Tackling Short-term and Long-term Cost of Living Increases

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I will begin by talking about something that I care a lot about, which ought to have been in the Queen’s Speech, but was not: the Hillsborough law and, particularly, the Public Advocate Bill that my noble Friend Lord Wills first introduced in the other place in 2014. He and I have been introducing it in both Houses ever since.

The Bill’s aim is to prevent families bereaved by public disasters from ever again having to endure the horrors that the Hillsborough families and survivors have endured over the course of 33 years. Something similar was in the Conservative manifesto in 2017, but it has disappeared, and I do not understand why. Disasters continue to happen and, although each has its own particular circumstances, there are common themes—issues that a public advocate, as proposed in my Bill, would work to ameliorate at an early stage, saving those affected years of heartache, pain and cost, and saving the public purse millions of pounds. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) mentioned the issue in her speech, and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) told the Prime Minister on the first day of the debate that he should simply adopt my Bill. Naturally, I agree. The Bill would fulfil a manifesto promise. Why has it disappeared? I simply do not understand it. The Public Advocate Bill should be enacted, and the Hillsborough law should be passed by this place; that is long past due. I hope that, even now, the Government decide to do it. They would get a lot of support from Opposition Members.

The past 12 Tory years have seen economic growth stagnate. It has fallen from 2% a year on average under Labour to just 1.5%, and is forecast by the Bank of England to go negative shortly. Inflation has hit 7% and is forecast to reach 10% later this year. Energy bills are already up 54% this year and will rise further in October. Food and fuel prices are soaring because of the end of frictionless trade with Europe after Brexit, and because of the shocks caused by the Ukraine war and covid. The coming food price increases will be “apocalyptic”, according to the Governor of the Bank of England yesterday, yet the Office for Budget Responsibility says that real wages will be lower in 2026 than in 2008, before the global financial crisis.

My constituents have faced 12 years of frozen wages, and real-terms cuts to the support that they used to rely on in difficult times. The Government recently cut universal credit by £1,000, and have increased benefits by 3% when inflation is more than 7%; that is a real-terms cut for some of the poorest in our society. The Government have just increased taxes for working people by increasing national insurance. It is one of 15 Tory tax rises that have left taxes at their highest for 70 years. The Government’s failure to help the poorest people now is exacerbating the cost of living crisis faced by thousands of families in Garston and Halewood. We need measures to tackle the cost of living crisis, and an emergency Budget that imposes a windfall tax on the oil and gas companies, which are coining it in because of the soaring price of energy—and we need it now. That is why I very much welcome the Opposition Front Benchers’ amendment to the Loyal Address. We really need short-term measures that will help immediately, when the bills need paying, not promises of jam tomorrow, or at some time in the future, when it will be too late to avert serious crises for many families in my constituency.

I say to Ministers, and to some Tory Back Benchers, that the old Tory trick of blaming poor people for their misfortune, as though they were morally culpable, is heartless and shows that, in addition to being callous, they are out of touch. Many of my constituents have been trying to get more hours or better jobs, buying cheaper supermarket brands and cooking on a shoestring, but they are still sinking financially. They simply do not have enough money to live because of increasing costs and real cuts in their income that have gone on for years. Many are disabled, and some cannot work, even though they want to, or change their circumstances easily. Those with caring responsibilities lose more in additional childcare costs after increasing their hours than they gain from the increased wages that they get for working for longer. Pensioners on small, fixed incomes do not have the financial resilience to cope with huge increases in the cost of living. Many budget their incomes to within pennies, and it is not fair to imply that they are at fault for their situation, or could easily change it if only they bothered to. When this Government begin to realise the truth of that, they might start to think that they should do something about it.

Energy bills are set to rise by a record amount later this year. It is shameful that the Chancellor is not really doing anything to prevent that, and is more intent on feuding with the Prime Minister about his political future than on the future of millions of people in this country. Conservative Members could do some good: they could vote for the amendment tonight.

Downing Street Parties: Police Investigation

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question but of course the police will conduct the investigation, as they do in any case, entirely at their own discretion. I would not expect to be informed about that, nor would the House expect me to be.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

There have been newspaper reports of Downing Street staff being told to delete evidence of parties from their phones and staff fearing to give evidence to the Sue Gray inquiry for fear that the PM will see it and that there will later be recriminations. Now that there is a police investigation, will the Paymaster General make it clear throughout Whitehall that all evidence must be given to the police? Will he undertake to publish a report and evidence so that we can all see at the end of this affair that that has been done?

