Footfall is key if we want to revive our high streets. The best thing to drive footfall is services that people wish to use, and my constituency postbag certainly shows me that people wish to use local post offices. That drives the local café and the local newsagent, and people moving around our local communities drives the viability of public transport services. We need these linchpins in our local communities.

The most interesting and ironic thing I have seen on the franchising arrangements in my area is that four major high street banks have also closed their branches, and the letter they send to account holders says, “Don’t worry, you can use your local post office.” Well, they can do so only if their local post office exists. It is the very same problem with the free bus pass in many parts of Scotland. Of course pensioners can travel anywhere they like in Scotland with a concessionary travelcard, but they have to be able to get on a bus.

[Jamie Stone]

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s commitment. As high street banks continue to close branches, could we not turn the whole argument on its head, keep Crown post offices open and offer the banks a one-stop shop in these wonderful old premises that have been there for hundreds of years, thereby giving an additional service to post office customers?

[Ian Murray]

That is a great intervention. I keep asking the chief executives of the Royal Bank of Scotland and other high street banks why they do not co-host with post offices, bringing together two business models that are struggling because of the way that we use modern communications and modern banking. The technology must be available. If I can do all my banking on my smartphone, surely the high street banks are able to co-locate with post offices and provide that for our constituents.

Finally, the reason why staff tend not to be TUPE-ed across when there is a franchisee partner is that franchisee partners simply do not want them because they do not want the cost. The reason they do not want the cost is that they want fewer staff. The reason they want fewer staff is that they think the service cannot possibly be efficient and effective unless there are fewer experienced staff, so staff tend to take the quite generous redundancy packages from the Post Office. That experience is then lost and there is a brain drain from the service, and again there is a vicious circle of the service becoming less efficient and less able to meet the needs of the local communities.

It is right for the Minister to come here again. I hope we are not having this same debate about franchising and the closure of post offices again next year and the year after and the year after that. The Minister is new in her role, but I hope she eventually grabs the nettle of the post office network, pauses the franchising process, looks at what the Post Office can do on its profitability and then invests those profits back into the current network, so that we can all have post offices in our communities that are sustainable for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing this important debate. Although I am one of only a few Tories in the room, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I recognise their passion as well as the importance that post offices represent to MPs.

As a constituency MP, I understand the valuable role of the post office for me and for my constituents. Post offices play a vital role at the heart of our communities and are an essential part of our villages, towns and cities, so the future direction of the Post Office is important not only to the Government, but to all our constituencies.

The festive season has just passed, when the dedication of Post Office staff across the country was shown. They come out in force to help our constituents and deliver the parcels and letters destined for our loved ones. I thank the Post Office and Royal Mail staff for the efforts they have put in over recent months. It is estimated that more than 60 million customers visited post office branches in the run-up to Christmas, and I want to mention one small rural post office in Herefordshire that opened its doors this year to host Christmas dinner for those who would otherwise have been alone. That highlights the social value of post offices, not only within our high streets, but beyond.

To repeat what I indicated in November’s debate on post office franchising, this Government value and recognise the economic and social importance of post offices to people, communities and businesses across the UK. That is why we made a commitment in our manifesto to safeguard the post office network and support the provision of rural services.

[Ian Murray]

On the manifesto commitment to protect post offices, is it still Conservative party policy to make the post office the front office of Government?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

What is definitely Government policy is to make sure that we have a network of post offices that offer a wide range of services to our constituents, and that that is sustainable into the future. Franchising is not a closure programme. It is a way to secure better sustainability for the future of our post offices, and it is a good thing that Post Office is working with high street retailers to recognise that.

The performance of the Post Office over the past decade shows that the network is at its most stable in a generation. Between 2010 and 2018 we provided nearly £2 billion to maintain and invest in the national network of at least 11,500 post offices.

Draft Accounts and Reports (Amendment) (EU Exit) REgulations 2018

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Accounts and Reports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Since the UK’s 2016 referendum decision to leave the EU, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has undertaken a significant amount of work on the withdrawal negotiations, preparing for a range of potential outcomes. We have been working, and must continue to work, to prepare for a no deal scenario.

