Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)

Debate between Kevin Foster and Julian Knight

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). I want to reflect his comments about the necessity of this statutory instrument, based on whether we have a no-deal outcome. This is effectively a no-deal prep piece of legislation. He is right that we want to avoid no deal. That is the preferred outcome of virtually no one in this House. Some hon. Members might be prepared to accept it if necessary. We cannot go into a negotiation saying, “I’m going to stay here until you finally force me to accept something.” That will never be a successful strategy.

There is an easy way for no deal to come off the table: to agree a withdrawal agreement. One of the ironies of last night’s debate is that there are only two outcomes that we could have without the withdrawal agreement, and the European Union has made its views clear. The first is no deal, and the second is no Brexit—the revocation of article 50. To be fair to Scottish National party Members, with whom I often exchange opinions across the Chamber, their view is that they will not vote for the withdrawal agreement because they would prefer to go for one of the options that does not require a withdrawal agreement—in other words, the revocation of article 50. It is therefore slightly strange to get a lecture from people saying that the deal will never go through but who last night voted predominantly for two options that are based on the withdrawal agreement going through as the divorce from the EU. They are arguing about what the future relationship should be, but the withdrawal agreement is the gateway to the future relationship.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There is bemusement in Brussels about why we are dealing with something that is downstream—the political declaration—rather than the withdrawal agreement itself. As he said, it is either no Brexit or the withdrawal agreement. Take your pick.

[Kevin Foster]

Absolutely. Members who do not want no deal and keep coming to the Chamber and telling us, “No to no deal”—a great soundbite, but not a solution—need the withdrawal agreement to go through, unless they are prepared to stand up and say, “I would revoke article 50.” That is not the position that I will take, because I do not think it is right—the referendum settled that matter—and I am sure it is not my hon. Friend’s position. We therefore need to look at how we get the withdrawal agreement through.

I very much welcome the constructive approach to looking for compromise taken by the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). Sadly, their amendment was not selected, but hopefully it will be incorporated into the Government Bill. I note the Prime Minister’s comments on that. That would ensure parliamentary scrutiny, and it would ensure that Parliament is not unhappy with what comes out in the future relationship. [Interruption.] I see that you want me to relate my comments to this statutory instrument, Madam Deputy Speaker. Putting the withdrawal agreement in place would mean that we would not have to enact this type of statutory instrument. This is a no-deal—in other words, a no-divorce-deal—statutory instrument, not just a no-future-relationship statutory instrument.

[Julian Knight]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kevin Foster]

I will give way briefly, but I am conscious of time.

[Julian Knight]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. He is always conscious of the clock.

Does my hon. Friend agree that paragraph 2.4 of the explanatory memorandum emphasises how disadvantaged we could be by a no-deal Brexit in terms of consumer rights? It says:

“if we did not revoke the Geo-Blocking Regulation, UK traders would continue to have obligations to EU customers under the Regulation while UK customers are unlikely to receive any of its benefits.”

That seems like an absolutely ridiculous position to be in.

[Kevin Foster]

I have always been clear that 63% of my constituents voted for us to leave in the referendum, and ultimately we have to have no deal as a fall-back if all else fails. If Opposition Members are desperate to avoid that situation—if that is their absolute priority—they had an opportunity to do that on Friday, and I hope they will get another one in the near future. That is not ideal; having a transition period during which businesses can adapt is the right way forward.

If we do not pass something like this statutory instrument, we will end up in the rather unenviable position in which UK businesses will be required to follow a piece of legislation, yet businesses in the other 27 member states of the EU are not. In effect, they could have rules blocking access to their websites and portals based on the fact that we would no longer be part of the EU. Meanwhile, our law would say that—

[Julian Knight]

rose—

[Kevin Foster]

If my hon. Friend just gives me a moment, I will finish responding to his previous intervention before I take another one. We would still have to keep that access, and that is why we need to look at revocation of these measures. I will briefly take my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I am conscious that I need to move on to the main body of my argument in a minute.