Downing Street Garden Event

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

May I start by saying that I am very sorry for the hon. Gentleman’s loss of his friend and of his father? I think it would be only fair to challenge him on his point about what Downing Street staff think. Downing Street staff work very hard for the people of this country—[Interruption.] It would not be fair to characterise all the work they have done over the course of years in the way that he does. We do not want to prejudge what occurred on that occasion. The reality is that we should take the approach that, unless proven to the contrary, most people in public life, no matter what their party political persuasion, work in the public service and do the best they can.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Minister has come here today—pretty lonely, on his own—for the Prime Minister, to deal with the serious questions that have been raised, but no self-respecting Minister would come here without knowing the facts about what happened. The question is simply this: did the Prime Minister attend the gathering on 20 May? There is a simple yes or no answer to that. I am assuming that the Minister, in coming here to answer for him, has put the question to the Prime Minister and that he knows the answer. He is here to tell this House. Can he give the answer to that question to this House, and do so now?

[Michael Ellis]

That is a matter for Sue Gray and her investigation. It is not a matter for me. I am supported by my colleagues throughout Government in this matter.

Covid-19 Economic Support Package

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I rise very much to support the motion that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) has moved, particularly the part that says

“this House believes the Government should do what it takes to support areas with additional local restrictions”.

My own constituency is in the Liverpool city region, which is under tier 3 restrictions. The Chancellor might not know the unemployment figures for my particular constituency, but I can tell him that probably not unlike many other places, they have doubled this year. That is about 5,000 people.

I also have 15,000 people still on furlough in my constituency. I understand that when the Chancellor introduced the national furlough scheme, he wanted it to have an end point, but surely he anticipated that it would be ending when the pandemic was waning. In Liverpool, the pandemic is surging. We have no intensive care unit beds in Liverpool’s main hospitals: they are now full, and covid is impacting on other critical care, so the health service in Liverpool is already being impacted severely. Furlough is going to end in two weeks, and those 15,000 jobs are severely at risk, right in the middle of a huge resurgence in the virus.

The Chancellor has introduced his local furlough—that is the colloquial term—for those businesses that are forced by law to close, such as pubs, gyms, and other such businesses. I think it is wrong that those people who benefit from that, especially if they are on the minimum wage, should only get 67% of it. The Prime Minister said today that the figure was 93%, but they should get 100% of the national minimum wage. There should be a floor—let us be clear about that—and I hope the Government can do something about that. One does not have to pay 67% of the bills when furloughed, and food does not cost only 67% of what it normally does, so something needs to be done to help those people.

However, the Chancellor should also be very clear that there are many other businesses in my area, such as restaurants, that have not been forced to close but whose business is severely impacted. They have to close at 10 o’clock, and they have fewer tables. In my area, there is advice against non-essential travel. It is not essential travel to go to a restaurant, so people are advised not to go there, but these businesses are not going to get any support to keep their restaurants open through the local furlough scheme, and many of them will go bust.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I am afraid I cannot give way, because I have only four minutes and some points to make. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The point is that many businesses and many thousands of jobs are at risk. They will not be getting extra support—I am sorry that the Chancellor is not listening—from any of his schemes in a tier 3 area. Those jobs and businesses are going to go. Those people will be unemployed and the Government will still have to pay towards their support.

May I also make the point in the short time I have left that 77,000 people in the Liverpool city region have been excluded as self-employed people from any Government support? They are barely hanging on and now with tier 3 restrictions yet again there is no support for these people or these businesses. What is happening will turn this pandemic, by the time Liverpool comes through it—and we will—into a cause of severe poverty and penury. It is not right that the Government are not doing enough to help.

Economic Update

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: at this stage, that is absolutely not the policy that we should be pursuing. What we should be pursuing is policies that will get people back to work, encourage and incentivise businesses to take on new employees and new apprenticeships, and ultimately—he is right—create the wealth that funds our public services.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Does the Chancellor agree that it makes no sense to withdraw support from businesses that are viable but cannot work at all at present, or cannot work profitably because of the ongoing effects of health restrictions, such as in aviation, aerospace manufacturing and technical production companies, all of which I have in my constituency? Furlough is going to end, but his job retention bonus will not be available to them because they cannot go back to their usual work at the moment. Will he change his one-size-fits-all approach to winding down the employment schemes that have kept many companies going in these sectors? Otherwise, he will simply have deferred a wave of mass redundancies, job losses and business failures of fundamentally sound businesses, which he could save if he makes some adjustment.

[Rishi Sunak]

There are a few remaining closed sectors, and I agree with the hon. Lady that it is absolutely right that we get those open. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said recently that that is something that he is keen to see happen, and hopefully we can make progress on that soon. With regard to the other sectors, we need to adjust to a new economy, which is why it is right that over time furlough winds down gradually and flexibly, while at the same time we reward employees generously for bringing furloughed employees back. We have also put in place a range of other interventions today to help provide hope and opportunity to young people and others across the country.