The regulations aim to address failures of retained EU law to operate effectively, as well as other deficiencies arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, in the field of accounts and reports of UK corporate bodies. The law in the UK on the preparation and filing of accounts and reports for corporate bodies is compliant with the EU accounting directive. There is also a directly applicable EU regulation that relates to the preparation of accounts in accordance with international accounting standards—the so-called IAS regulation. Both the accounting directive and the IAS regulation apply throughout the European economic area. The Department intends to introduce a separate statutory instrument that will address how we intend to deal with the deficiencies presented by the IAS regulation after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

The fundamental elements of the current companies’ accounts and reports legislation will remain the same after exit. However, that legislation still needs to be amended to ensure that it works effectively once the UK has left the EU. An important component of the accounting directive, and therefore the UK’s company law, relates to reciprocal arrangements for company group structures—for example, exemptions permitted to businesses from producing consolidated accounts if the parent is registered anywhere in the EEA and is producing consolidated accounts that are compliant with EU law. In the absence of a negotiated agreement regarding the economic relationship between the UK and the EU, it would be inappropriate to continue with preferential treatment for EEA entities, or UK entities with EEA parents.

The statutory instrument will mean that businesses registered in EEA states will be treated in the same way as those from third countries. UK businesses with EEA parents will therefore no longer benefit from the exemption from having to produce consolidated accounts because their EEA parent company produces consolidated accounts. However, UK businesses with parent entities registered in the UK will not be affected by the changes.

The regulations do not create new criminal offences. However, the scope of the pre-existing criminal offences will be extended, in that some companies that previously benefited from an exemption will no longer do so. They will be exposed to the possibility of committing a criminal offence in a way that they were not before. Also, some businesses with links to the EEA will now fall within the scope of existing criminal offences in the UK for failure to file accounts and reports. For example, dormant companies with parent entities listed in the EEA will no longer be exempt from preparing and filing accounts with Companies House. Failure to do so would mean that they would be committing an offence, and they would be liable to incur fines and penalties. That is consistent with the approach for similar companies with parents outside the EEA.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell the Committee whether she anticipates, or has anticipated, more parent companies moving to the EEA from the UK as a result of the UK leaving the European Union?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I do not have any indication of the number of companies that have stated that they would leave the UK after EU exit.

The accounting directive sets out the requirements for businesses to report payments to Governments worldwide relating to the extraction of natural resources by way of logging and mining. Alongside that, it provides a power for the Commission to grant equivalence to third countries for their systems of reporting payments to Governments regarding logging and mining activities. This statutory instrument transfers that power to the Secretary of State.

The Government have carried out a de minimis impact assessment of the regulations, because the overall costs to business were expected to be small. That confirmed that the impact on business would be minimal and that the resulting costs would be in relation to the company’s size. There is a small chance that certain second-order impacts may arise from changes to one of the exemptions. Currently, the ability to switch between accountancy frameworks—the requirements for the preparation of companies’ annual accounts—is limited to once every five years, unless the company de-lists from any regulated market in the EEA. The change made by this statutory instrument will mean that a company can only satisfy that condition by de-listing from the UK market.

Although we think the amendment is a minor one, it may provide an incentive for companies to de-list from the UK markets. Companies list their securities on capital markets primarily to access a larger capital and investor base—for example, because they are considering growing their businesses. They do not take de-listing decisions lightly. Given the scale of the changes introduced by this statutory instrument, it is very unlikely that they would do so to try to circumvent the reporting requirements.

The Government have worked closely with business and regulatory bodies to ensure that regulations achieve continuity wherever possible, while addressing the deficiencies arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. My officials have benefited from the wisdom of our many stakeholders, and the statutory instrument incorporates their views. In the event that the UK leaves the EU without an agreement, the regulations will be critical in ensuring that UK accounting law continues to provide transparency and certainty to investors. The regulations will also ensure that companies operating in the UK have clear guidance for preparing and filing their accounts. I commend the regulations to the Committee, and I ask the Committee to support and accept them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central for his usual thorough reading of the statutory instrument and preparation for the debate. I want to finish by reminding the Committee that the SI is being brought forward for a no deal scenario. As a Government, we are still working towards a deal, and that is what we hope we will have as we leave the European Union.

[Ian Murray]

I would hate to get into a debate about Brexit, because I am sure you would call me out of order, Mr Davies, but would it not be much better for the Government to rule out a no deal scenario? We could then spend most of our time in the House dealing with what we need to deal with, rather than preparing for no deal.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Actually, I think it is quite right that as a Government we are preparing for no deal, and we will continue to do so. That is why I am here presenting a statutory instrument—so that in the event of no deal we will be able to give business confidence and clarity on what the outcome will be, whether it is liked or not, in a no deal scenario.