[Julian Knight]

I thank my hon. Friend again for giving way. Does this not also emphasise the fact that there are also downstream consequences? I am not talking just about the one that I emphasised from paragraph 2.4 of the explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 2.3 also states:

“UK civil and commercial judgments would no longer be automatically enforced in EU member”

states. Does my hon. Friend agree that would have downstream consequences for the premier position of UK legal services as well?

[Kevin Foster]

I am conscious that I could probably expand this debate widely into legal services and the impact potentially from the recognition of judgments between different jurisdictions. A lot of people forget that the EU is not a sovereign state—I do not want it to be and nor does my hon. Friend. It is a creature of treaty, and its actions and rules are therefore effective only through the structures of member states—that is, recognition of court judgments that enforce EU law between different jurisdictions. He is right that if we go out under a no-deal scenario, from Brexit day plus one, that level of co-operation and recognition is unlikely. That is why this SI is needed. Bizarrely, the enforcement of these EU regulations could be pursued in courts across the EU, or even in our own courts, and meanwhile, a judgment looking to enforce to the benefit of a British company would not be recognised at all. It would basically be a bit of paper someone would get.

We keep coming back to the fact that if people do not want this type of outcome, they have two choices. There is the Scottish National party’s choice, which is to revoke article 50—[Interruption.] We can hear the cheers coming from SNP Members. Or we can put through the withdrawal agreement. That is where we are. We can talk about whether we should be in a particular type of customs arrangement, what we would like on security and defence, and whatever. At the end of the day, the withdrawal agreement is the gateway to every relationship with the EU, other than revocation or no deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for turning my back on him while responding to his intervention. I need to address the House, rather than face him directly.

The English language is indeed one of our great tools. When we look at any regulations relating to online businesses, we should bear in mind that the base code of computers is effectively English, because of the history of computer developments between us and the United States. The first computer, as such, was of course developed here, following the amazing theoretical work done by Alan Turing, who, sadly, was treated abysmally by this nation after the second world war in connection with matters that were never a crime. He came up with the revolutionary 01, and set the philosophical basis that would result in the very trading systems that these regulations seek to address.

This is one of our key goals. It is important that we have an effective and competent system of law relating to online transactions, because if we do not we will lose one of our biggest opportunities. My hon. Friend touched on that. Many people go online and happily access information, services and opportunities. They are able to compare prices in a way that would not have been possible before the internet era, because English is pretty much common currency on many internet platforms—although, given that the regulations relate to online shopping opportunities, it is worth noting that people can now interact with the vast majority of online retailers in the language of their choice. There are also the well-known providers’ translation services that we can now use. I used to have a bit of fun when a former Wales Minister texted to ask if I was here: I would reply in Welsh, courtesy of Google Translate.

I will move on, because I know that other Members wish to speak, and that the debate is time-limited. Some other issues on which the Minister may wish to reflect when she sums up relate to Ireland. We have had a great many discussions about the backstop and how we can keep the Northern Ireland land border open, but in these unique circumstances, someone purchasing online in, for example, County Fermanagh can be only a couple of miles away from the online business—or the business behind the online entity—which is based in, for example, County Donegal. There would of course be a different boundary, particularly in the no-deal scenario for which this measure is intended, and I should like to know how we can ensure that some sort of interaction remains. I think it is safe to say that it would be rather controversial if we did not give clear access to Irish websites.

That, in fact, makes eminent sense. There are businesses, cultural links, and supply chains and delivery networks that work across the border. One road crosses the border 15 times in two miles. If something that I had ordered online was being delivered using that road, the farmhouse involved might be in the United Kingdom and the hay barn in the Irish Republic. We need regulations that could deal with the unique situation near the Irish land border.

The Minister rightly referred to the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but Northern Ireland is beset by the fact its Assembly is not up and running and doing what those elected by the people of Northern Ireland should be doing. Although it is right that we are moving to ensure that Northern Ireland’s statute book is in order for a no-deal Brexit, it would be interesting to know what thought has been given to this aspect, given that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not working and that, sadly, it is unlikely to be up and running in the next couple of months, when we may see a no-deal exit. What thought is being given at Westminster to ensuring that there is appropriate legislation to cover online shopping and, bluntly, to ensure that legislation requires fairness between websites and fairness in online shopping between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland?