Public Health England Review: Covid-19 Disparities

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The research shows, among many disturbing findings about race disparities, that diagnosis rates are higher in deprived and densely populated urban areas, and that our great cities such as Liverpool have been hardest hit by the virus. Does the Minister accept that the reason why we must research covid disparities is so that effective action can be taken to address them? Will she undertake to ensure right now that the Government allocate resources to combat covid in such a way as to address these inequalities—she can do that now—rather than on a crude per capita basis that completely ignores the realities of who is hardest hit and why?

[Kemi Badenoch]

We are distributing funds in many different ways. I have spoken to, for example, the mayors of combined authorities, and they have raised this issue with me as a Treasury Minister, and we will continue to look at it.

Draft Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 General Committees

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will not detain the Committee for long, but I have one or two questions for the Minister. I also have a general grouse, I am afraid, which is that, on the basis of the papers available in the Committee Room, it is virtually impossible to understand the changes made by the regulations—my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich made a similar point. Without being able to look carefully at the legislation that the regulations refer to, we cannot agree whether the measures in them do what they purport to, so it is very difficult to scrutinise them. That is not the fault of the Minister or of the hard-working civil servants who have produced the regulations, no doubt under extreme pressure. It is a fault of the process that the Government have undertaken to introduce the regulations.

The Minister said that the changes made by the regulations “largely mirror” changes in the existing GB legislation. The word “largely” suggests that in some respects they do not mirror them, but he did not set out how they do not. I would have expected him to set out those differences to provide clarity and reassurance to the Committee. I am sure we would all find it useful if he could do so today.

I note that the animals SI refers to the rabies order from 1977—a very serious piece of legislation aimed at stopping the importation of a horrible disease, which we would not want to see go wrong. As far as one can tell—I am guessing—the statutory instrument makes minor and technical changes, but given how important that order is I would like the Minister to reassure us that the changes are purely technical, and that they are correct and will not suddenly make the provision impossible to implement practically. It would be a disaster if that or something like it were to happen.

The instrument revokes the Destructive Imported Animals Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1933 and one of its more modern counterparts. It seems to me that revoking something entirely is making not a minor or technical change, but a substantive change, so perhaps the Minister will be a bit clearer about why this SI, which is supposed to be making minor and technical changes, is revoking regulations. I am sure that there is a perfectly good explanation, and that it is just that we have not heard it, but I want the Minister to deal with that point.

All these matters, whether on the animal or the plant side of things, are about important issues, such as diseases of plants or animals. If those things go wrong, they can have a huge impact on businesses, food supplies and the natural world. These are very important matters. It is not at all clear to me, despite the best intentions of all concerned, that these instruments do as they say they will. The explanatory memorandums appear not to be as explanatory as one might wish. For example, they say that this instrument revokes the Destructive Imported Animals Regulations (Northern Ireland), but do not explain why that is necessary. One certainly cannot gather from the wording of the instrument why it is necessary.

I hope the Minister understands the Opposition’s frustration at not being able to ascertain why some of these things are being done. These instruments seem extensive—revoking something is not a minor and technical change—but the explanatory memorandum simply asserts that it is being revoked without giving any explanation of why. I hope the Minister will enlighten me on that point.

This illustrates the Opposition’s difficulties at being faced with these instruments at a late stage and not having the legislation present in the Committee—I have complained about that in other Committees—so we can make comparisons between the old instrument and what the new instrument is doing. One simply cannot understand, from reading these instruments, what impact they will have. I hope the Minister will enlighten us about those two points and will take back to his Department and the Government the fact that, yet again, we are a bit frustrated that they are making proper scrutiny impossible.

[David Rutley]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions and questions. The hon. Member for Ipswich has been consistent in his concerns about the sheer number of SIs but, as I have explained previously, DEFRA in particular is significantly affected by a potential no-deal scenario, and as a responsible Government we have needed to look at and plan for every eventuality. I am grateful to hon. Members in this Committee, many of whom—I am thinking in particular of the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Bristol West—have sat through many other SIs with great fortitude and interest in these important subjects. I also pay tribute once again to the officials who have taken this work through, not least the DAERA officials who are with us today.

I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Ipswich. However, in my view, it is clear that the best way forward would be to ensure that we have a deal; if we did, we would not have to worry about these arrangements. Obviously, conversations and negotiations are going on between both our parties at the moment. I wish them success in moving forward, and we will see how they play out, but to my mind a deal would be the optimal outcome.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points about enforcement—I will address both his points and those made by the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood in turn. As far as enforcement goes, regulated plants and plant products from third countries that transit through the EU en route to Northern Ireland are currently subjected to plant health checks at the first point of entry into the EU to ensure biosecurity protection. Cleared goods can then circulate within the EU, and are assigned the same status as EU goods.

