UK’s Exit from the European Union

Debate between John Nicolson and Peter Dowd

Monday 24th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

Historians will write in amazement about Brexit: the swagger of its proponents, the vanity, the false promises and the lies; the salutary sight of focused Brussels negotiators sitting, well briefed, at the negotiating table opposite a series of hapless, unbriefed Tory Ministers; the laughable suggestion that other EU countries would be so envious of Brexit that they would rush to emulate it; the sage advice of our friends ignored; the Brexit enthusiasts, Trump, Farage and Putin, whose malign presence alone should have served as a warning; the campaign tinged with racism and attacks on foreigners; the misplaced triumphalism; the sheer, vulgar philistinism; and the disdain shown for the people of Scotland—if you are in the European Union, you can leave, but if you are in this Union, your voice does not count.

I was on the BBC’s “Debate Night” programme recently. I was up against a Scottish Tory MSP and a member of the audience asked her what benefits she thought Brexit had brought. Do you know what she said? She said, “None at all”—full marks for honesty. However, the Scottish Tory press office went into meltdown, of course, and I am not sure that she has been since.

We all know the truth about Brexit, but we do not expect for a moment that the Tory UK Government will do as today’s petitioners demand. The embarrassment would be too much even for this apparently unembarrassable Administration. And what of my Labour friends? Alas, they are leaderless and sinking on Europe; they are now a party tethered to the anchor of a failing Brexit. There are honourable exceptions; I am talking about the party leadership.

I know that Brexit leaders have not suffered. Some were rewarded with seats for life in the Lords as unelected legislators. We know that many of them, having searched family histories or exploited the generosity of the Irish Government for passports, can skip past fellow Britons who are queuing for many hours at EU borders.

However, what of our constituents who suffer from Brexit? My constituency, Ochil and South Perthshire, straddles rural and urban areas. Brexit, which was rejected emphatically by the Scottish electorate, has impacted every single part of it. Young people have lost access to the incredible Erasmus scheme. Previously, medical students and young social workers could go on a long work placement in Germany and bring their experience back. Students from all backgrounds could spend a year in France or Spain or Romania, to improve their language skills and widen their horizons.

The replacement for Erasmus is the so-called “Turing scheme”—poor Alan Turing; how sad that his name should be associated with it. It promised worldwide advantages, but not for my constituent who travelled to Singapore via the Turing scheme. Once he was there, he was told that there was no money left in the pot to fund his continued stay. He was offered no alternatives or assistance—typical, bungling Brexit chaos. My amazing office team had to work with him to find all sorts of odd and unexpected allowances, bursaries and funds that would plug the gap.

I have the oldest distillery in the country, Glenturret, in my constituency. The boss told me last week that pre-Brexit they delivered, without impediment, all across Europe, sharing lorries with other companies for cost and environmental reasons. Now, if any other firm on the shared transport has made the slightest paperwork mistake, all their goods collectively are sent back with export and other duties. One consignment was sent back twice, the first time because the whisky was labelled “From Scotland” and the second time because it was labelled “From Britain”. The rules that we have negotiated mean that neither name is recognised. “Global Britain” is ironic, eh?.

According to the distillery boss, now it sometimes takes longer to get whisky to Paris than to Japan. That is not because it is becoming quicker to get to Japan; getting to Paris has simply become a nightmare. Glenturret has now had to design new labels for every single market within the EU—seven different labels, with all the added cost of switching a machine and switching the labels. It has had to abandon smaller markets in the Baltic states and elsewhere—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division. We will be back in 15 minutes. Is that okay?

[John Nicolson]

Curses.

Offshore Wind Farms: Unexploded Ordnance

Debate between John Nicolson and Peter Dowd

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the disposal of unexploded ordnance for offshore windfarm construction.

I express my appreciation to the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and the hon. Members for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for supporting my application for the debate. All of us welcome the extraordinary potential of our wind and wave power. As we seek to meet our climate obligations, we have a God-given asset off our shores. I think it was the Prime Minister who called Scotland the Saudi Arabia of renewables.