I will try to answer some of the questions that the hon. Member for Sefton Central posed about the statutory instrument. He asked about the total number of companies that might be affected. There are approximately 3.8 million active companies on the UK register as it stands, and 98.5% of them happen to be micro or small businesses. There are approximately 35,000 medium-sized businesses and 20,000 large entities on the register. We have assessed that fewer than 20,000 companies will be affected by the statutory instrument, with a range of sizes and set-ups.

I was asked what assessment we have made of de-listing. As I have outlined, we did not carry out a full assessment, because we established from the data we have that the burden and cost to business will be below £5 million. The burden on business will relate to the potential costs of having to file accounts and make preparations, where they had been exempt. Obviously, that is a small cost to a limited number of organisations.

Obviously the de-listing is very difficult to assess. It is very difficult to assess how many companies would take the decision to leave the UK based in a no deal scenario. As I have said, as a Minister I have not been made aware of any companies that have registered an interest in leaving the UK, based on the changes that we are considering. We estimate that the number of organisations that might decide to de-list would be very small, but it is a very difficult number to assess.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, because I have just outlined it, we are talking about approximately 20,000 businesses that would be affected, out of the current 3.8 million businesses that are registered in the UK. That is a small number of businesses in relation to the total number of registered companies. However, we are talking about the cost, and the burden will relate to the potential extra costs in relation to accounting and reporting.

We must remember that, as Members will have read and as I have mentioned, dormant companies for example have been exempt. They will no longer be exempt, so there will be a cost to that under the regulations in a no deal situation.

[Ian Murray]

To follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, there is an impact assessment that says that the cost to business is negligible, but will the Minister’s Department be producing an impact assessment of the cumulative cost to business of all the SIs that are going through in preparation for a no-deal Brexit, and when will we see it?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are assessing the impact as a Department in all ways, and we are doing that informally. We do it through working with stakeholders. These SIs are not just dreamed up. As I said in response to an earlier question, we have consulted our officials and worked with stakeholders. We have spoken to auditors and accountants—the people who will be responsible for imparting this information to the companies they work for and for understanding the true cost to business—so we are always assessing the impact of everything we do. Especially as a business Minister, one of my priorities is to make sure that when we do things around business, we reduce the burden when we can. The actual answer is that we need to prepare for scenarios, and in doing this we are aware of the potential outcomes and risks, which would affect 20,000 businesses.

[Ian Murray]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Once more on this.

[Ian Murray]

The Minister is being incredibly generous, and I am grateful to the Chair for indulging me on this point, but it is incredibly important. The Minister quite rightly says that the Government have not just dreamed these SIs up. Of course they have not, because there is a process that has to be run through if the Government decide that they wish to go down the route of a no deal Brexit. What is the cumulative effect on business of all the SIs that are currently before her Department? They have not been dreamed up, but they are there, they are measurable, and they can be added together to show the impact of the SIs that are currently on the table and their cost to business.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I will try again to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. There is no policy change in this SI: it is correcting deficiencies in the retained EU law. If he is asking about the impact of no deal, I refer him to the work that has already been done by Government on the impact of a no deal scenario versus a deal scenario, rather than these individual statutory instruments. As he will know, there are a number of statutory instruments across all Departments that may well affect businesses in different ways, which do not come under my responsibilities as a junior Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I give way.

[Ian Murray]

It is called scrutiny.

[Bill Esterson]

I think my hon. Friend has anticipated my question. Will the Minister explain what the scrutiny process will be for the Secretary of State’s decision making in the event of no deal?

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the original provisions in the Bill give Ofgem very broad powers, from the date on which the Bill receives Royal Assent, to implement the cap and then to review it as often as Ofgem feels is necessary. When the cap is operating, it can be reviewed many times. We have instructed Ofgem to conduct a review when the cap ends to ensure that the groups of customers identified can be helped. My understanding is that there is nothing in Ofgem’s existing powers that will prohibit it from doing the same thing in future. The regulator was in the past given extremely broad powers under the gas and electricity Acts, and it would be within its discretion to carry out such reviews. However, across all parties we felt it was important to put on the face of this Bill, which is the first piece of legislation to introduce these sorts of tariff caps and to empower further the regulator to use its powers, the requirement to carry out the initial review.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

On the same theme, what powers does the regulator currently have to ensure that energy companies are not artificially inflating prices ahead of the Bill coming into force?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the regrettable series of price increases that we have seen from all the major, big six energy companies. Prices will of course go up because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the wholesale price of gas in particular doubled—I believe; I will make sure the record is correct—in the last six months. The regulator can always define price rises as excessive, but the point of this very welcome cap is that those who are particularly vulnerable and who are on standard variable and default tariffs—often people who are elderly, perhaps less well-educated and furthest from the digital market, in which we all compete to switch—will be protected without having to switch. Indeed, the work that Ofgem is currently undertaking to ensure that the cap is set at a fair level will be vital to making sure that those protections come forward.