Under the instrument, regulated plants and plant products from third countries transiting through the EU en route to Northern Ireland that have not been cleared in the EU would be subject to regulatory controls. Those controls require all importers of regulated plants and plant products from third countries transiting to Northern Ireland via Dublin, or anywhere in the EU, to provide DAERA with three days’ pre-notification of any consignment arrival in Northern Ireland. Pre-notification provides relevant details of goods and the expected date of arrival at the DAERA-authorised approved place of inspection within Northern Ireland, where documentary checks and physical inspections are completed. Goods will not be subject to plant health checks at the Northern Ireland border. The instrument also requires that the goods must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the appropriate authority in the country of origin.

The instrument gives the same assurance for third-country goods transiting through the EU to Northern Ireland as is provided by the corresponding DEFRA instrument in respect of Great Britain. Furthermore, existing protections provided by the common transit convention and international air services transit agreement will continue after EU exit. That will mean that consignments will continue to travel under a seal from their place of origin, and goods arriving at the authorised places of inspection will have their seals removed there only by an authorised officer. DAERA and DEFRA have agreed the operational arrangements for goods transiting via the UK so, in those situations, strong enforcement mechanisms will be in place.

Regarding inspectors, all consignments of regulated plant and plants products currently imported from the EU under the existing EU passport system would require pre-notification accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, as I explained before. In the event of exit without an agreement, they would also be subject to remote documentary checks. A recent survey on the volume of trade with the EU indicates that up to 40,000 phytosanitary certificates would require remote documentary checks annually. Those certificates will replace EU plant passports, and similarly will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. That equates to 20 or 30 checks daily, which is a manageable workload. Resources will be in place to manage those processes, and it is anticipated that the number of inspectors required to undertake that work would more than double, from five to 11. However, plans have been developed to deploy and redeploy staff to manage that additional workload, so the appropriate number of inspectors and the resources required to carry out those inspections will be in place if required.

The hon. Member for Ipswich raised points about co-operation with Ireland in the area of biosecurity. There is a strong sense of collaboration and a real sense of partnership to this work, which will continue as we go forward. We will work to maintain common protected zones for plant health in both jurisdictions.

The hon. Gentleman also asked questions about new plant health offences. The instrument extends the application of offences to the import requirements that would arise if the UK left the EU without an agreement. The existing offence relates to failure to comply with a notice served by a DAERA inspector identifying non-compliance with regulations relating to a relevant consignment. In the event that the UK leaves the EU without an agreement, goods that require an EU plant passport will need to be pre-notified and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate. The instrument ensures that the existing offence covers non-compliance with those requirements.

The Committee mentioned the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order (Northern Ireland) 1977. The definition of “member state” in that order is amended to reflect the fact that the UK will no longer be a member state of the EU. References to “Council Directive 92/65/EEC” are replaced by references to “the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011(2)”. The amendments are very technical in nature.

The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood mentioned the differences between statutory instruments for Great Britain and those for Northern Ireland. The SI makes minor amendments to four additional pieces of Northern Ireland legislation—I apologise for not including them in my speech, which was quite long. I am pleased to have the opportunity to update the Committee now.

Three of those pieces of legislation have been included in the instrument because there was no other vehicle with which to amend them. The amendments made have been made for GB legislation via other instruments. One of those pieces of Northern Ireland legislation has no GB equivalent—the Northern Ireland Poultry Health Assurance Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2011—while others relate to bees and to destructive animals. Those are all technical changes.

[Maria Eagle]

Will the Minister tell us how the revocation of an instrument can be defined as a “technical change”? The Destructive Imported Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1933 is being revoked. How can that be described as technical?

Draft Over the Counter Derivatives, Central Counterparties and Trade Repositories (Amendment, Etc., and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 General Committees

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Sir David. It is a pleasure to once again sit across from the Minister. I am grateful to him for his opening comments.

We are yet again in Committee to discuss a Treasury statutory instrument that makes provision for the financial regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out of the EU without a deal. On each such occasion, I and my Labour Front-Bench colleagues spell out our objections to the use of secondary legislation in this manner, as well as the challenges of ensuring proper scrutiny of the sheer volume of legislation passing through Committee. The frustration that we must spend time and resources—£4.2 billion—creating a framework that might never be used has already been expressed in Committee. I am sure that hon. Members are aware that yesterday there a Committee divided because of ambiguities over customs arrangements for our Crown dependencies. Just before Christmas, we sought a debate on the Floor of the House concerning the transposition arrangements for MiFID, but were rebuffed by the Government. Today, we are yet again being asked to pass legislation without any impact assessment having been provided and with many aspects of the legislation going unexplained. That is just not good enough.