[Julian Knight]

It is really interesting to focus on Northern Ireland in this. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be perverse if there were such barriers in the way, given that many of the major internet retailers are domiciled in the Republic of Ireland for tax reasons?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for his, as always, thoughtful intervention. I suspect many of us would not particularly want to rush to help them, shall we say, pay a lower rate of tax in the Irish Republic. During my time on the Public Accounts Committee, I had the joy of discovering that a “double Irish” was nothing to do with a whiskey order and a “Dutch sandwich” was not something I would eat with it—in terms of tax avoidance work.

For me, this is a question of how we can sensibly reflect in legislation the unique position on the island of Ireland. The current geo-blocking regulation provides protection, and there is reciprocity between the two jurisdictions, to ensure that each side’s shopping outlets and businesses may trade without discrimination. The purpose of the new regulations is to prevent the establishment of an operation that charges a different price—as in my CD example—or that blocks a customer living in a particular country from buying, or applies different terms and conditions to their transaction. It is worth noting, however, that there are some exemptions around items that are not permitted for sale. For example, in Germany and Austria there are strict denazification laws to prevent the sale of certain historical items. In addition, an item such as a toy train set from the era, if sold to the German or Austrian market, must not carry certain symbols from the disastrous Nazi regime that devastated those countries in the 1940s, along with most of western Europe. So there are some tweaks that rightly reflect the law in those nations, but in general the purpose of the regulations is to prevent unfairness.

I return to the point I was making earlier. For me, the regulations are about ensuring that the system in Ireland allows trade across the whole island of Ireland, where we would want to see that type of system in place, not just for sensible economic reasons but in view of the ongoing peace process—ensuring that the single market online across the whole of Ireland may continue. It would be bizarre if we agreed a workable set of alternative arrangements that released the backstop in years to come, but put a barrier around the sale of goods online.

In services, we may well look to move on—change our position to exploit our huge advantage, particularly in financial services, across the world, with trade deals. I am particularly excited at the prospect of a trade deal with the parties to the requests for a comprehensive agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership; there is very strong demand there. Given that we are revoking the current arrangement with the European Union on the basis of a potential no deal, I hope the Minister is considering how, if we do not have no deal, we could look at the type of regulation that might be of benefit and might allow insurance products and so on to be continued.

I am conscious that I have been speaking for a little while. I reassure hon. Members that I do not intend to break one of my records for length of contribution. I recognise that the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), wants to speak; I have no intention of talking him out.

There are a few reasons why we need to look at approving the regulations today. I am very much a fan of free trade. It brings prosperity. It brings down barriers, interlocking economies. Let us be candid—the reason that the European Coal and Steel Community was established was to interlink economies, and the geo-blocking regulations are part of doing online just what we did with coal and steel back in the 1950s. The idea then was that if the German steelworks were dependent on French coal, there would obviously be an issue if a conflict broke out. The theory was that creating a single market and having these types of regulations would ensure that that continued online and that consumers would benefit. They could buy from the best source in the cheapest and most efficient way, or perhaps in the way that provided the best quality, rather than finding themselves blocked out because of price differentials in the markets. In many ways, that might be a slightly unfair practice. I have used the example of CDs. Why should a CD cost more than others produced in the same factory—taking out distribution costs that are very similar—just because it happens to be sold in a different place? It often becomes clear that this is being done to milk consumers where choices are more limited.

This statutory instrument is necessary, but it is sad that it is necessary. Those who keep saying that they do not want no deal also seem not to want many of the deals that are on offer, or seem to want to propose a deal that is reliant on something that they keep voting against. That is not a logical position, but this statutory instrument represents a logical position. It would be absolute nonsense to impose a burden on British companies that is not shared by the other countries in the European Union. It would be bizarre, for example, if I had to comply with legislation ensuring that my website and online shopping offer were open across 27 countries when businesses in those countries were no longer obliged to do that.