Amendment (a) will ensure that the legacy of the Bill, of which we should be extremely proud, is not undone by a return to business as usual by those suppliers that have thought up or carry out additional practices, such as tease and squeeze. I thank Members of this House, including Members from the Opposition Front-Bench team, for helping to create the amendment, which we believe is the most appropriate response to the concerns raised by members in this House and in the other place. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) nodding during my speech. Along with the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and others, he has been vital in driving this issue up to the top of the Government’s agenda and making sure that we get the Bill and this amendment right. I offer huge thanks to my hon. Friend and the others who have been involved.

Rolls-Royce Redundancies

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

As I said to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), Warren East has been clear that the proposals that have been made today have nothing to do with any Brexit discussions; they are about the efficiency of the operation. When we talk to those in the aerospace sector, as I do, we find that Rolls-Royce is prominent among them in emphasising the absolute importance of ensuring our ability to export free of tariffs and with a minimum of frictions, and that that is fundamental to the sector’s ability to be as prosperous in the future as it has been to date.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The aerospace industry is one of the jewels in the British industrial crown, so will the Secretary of State tell the House what reassurances he has given the industry with regard to Britain’s exit from the European Union?

[Greg Clark]

I have extensive consultations with all players in the industry. I listen to them, and make clear in our discussions in government and in our negotiations that what they require in precision terms to be able to operate the efficient system that they do at the moment must continue. As the hon. Gentleman says, this is a jewel in the crown of British industry. It is an industry where demand is expanding around the world. We have a wonderful opportunity to continue that success, and it is vital that we should be able to continue to trade with our European partners without any interruption to that.

Draft Scotland Act 2016 (Onshore Petroleum) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2017

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2017 General Committees

[The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Claire Perry)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Scotland Act 2016 (Onshore Petroleum) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2017.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. You and I have heard the term “handbagging” over the years. I apologise for my inadvertent use of the act before our proceedings commenced.

Christmas is coming and it is nice to put on the Santa hat. In opening the debate on the Scotland Act 2016 (Onshore Petroleum) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2017, I hope to deliver something that has been called for by Ministers in the Government north of the border and put in place the powers that will lead to further devolution. This process was recommended by the Smith commission. It was agreed that powers relating to onshore oil and gas licensing, apart from those relating to royalties, would be devolved to Scotland. The Scotland Act 2016 implements the Smith commission agreement by devolving a range of powers to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. The Act transfers legislative competence for onshore petroleum to the Scottish Government, with the exception of matters relating to setting and collecting licence rentals. It also includes provisions for Scottish Ministers to exercise powers currently held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the Oil and Gas Authority in relation to onshore licensing in Scotland.

The consequential amendments before us deliver on a recommendation of the Smith commission agreement by complementing the provisions of the Scotland Act, and assist in giving the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers greater control over their onshore oil and gas resources.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree with me, in the Christmas spirit in which she has commenced her speech, that these regulations, along with the many other regulations that have passed through the House, mean that the Scotland Act 2016 results in delivering the vow that was put together as part of the independence referendum?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fine point, and of course, in the spirit of Christmas coming early, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in the Christmas spirit last week, when he brought forward innovative fiscal measures to support UK oil and gas companies, such as the introduction of a transferable tax history. Let no one say that this Government do not believe in the spirit of Christmas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I would make two points to the hon. Gentleman, who is also a worthy champion of the nuclear industry: the Moorside arrangement is a private commercial matter for Toshiba; and in my view what is happening with Euratom and the EU is not really relevant here.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

3. What steps he has taken to ensure that the UK participates in the Horizon 2020 programme for the duration of that programme.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

The Government have acted quickly to underwrite Horizon 2020 funding that is competitively bid for by UK participants. As we set out in our future partnership paper, “Collaboration on Science and Innovation”, we will seek an agreement on science and innovation that protects us now and in the future, and continues to ensure we deliver these great partnerships.