Because of the dangerous game being played by the Prime Minister and her party, instruments being passed through Committee may well not disappear into the ether on 29 March. They could represent real and substantive changes to the statute book, so they need proper and in-depth scrutiny. Equally, we must bear in mind the stress that financial markets would be under were the Government to allow the no-deal scenario to be realised. This instrument must be considered through that lens.

As the Minister explained, the main purpose of the instrument is to transfer responsibilities from EU institutions to the Bank, PRA and FCA and to establish a temporary intra-group exemption regime. That regime will initially last three years, to ensure that intra-group transactions can continue to be exempted from EMIR requirements. Colleagues will be aware that the EMIR system was created in the wake of the financial crisis to ensure that over the counter derivatives would be logged and cleared—conducted through central clearing counterparties in many cases, as the Minister explained—and, where necessary, that margin would be posted. That was required to provide more market transparency and to prevent the kinds of contagion that were in evidence during the financial crisis. EMIR has not been a completely uncontentious technical package of legislation—quite the opposite. There has been controversy about its scope. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I was involved in discussions about its scope when applied to non-financial firms.

We must act to secure the future of UK derivatives clearing services. Those services play an important role in helping to increase the resilience of our financial system by decreasing the risk of trading. A no-deal Brexit could pose significant risks to access by European traders to services in the UK, as well as vice versa, so although many elements of these measures would be necessary in the event of no deal, we need to know that there would be reciprocation from the rest of the EU. That means working with our partners in the EU to guarantee that we will be granted equivalence rights for UK clearing services in the case of no deal if the Government insist on not ruling that out. I hope that the Minister will inform us of any assurances that he has received from ESMA and others on that point.

As was echoed in the Minister’s comments, the explanatory memorandum for this instrument states that it is aimed at making

“derivatives markets safer and more transparent”

in the event of no deal, but I have questions about the drafting that I hope the Minister can answer. The first and most significant point is that, yet again, we are in Committee without an impact assessment for the instrument. That contradicts the claim on the first page of the explanatory note for these measures, which states:

“An impact assessment of the effect that this instrument, and other instruments made by HM Treasury under the 2018 Act”—

the European Union (Withdrawal) Act—

“at or about the same time…is available from HM Treasury…and is published alongside this instrument at www.legislation.gov.uk.”

I wasted quite a bit of time looking for the impact assessment. Incidentally, I also looked for the instrument; it is not on that website, either, from what I can see. Later on in the text of the explanatory memorandum I understood why. Section 12.5 states:

“An Impact Assessment has been prepared and will be published alongside the Explanatory Memorandum on the legislation.gov.uk website, when an opinion from the Regulatory Policy Committee has been received.”

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that such statements, whether they were drafted when the intention was to publish a proper impact assessment, as it states, are misleading to the Committee? I have every sympathy with staff rushing to prepare all kinds of statutory instruments, but the fact is that it completely undermines the capacity of the Committee properly to scrutinise this instrument.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I strongly agree. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that our civil servants are being placed under enormous pressure. None of us underestimates the enormous challenge they face, but equally, as Members of this House, we need to be able to scrutinise legislation properly. That requires knowing when we will have those kinds of documents available to us or otherwise.

I am aware that the Minister said to me at the last such Committee that I attended that the Regulatory Policy Committee was looking at a number of the no-deal related Brexit SIs in the round, in terms of impact assessment, but that its processes take some time to work through and we should receive the assessment soon. I understand the challenges facing the Regulatory Policy Committee—it is facing an almost impossible task—but we need those assessments. When does the Minister expect the Regulatory Policy Committee to be finished with its task? Was it the right decision for it to lump together a number of different SIs and conduct the impact assessment collectively? Is that approach being taken to other bodies of legislation? I know that financial services are particularly complex, but presumably we have similar complex constellations in other areas of no-deal planning. Committee members need to have some degree of certainty that more information will become available. Hon. Members are deeply concerned about that.

Secondly:

“Part 2 of this instrument also introduces a power for the FCA to suspend the reporting obligation for a period of up to one year and with the agreement of HM Treasury, in a scenario where there is no registered or recognised UK TR available.”

I was not able to find out before the sitting whether that provision exists within EMIR itself—that the reporting obligation would be suspended if there was no recognised or registered TR at EU level—but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister in what scenario the Government envisage that a UK trading repository would not be available. He said in his comments that this was unlikely, but if this has been identified as a potential issue and if gaps in provision are possible, we should be making provisions now for equivalence, so that there would not be any risk of detriment to UK market participants, but there does not seem to be anything in this SI, which aims towards that.