It is right that we should pass this measure today and ensure that it becomes law, so that we have an orderly statute book, but there is a better option. Rather than saying, “I don’t like no-deal SIs because I don’t like no deal”, people should come up with a clear alternative that does not require the withdrawal agreement—[Interruption.] I hear the usual cheer from the Scottish National party Benches. SNP Members would like to revoke article 50 because they see that as the way round this, and they are correct in the sense that we would not need the withdrawal agreement. Members can be consistent in voting against the withdrawal agreement while saying that they do not want no deal if the outcome would be no Brexit, but they cannot keep turning up in the Chamber each day for a groundhog day debate and saying that the Prime Minister should do everything in her power to avoid no deal if they will not do the one thing in their power to prevent no deal, which is to walk through the Aye Lobby the next time the withdrawal agreement is put to the vote.

I will support this statutory instrument because in the end I would be prepared to accept no deal rather than no Brexit. However, I hope that in the very near future we will get an agreement through the House that provides the basis for a future relationship that makes sense and can be taken forward.

Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Julian Knight

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Friday 15th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Julian Knight]

I could not have put it any better myself; that is absolutely the right approach and the right thing to say, and we are correcting that wrong in this place today.

As well as allowing for official investigation, the Bill opens the door to providing official recognition to babies who are born dead before the current deadline, allowing their parents to name them and have their birth officially recognised. That is a very positive step forward to say the least, and I deeply hope it will provide some comfort to those poor parents of stillborn children. Of course there may be some for whom such matters are the very last thing they want, and I hope and trust that their rights and feelings will be properly accounted for in the implementation of any new system and that it is done in the most sensitive way possible.

This is an exemplary Bill: rather than trying to deliver big changes through broad wording and aspirational intentions, it bundles together a number of detailed, well considered changes that will deliver real, tangible change in several important areas. It will bolster marriage and the alternatives to marriage, and afford long overdue recognition to both mothers and unborn children. I hope the entire House will join me in supporting its swift progress on to the statue book.

[Kevin Foster]

It is always a pleasure to be called to speak by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to see you in the Chair. This is a welcome chance to say something about this Lords amendment, but first I wish to join other Members in reflecting on the events in New Zealand yesterday. Having visited New Zealand and its Parliament last year, I saw how often throughout history our two nations have stood together. It is worth remembering that at the moment when this nation faced its greatest peril in 1940 there were Kiwis who travelled thousands of miles to come here and defend our democracy; they literally stood on the shores of Britain ready to meet a Nazi invader had they ever managed to cross the channel. So we stand in solidarity with them in facing the fascists today in the way that we defeated the fascists of the past.

This Bill is very welcome, and particularly the new clause being inserted into it. People should have a choice about what type of relationship and legal partnership is right for them. As I alluded to in an earlier intervention, when I got married in June 2017 it was a religious sacrament; that was part of being united together. It was a very special experience—we had the mass straight afterwards, as that was the first thing we wanted to do as a married couple. But that is not everyone’s choice, and it is not everyone’s view on marriage.

There are different religious faiths and different religious communities, including in the Christian faith. There are very different views across the spectrum of Christian opinion, for example on divorce and remarriage. There are those who have annulment as the only option and those who recognise civil divorce in a religious context.

Riot Compensation Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Julian Knight

Friday 4th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), who is the proud son of a west midlands police officer. I know from my dealings with him on matters to do with West Midlands police and fairer funding that he is a strong advocate for law and order and justice in the west midlands.

I commend and support the Bill. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who is no longer in the Chamber, made a powerful speech in the shadow of the 2011 riots, which were obviously a great shock. What started as a local, limited protest burst into rank criminality. Ordinary individuals going about their daily lives found themselves embroiled in terror, violence and damage to property on an unprecedented scale in my lifetime. Even in daylight hours, ordinary people were being abused by feral elements in our society.

At the time, the police cautiously and correctly went about extinguishing those four days of violence in our society. Following on from that, the Prime Minister made many telling remarks, including that we would hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice. That is exactly what happened. I was pleased that the judiciary listened to the public voice on that occasion and handed out some exemplary sentences to those who had rioted. There was much talk in the newspapers about people being sent to prison for stealing relatively small items such as bottles of water, but it was the aggravated nature of the criminality that counted in this respect. Our authorities did their job and correctly followed through on what they had promised. The only area where there were problems—this has been mentioned by many hon. Members—related to compensation and delays to compensation. One of the main reasons for that was that they were acting under the auspices of antiquated and outdated legislation.