To the casual observer, the bonanza ahead may seem low-cost and environmentally unimpeachable. If only that were so. Alas, the 20th century’s brutal European conflicts littered our once pristine seabed with a legacy: 100,000 unexploded 20th-century bombs—a monstrous monument to brutality,

“for there is no folly of the beast of the earth which is not infinitely outdone by the madness of men”,

as Herman Melville tells us in “Moby-Dick”.

The great offshore wind turbines are anchored to the seabed, and the bombs—an estimated 100,000 of them—pose a mortal danger. What should we do with them? How do we make safe these aquatic minefields? Hitherto, we have got rid of these munitions in the crudest way possible, by blowing them up, using high-order disposal, as it is called, with a counter-explosive detonating the munition so that it can be safely moved—safe for humans, perhaps, but devastating for marine life. Due to the greater penetration of sound underwater, the explosion aftershock can travel up to 25 km. To give an idea of scale, that is roughly half the distance of the channel tunnel. Imagine the noise.

These explosions will kill any sea life nearby. If they do not die instantly, the pressure wave causes traumatic harm, such as lesions, haemorrhages and decompression sickness. Marine biologists tell us that, even if they survive the initial blasts, these can deafen aquatic mammals such as whales, porpoises and dolphins. Without hearing, they cannot communicate or navigate, leading to mass stranding. One recent example of mass stranding occurred when 39 long-finned pilot whales were stuck in the Kyle of Durness. A UK Government Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report concluded that the only external event with the potential to cause such a mass stranding was a munitions disposal operation. Nineteen of the stranded whales died. Last year, autopsies showed that scores of porpoises were deafened as a result of explosions used to clear second world war German mines in the Baltic sea. All died subsequently.

Do we have to choose between green power and mammal safety? Fortunately not. A new method of munitions disposals is available. I have seen it work. It is known as low-order deflagration, and it is a breakthrough. The technique was invented in the early 2000s and is used by the US military and 15 other countries’ navies worldwide, including our own Royal Navy, which has used it since 2005. The National Physical Laboratory has said that the new method

“shows considerable promise for noise abatement”

in bomb disposal.

In layman’s terms, this alternative system makes the bombs safe without blowing them up. It allows a small charge to penetrate the bomb casing without detonating it. That causes the explosives to burn out, and the device becomes safe. This system significantly lowers emissions and noise, thus reducing dramatically the danger to wildlife and the local environment. Scientists calculate that for some of the larger munitions, low-order deflagration could be several hundred times quieter.

Therefore, we understand the problem, and luckily the solution is straightforward. In answer to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), the Government assured her that were Ministers to become aware of evidence concerning harm caused to marine life by the disposal of munitions, they would act, and Ministers have now included a request for developers voluntarily to use deflagration

“as an initial method of mitigation”.

Saying please is nice. However, as we well know, it does not always work. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Marine Management Organisation must update their current licensing regime to ensure that deflagration is the only option for munition disposal. After all, if the Royal Navy uses this method, why should not businesses do so as well? The Secretary of State must set out a realistic timeline for this requirement, so that businesses are able to adjust. No one wants to see renewable energy construction delayed any longer than is absolutely necessary, but none of us wants to see a bloodbath on our ocean floors.

This is one of those times when party politics can be set aside and evidence-based policy can be enacted with all-party agreement. The Minister’s team asked me yesterday to outline my arguments for today, to help them to prepare a response. I was happy to do so; I doubt that there will be much disagreement between us. But I will ask something in return. I ask the Minister to take ownership of these issues and regulate as soon as possible. Perhaps we could work together and invite Labour colleagues, too.

In closing, let me thank Joanna Lumley, who brought this issue to my attention. I was delighted to accept her invitation to become involved—indeed, who could resist?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I intend to give Back-Bench Members an indicative time—four minutes, please.