Five of the registered trading repositories seem to my eye—admittedly non-expert—to have at least some kind of a presence in London, whereas only two of them are based entirely outside the UK, in Poland and Sweden. Therefore, the converse question also applies. What will happen to the EU’s EMIR regime if UK-based trading repositories cannot provide a service to EU27-based traders? I ask specifically about this because it is surely essential that the reporting obligation is maintained so that transparency continues to be a feature of both UK and EU27 derivatives trading. This is a highly internationalised activity.

Thirdly, the statutory instrument states:

“Provisions relating to TR appeals, fines, supervisory fees, penalties and other supervisory requirements are being omitted and replaced with provisions that align with those already contained in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) concerning supervision and enforcement”.

However, no indication is provided here of whether these are more or less onerous. Can the Minister enlighten us on that score? Again, there is no clear indication here of the additional resourcing that might be required. That is something we talked about a lot in this Committee until now. This is occurring in a context where the FCA has never before had responsibility for dealing with the supervision of EMIR-related functions.

Finally, the draft regulations transfer powers from the European Commission to the Treasury and from ESMA to the FCA, as with MiFID no-deal transposition, which has already been passed. Most equivalence decisions will be made by the FCA, but as the Minister just confirmed again, those on central counterparty clearing houses will ultimately be made by the Bank of England, so this will not be occurring through the collegiate system that applies currently at the EU level. Will the Minister give us more background? Why is it happening? It sounds like a policy judgment, but we have not been provided with a rationale. As the Opposition have pointed out before in Committee, the Government are effectively trying to transpose the Lamfalussy process into the UK institutional context, but the Commission and ESMA do not interact in the same way as the Treasury interacts with the FCA. There is a different relationship. It is surely inappropriate to port the powers over without any change to supervision. I hope the Minister will give us some assurance on that point. Also, we really need clarity on when the impact assessment will be available if we are to be willing to allow this SI to pass.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East on the points she made, and on some of the points made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. I was appointed to this Committee last week. I do not normally spend my time considering derivatives of the over-the-counter version—or any other kind. However, having spent many years as a Minister—and therefore knowing how to look at legislation—I found, when I looked at this instrument, something else that I would like to raise with the Minister. When I was a Minister I used to spend my time, before I came to Committees, making sure that my officials would bring along to the Committee all instruments referred to in the regulations, to enable the Committee, if it wished to look in detail at some wording, to be able to understand what that meant. I thought that having the other instruments in the Committee room was the norm. What we have here is an instrument that refers in terms, for example in part 2, to regulations from 2013, and then sets out:

“In regulation 2, in paragraph (1), for the definition of ‘the EMIR regulation’ substitute—

‘“the EMIR regulation” has the meaning given in section 313 of the Act;’.”

To understand the meaning of that, one has to have the regulation to hand. I do not see any copies of the regulation that the instrument refers to here. It was always the practice when I was in Government, and I am sure it was the practice of some Conservative members of the Committee who have been in Government in their time too, to have in Committee all the regulations referred to and being amended, so that if somebody had a particular point to make about a particular part we could see clearly what was being changed, what the implementation of that change would mean, and whether the wording appeared appropriated.

Here, we are left with nothing, in practice, but the explanatory memorandum. We have to take on trust—not that I am saying that I do not trust the Minister—that what we are being told in the explanatory memorandum is in fact being done by the wording that we see in the instrument. I think it is poor practice, if I might say so, and I hope that he will take this back to his Department, to come to Committee with instruments that effectively alter other regulations without making them available in the room. Any officials who had left me in that position as a Minister would have known about it. In fact, I used to ensure that such things were correct in Committee.

I know that there is a big burden of statutory instruments at present, and I understand that Ministers are hard pressed, but it is not right in terms of proper scrutiny for us not to be able to understand the meaning of the regulations. Regulations under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are more complex than many because they often simply refer to amendments to primary legislation. Here we have a suite of three regulations, but I was not on the Committees that considered the other two.

It makes it increasingly difficult for an ordinary, intelligent person to understand what the hell is going on. That is not good for scrutiny, for the Minister, for the Government, or for good governance, and it leads us to the impression that what is happening is rushed, has not been thought through, and may be defective. If it is, it will not be possible for members of the Committee to pick up the defects. That is a real problem for proper parliamentary scrutiny.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East referred to part 2. When I was reading the explanatory memorandum, one of the things that jumped out at me, as it clearly jumped out at her, was in paragraph 7.16, on page 6:

“Part 2 of this instrument also introduces a power for the FCA to suspend the reporting obligation for a period of up to one year…in a scenario where there is no registered or recognised UK”

trade repository. I immediately wondered in what circumstances that might be the case. The Minister made a reference to that, and said that it would be highly unlikely—but it is not so unlikely that steps are not being taken in the instrument to deal with it.