The Bill, which I hope will proceed to the Committee stage, correctly defines “riot”. It gives it a much more modern, telling and understandable definition. It tidies up much of the antiquated language used in the late 19th century. As the right hon. Member for Tottenham mentioned, it is difficult for people who do not have English as their first language to understand what constitutes a riot and to apply for compensation under the 1886 Act.

[Kevin Foster]

I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that many people for whom English is their first language would find it difficult to understand the definitions in the 1886 Act.

[Julian Knight]

English is my first language, and I, too, find it very difficult to understand fully the wording of the Act. That is not the only reason, but it is another reason why we need this update. Let us not forget that the Bill comes after very extensive, independent reviews, such as the Kinghan review. I welcome the fact that there is a lot of thought and consideration behind the Bill. We can see that in the careful way that many of its measures have been drafted and in the way it has been promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South, who has worked incredibly hard on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay focused extensively on the provision of new for old, and I completely agree with him. As someone who worked on a range of financial matters, particularly personal finance, for the best part of a decade and a half, I must say that I know of no insurance policy that would replace items on an old for old basis. That almost disappeared 20 or 30 years ago, so to continue to insist that an item is replaced by one of a similar age is, frankly, ridiculous and completely out of kilter with modern society and modern insurance practices. The provision of new for old will give greater clarity and certainty for all those affected by riot, including small businesses.

The cap of £1 million per claim is eminently sensible. As I understand it, if there is a claim of £1 million for a building, there may be a separate claim by another individual for the loss of its fabric and other elements. That aspect takes good account of rising modern property prices. The advent of a riot claims bureau is also welcome. I want to know a bit more detail about exactly how it will work, but I am sure that that, like many other elements of the Bill, will be examined in Committee.

The Bill reflects the reality of modern insurance patterns not only in the provision of new for old, but, frankly, in recognising the existence of the motor car, which did not exist in 1886. I believe it does not make provision for third-party cover. As someone who has written about insurance and other financial matters, I know that third-party car insurance is almost extinct. In fact, if someone applies for a quote on a website, they will almost invariably find that car insurers’ quotations are higher for third-party cover than for fully comprehensive cover. To be honest, car insurers think someone taking out third-party cover is a bad insurance risk per se, so they are unlikely to write the business. It is good that the Bill covers the modern car, as well as tools and other items that may be left in vehicles overnight.

The Bill will allow for compensation to be paid more quickly, which we all desire. The proof of the pudding will of course be in the eating, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay said, if the Bill does not go into Committee, we will simply be left with the 1886 Act and we already know how it works—or does not work—in relation to compensation. I do not agree with the idea that legislation should be introduced just because something must be done, but the fact that the Bill has already been considered extensively by an independent review reassures me that such matters will be looked at further.

I share some of the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Tottenham about the 42-day limit, so I welcome the Minister’s comments. I look forward to seeing how that plays out in Committee in catering for those who, as the right hon. Gentleman said, may be suffering a great deal of shock, may not have English as their first language and may need a gentler approach to time limits and more understanding in relation to time barring.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay asked whether the Bill would lead to increased premiums. Most claims will be paid out up to the £1 million cap, but, knowing the insurance market, I genuinely believe that the effect on premiums would be very marginal. Home insurance is in fact a very profitable business, unlike—strangely enough—car insurance. In the past 20 years, the car insurance industry has made a profit from writing its policies on only four occasions. Home insurance is generally quite a cash cow—a Steady Eddie, as it were—for the insurance industry. Let us not forget that there are moves ahead to help out on insurance premiums, such as by clamping down on the compensation culture and the no win, no fee blight in our society. Looking at it in the round, the effect of the Bill will be very marginal and will not be felt to the degree that some people fear.

Some legislation is brought forward almost because it is said that something has to be done and this feels as if we are doing something—I always vehemently oppose that aspect of lawmaking—but the Bill advances and upgrades the law, makes it more relevant to our society and sets us on a new footing so that if such an awful eventuality happens again, we can, I hope, respond more quickly and in a better manner.