[Ian Murray]

Edinburgh is blessed with three world-class universities, Napier, Heriot-Watt and Edinburgh, which punch significantly above their weight in being able to gain EU funding for research and development. Will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box to reassure those universities that they will still be able to access research and development funding at European Union level when we leave the EU?

[Joseph Johnson]

As I said, we are working towards an agreement that will ensure our continued success in European science and research collaborations. Scottish institutions do indeed do exceptionally well. They punch well above their weight in winning about 11% of the share of UK participation in Horizon 2020, which is well above their GDP and population share. We want that to continue.

Renewable Energy Generation: Island Communities

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for renewable energy generation in island communities.

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and I am pleased to welcome the Minister to his new role. He is one in a fairly long line of Energy Ministers during my tenure in the House—I am not entirely sure how many I have seen—but he brings with him a reputation for being a diligent and effective Minister, and I wish him well in his time in the Department. It is the convention on these occasions to say how pleased we are to have secured the debate. Although I will keep my tie on, I will break with convention by saying that I am not particularly pleased; I have been around this course for the past 15 years and I am immensely frustrated that debates of this sort are still necessary.

I think it will be helpful for those who might be watching our proceedings from elsewhere to be quite clear not only what the debate is about but what it is not about. It is not about individual projects that may be under consideration; there are a number in my constituency, including in Orkney and with Viking Energy in Shetland. To say that we need a strategy to unlock the potential of renewable energy generation is not to say that any individual project in itself is right or should go ahead, nor is it to be confused with the consultation currently being undertaken by Ofgem on replacing Shetland’s power station with a 278 km, 600 MW high-voltage direct current cable. That is exciting some comment at the moment, but it is a proposal of which I remain to be convinced; having been around this course for many years, I do not regard it as quite so difficult or challenging for that particular project to get a cable on the seabed.

The debate is about how Government and the forces of government can unlock the potential for renewable energy generation that we all know is there within our island communities. A study commissioned jointly by the then Department for Energy and Climate Change and the Scottish Government in 2013—the “Scottish Islands Renewable Project”—estimated that the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland could between them supply up to 5% of Britain’s total electricity demand by 2030. That is a quite significant prize and it is within our grasp. However, it is something that we already know will only happen if we can get everybody working together.

In that connection, I welcome the intervention this morning from Councillor Donald Crichton, chair of the Sustainable Development Committee in the Western Isles Council, calling for cross-party consensus building on this. As he said, the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment at last month’s general election to

“support the development of wind projects in the remote islands of Scotland, where they will directly benefit local communities”

is an important and welcome step. Similarly, I also place on the record my appreciation of the efforts of Lord Dunlop of Helensburgh, who, in his time as a junior Minister in the Scotland Office and before, did a lot to push this particular issue.

That manifesto commitment was welcome, and I am pleased that it has survived the cull of so many other commitments from that unfortunate document. However, we are looking to the Minister for some outline of what the commitment will actually mean in practical terms. If you will forgive me, Sir David, there is quite a history here, and it is important that we remind ourselves of some of it. A lot of the issues that underpin this history come from the fact that Ofgem—for reasons that are understandable in relation to non-renewable technologies—has for some time adhered to a system of locational charging. For renewable projects, far from the centres of populations and the ultimate points of consumption, that does not necessarily make the same sense, so we have looked for different ways around that over the years.

Back in the days of the late Malcolm Wicks, we tried the idea of a cap on transmission charges. That was brought in by him and the then Labour Government, and was then extended by Chris Huhne when he was Secretary of State for Energy, but that in itself did not provide the solution we had hoped for. We then moved on to the new contracts for difference regime, and within that it was suggested that we could have a dedicated islands strike price. Unfortunately, at the point that that was being submitted to the European Commission for state aid approval, it was felt that it could be delayed by the islands element, so it was removed for later submission. It was resubmitted at a later stage and went through the pre-approval application process, which concluded some time around the end of 2015.

In the meantime, we had a general election, and the Conservative Government that came in in 2015 had a manifesto commitment to have a moratorium on onshore wind developments. The point at which the Government decided to go ahead with the CfD auction round that we are currently part of, without any provision for the islands, sticks in my memory for two reasons. First, it was the morning after the American people had elected President Trump, and secondly, I remember very clearly taking the call from the Secretary of State on my mobile phone while I was going through Edinburgh airport. However, a consultation period followed, which should have ended in the early part of this year and to which we I think we still await the Government’s formal response.