Can the Minister tell me how many UK-registered trade repositories there are, and in what circumstances—unlikely though they might be—he envisages that this part of the instrument might have to come into force, or that the powers specified might have to be used? As he said, the whole purpose of the regulations, whether they are operated by EU institutions or by the Treasury, the Bank and the Financial Conduct Authority, is to try to prevent the disaster of the global financial crisis that resulted last time from insufficiently prudent, untransparent regulation of such trades. Will he give us a bit more detail about why he has felt it necessary to include such a provision in the regulations?

I agree with the remarks made thus far by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East and others about the lack of any kind of impact assessment. It struck me that there is not even a guesstimate of the cost. Will the Minister tell us what trades we are talking about? If the regulations were referring to a couple of hundred thousand pounds a year, we would not worry as much about it as we would if we were dealing with the equivalent of a quarter or a half of our GDP. Will he tell us what level of financial dealings the regulations relate to?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am struck that in these Committees, the Government do an impact assessment for more than £5 million of costs to businesses, but not for under £5 million of costs to businesses. If that is all the information we have to go on, that is sketchy, at best.

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, and perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that as well.

The other point I would like to make is about the financial and resource burdens that the transfers made through the regulations will put on those who inherit the obligations and functions that used to be carried out by the EU institutions. That appears to be the Bank and the Prudential Regulation Authority part of it, the Financial Conduct Authority and, of course, the Treasury. There is nothing I can see that suggests that extra resources will be passed on to the FCA and the PRA part of the Bank for dealing with the additional obligations that the regulations place upon them. While they may well have experts in such instruments and this kind of trading already on their staff, the work that they are going to be expected to do as a consequence of the regulations, if they have to be used, would be different to the work they are already doing.

What financial provision are the Government making to ensure that the FCA and the Bank have the relevant staff and resourcing to do this very important job that he is asking us to bestow on them? There does not seem to be any information about the impact on those who will acquire the extra burdens of doing this work, or the likely cost to the Government, the Bank, the FCA and any other authorities, of carrying it out in a way that will work as well as their current arrangements.

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Members for Oxford East, for Aberdeen North and for Garston and Halewood for their clear questioning. I shall try very hard to answer the points raised.

I hear the frustration on the volume and the time that this scrutiny process is taking. All of the 63 statutory instruments we are bringing forward are under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act that we have previously debated.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North referred to the issue of equivalence and what would happen with respect to the EU’s assessment of the UK. Clearly we cannot determine that unilaterally. We have as deep a dialogue as we can, but these are provisions for no deal. We have sought to engage deeply with the industry and all the different industry players to achieve an outcome that is as optimal as can be in the circumstances. That is why I put on record my absolute commitment to ensuring that we get a deal. I feel very keenly the frustration of the speeches on the process, and I acknowledge that it is not as it would be under normal circumstances.

In terms of the consultation with industry, we have engaged with stakeholders, including the financial services industry, while drafting the SIs. They are strictly limited by the enabling power, and therefore have limited policy choices within them. In some of the areas I cannot go further than what I said in my opening remarks, which is that we are transferring things over and dealing with deficiencies. However, I shall in a moment address the points raised.

We published a document in June, which set out the approach. We have been publishing draft legislation in advance of laying it to maximise transparency, and securing industry knowledge from TheCityUK and others along the way. We discuss EU exit preparations regularly with industry, which has helped us to understand the impact of the SI. We shared a draft version of the SI to allow stakeholders to familiarise themselves with aspects of it.

As to the key question raised in all three Opposition speeches, about impact assessment, I am conscious of the need to publish the relevant impact assessments as soon as possible and want to reassure the Committee that I am doing everything I can to make that happen. I met officials last week and this morning to try to expedite that and complete the necessary clearance processes. We will publish it as soon as possible.

[Maria Eagle]

Why does the explanatory memorandum say that it has been published?

[John Glen]

Because at the time it was printed it was anticipated that it would have been published by then.

As ever, I must stress that some firms would incur some costs adjusting to the changes made by the SIs, if they come into effect, but those costs are significantly outweighed by the benefit that is provided by ensuring that the legislation transferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act operates effectively after exit. Without the amendments made by the SIs firms would face far greater disruption to their businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I am happy to give clarification. Essentially the process of gaining approval for the impact assessment demands that we share certain information and provide it in an adequate form. Because of the unusual nature of the process and the volume of material, it is difficult to line up. As I said to the hon. Lady in the last Committee in which we served opposite each other, we submitted a group of SIs together, and are working as hard as we can to resolve that.

As Miles Celic, the chief executive of TheCityUK, said in a letter in November, these are exceptional circumstances, which require a unique response. We are doing everything to reach that, but I would not want the process to be truncated. We have not yet had an impact assessment that does not give us a green rating, and I want to make sure that that is how things will end up. However, I fully accept that the situation is not an optimal one. I take on board the observations of all three hon. Ladies, and all that I can say is that I am doing everything I can. I understand that that is inadequate in itself, and wish I could give a date, but it is not possible.

[Maria Eagle]

Given that it has not proved possible to do what the explanatory memorandum says has been done, why has not the Minister republished and corrected it?

[John Glen]

Because I wanted the opportunity to explain face to face in the Committee and, given the need to secure the SIs for industry, as I made clear in the quotation from TheCityUK, it is not the perfect process. [Interruption.] I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes but I think I have responded to it as reasonably as I can.

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Claims Management Activity) Order 2018

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 General Committees

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I, too, think that claims management companies are intensely interesting for various reasons.

I wonder whether the Minister can give some assurances about how he expects the regulation to improve over the next period. I concur, as I am sure we all do, that regulation of these companies ought to be much improved to enforce standards, and to increase consumer protection and consumer confidence. The Minister read out the statistics in his opening remarks. One hears about a lot of industries, but not often ones where 76% of their consumers do not believe a word they say. That is extremely poor.

My constituents’ experience of many of these companies is that they set out to rip people off. There is no more careful way of putting it. They are interested in making money by drumming up claims, some of which are dubious in the extreme and some of which should never be brought. In other cases, the consumers who ought to be getting the damages end up with far less than they were led to believe they would get, and most of the money goes to the claims management company.

I concur that better regulation is a good policy aim. Obviously, following the review it has been decided that this is a better way of doing the regulation, but will the Minister set out why he believes the Financial Conduct Authority will be so much better than the legal services ombudsman at dealing with such matters? Can he indicate what he expects to see in terms of compliance and consumer confidence?

I concur with the points made by hon. Members on both sides that a situation such as current one, five years is far too long to leave it before checking whether the intended improvements are working. There is no point in shifting the regulation from one place to another if it is not going to be significantly better and if enforcement is not going to be significantly increased. If the fees that are charged and the permissions that need to be obtained by the companies are not to be used to make a real difference in enforcement, what is the point? It shifts around the arrangements without making much of a difference.

Although there is, I think, agreement across the Committee that the measure is generally good—I was not involved in the legislation, so I did not hear all of the debates—what is it about regulation by the FCA instead of the legal services ombudsman that will be so much better? The industry certainly has conduct issues, including non-compliance with the existing rules, misleading advertising, information asymmetries, large volumes of speculative and unnecessary claims, and phoenixing of unscrupulous companies, which I assume means the resurrection of dodgy companies after they have taken themselves out of the way to avoid their obligations, and they suddenly reappear with a similar name. That is a pretty large charge sheet of what is going wrong in the industry. Why should we think that the move to the FCA under the regime set out in the order will make an enormous difference? Over what period of time does the Minister expect it to do so?

Food Labelling and Allergy-Related Deaths

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

We should be proud of the standard of our food in the UK; we are world-renowned for it. My right hon. Friend makes an important point: retailers and manufacturers need to be transparent about the quality of their food. We want it to be of the highest level. We need to be clear as to where the product—in this case, bread—is sourced from and how it is then prepared for consumption. All these things need to be much more transparent for the consumer—he is absolutely right.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Pret is not a small corner shop, but a large industrial producer of food. It baked into that baguette a known allergen and then proceeded to sell it without labelling it, using a loophole meant for small corner shops. The Minister should be outraged about that. I welcome the fact he has said he will strengthen the law, but what is he going to do to strengthen enforcement and the capacity of trading standards and the FSA to enforce the rules? Enforcement is as important as getting the rules right.

[David Rutley]

Yes, we need to get the rules right, we need to enforce and we need to ensure that business steps up to the plate. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that Pret is not a corner shop, but a major player in the food sector. I hope Members of this House will read the coroner’s report, because it is incredibly challenging and Pret needs to step up to the plate and see what the reports are—[Interruption.] She asks from a sedentary position what the Department is doing. As I have said, we are going to be strengthening the allergen labelling framework. That review is under way, but I hope she will understand when I say that we do need to take into account what the coroner’s report has said and we received it only this morning.