I remind the House of that history at this point because it is germane to the debate. Although the commitment in the Conservative party’s manifesto from last month is new, the issue is not—it has been within the machinery of government for some considerable time. Although we hope that that commitment will be given the green light, it is far from the case that the work needs to start from scratch. What is now needed is the degree of political commitment to implement the commitment and to tell us exactly what it means, because time is not in plentiful supply.

If provision for the islands of Scotland is to be included in the next round of CfD auctions, we are looking at something that has to go through the machinery of government and possibly even the state aid consent procedures in order to be in place by the end of next year, so there is a need for some degree of urgency in the approach to this. When the industry hears from the Minister later, it will be looking for a degree of clarity. We are not looking for the blueprint on everything that is meant by the manifesto commitment, but we want to hear some sort of outline or framework through which this can be turned into a reality.

What are we looking at here? Are we revisiting the idea of an islands strike price, or are we looking at something that might, somehow or another, find a mechanism for including onshore island generation with offshore wind? I do not know just how doable that would be, or how workable it would be from the point of view of the industry, but those are some of the ideas that have been floated. Alternatively, does the Department have some new mechanism that is going to be brought forward?

In any event, when in all those processes will the work start in order to obtain state aid approvals? I understand that the Government will proceed on the basis that, regardless of what happens with Brexit, state aid regulation compliance remains a feature of our regulatory landscape for the foreseeable future. Is it the Government’s aspiration that any projects that would be brought forward under this new scheme would be eligible for the next round of CfD auctions? If that is the case, will the Minister at this stage consult within Government to get a commitment that the next auction round will not go ahead unless and until this scheme is in place and island-based projects are able to compete?

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene in the limited time he has. Will he explain to the House whether there is any other route to market for island wind if there is no access to the next round of CfD funding?

[Mr Carmichael]

The answer to that depends on what we mean by “route to market”. There are other ways in which the energy generated can be used, and a lot of innovative work is being done in relation to non-distributing technologies such as the use of hydrogen, but for all intents and purposes, for the projects being considered at the moment across the country, there really is not. Those in the industry will have a view on that, and if they bring forward something we are not currently considering, I think we will all be in the market for hearing it.

Finally and most obviously, we will want to hear in fairly early course exactly what is meant by the expression “community benefit”, which has been around the renewables debate for as long as I can remember and has meant different things to different people in different places at different times. If it is to form part of policy, a clearer definition will be necessary.

Post Office Closures

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing this incredibly important debate. I was the shadow Minister for postal services for most of the last Parliament and was told by many Ministers that this closure programme would be the last, in order to make the Post Office sustainable. It appears that that is not to be the case. I remember the phrase in the Conservative party manifesto of 2010—that dusty tome now on the shelves of political history—that said that the Government would make the Post Office the front office of Government. They have done little to do that, which has led to the situation today, where we have a number of post office and Crown office closures, including the incredibly popular Morningside post office in my constituency.

Having been in this place for seven years, I may be cynical, but I do not see the Morningside post office franchising system as being about franchising—it is about closing the post office. I remember doing a public meeting in Alloa when the first Crown post office franchising policies were going through. The Post Office was pressed on what would happen if a franchisee did not come forward to take on one of those post offices. The answer was, “We would probably have to invest in it.” I would suggest to the Government that they have perhaps got this a little bit round the wrong way. They should be investing in our post offices to make them places on our high streets that people can use, enjoy and access the services they need.

We have a crisis on our shopping streets and high streets. Clearing banks are closing their branches—incidentally, if a clearing bank closes its branch on a local high street, people get a letter to tell them they can use the post office for the services that it will no longer supply. Local shops are in trouble. Pubs are in trouble. The post office is the iconic place on the high street that drives footfall, drives pride in the high street and gives stability to the operations of retail units. As an aside, it is not just the franchising and potential closure of Morningside post office that is not helping in terms of the high streets in my constituency; the rates for some retailers in some of those shopping districts have just gone up by more than 100%. That is surely unacceptable if we want our high streets to thrive.

[Albert Owen]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ian Murray]

I would love to, but we are going to struggle to have enough time to get everyone else in.

I have seen the financial figures for the Morningside Crown post office. It is financially viable for the Post Office to run it, but it is financially unviable for anyone else to go in, given the capital and rental payments required to make it a sustainable business, which makes me suspicious that it is just a vehicle for closing the post office.

It is time to make the post office the front office of Government. The Minister has to abide by that phrase and do something that the previous 2010 to 2015 Government did not, and invest in our Crown post offices.