Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Mark Harper and Bill Esterson(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
At the last Transport questions, the Secretary of State suggested that drivers know what they are getting with a Conservative Government. Well, drivers know one thing they are getting from this Government: more potholes—a hundred times as many as there are craters on the moon. In 2023, RAC patrols attended 33% more breakdowns related to poor road maintenance than in 2022, and AA call-outs were at a five-year high. The road repairs backlog has gone up to an eye-watering £16.3 billion, which is far greater than his allocation of money from scrapping the northern leg of HS2. Is it not abundantly clear to drivers, and to everyone else, that it will take the election of a Labour Government to fix Britain’s roads, just as it will take the election of a Labour Government to fix Britain?
Mr Harper
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question, because we have set out our plan very carefully. There is £8.3 billion of extra money to improve the quality of local roads. The Labour party has not backed that plan and has not committed a single penny of money to local roads, so the choice is clear: if people vote Conservative, they get £8.3 billion spent on roads; if they vote Labour, they get none.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Mark Harper and Bill Esterson(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State wants to improve connectivity between our great northern cities, he might want to start by repairing the roads. The backlog of local road repairs has gone up by 16% this year alone to £16.3 billion. The Network North announcement is spread over 11 years, and its average annual contribution accounts for only a third of the £2.3 billion annual increase in the backlog. That is not all going to roads anyway, and it will go nowhere near addressing the damage done since 2016, when the Government slashed the road repair budget in half. When will the Secretary of State apologise to road users for the damage that his Government have caused and admit that they have failed to repair the potholes?
Mr Harper
What the hon. Gentleman says is interesting. We made a commitment to take the money from the cancellation of the second phase of High Speed 2 to make £8.3 billion available for local road maintenance—[Interruption.] Yes, it is over 11 years, but we made the first tranche of money available this financial year, and again next financial year. We will set out the allocations in due course. That money is available only because we made the decision to cancel the second phase of HS2. Labour cannot give a straight answer on that question, and it has not committed to spending that £8.3 billion at all. Drivers know that they will only get that investment with a Conservative Government.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Mark Harper and Bill Esterson(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
I think that question had the disadvantage of being written before the hon. Lady had listened to my answer. I said very clearly that I supported 20 mph zones in areas where they make sense. Outside a school, for instance, they make perfect sense. What does not make sense is imposing blanket policies that bear no relation to the circumstances, which, as I have said, is what Labour has done in Wales. It has implemented blanket policies that are very unpopular, do not carry public support, and damage the acceptance of 20 mph zones in places where they do make sense—
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
He is peddling conspiracy theories again.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, refers to conspiracies. My constituency is next door to Wales, and I can tell the House that that is not a conspiracy; the 20 mph zones are incredibly unpopular in Wales. This is a blanket policy that makes no sense and is not supported by the public.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State seems to have forgotten the extensive cuts to the road repair budget that his Government have presided over. Let us consider the example of Northamptonshire, where the Government have cut £16 million from highways maintenance since 2020 alone. That is leaving 330,000 potholes unfilled. He knows that the Network North announcement will give Northamptonshire back only £2.5 million of that £16 million over the next two years. As for Wellingborough, the last time Peter Bone mentioned road repairs was in 2015. After 14 years of neglect by the Conservative Government and their former Conservative MP, is not the best advice for people in Wellingborough who want action on potholes to vote for Labour’s Gen Kitchen next Thursday?
Mr Harper
It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to hear that I do not agree with him at all. Before the Network North announcement, the Government were already investing over £5.5 billion of capital funding in highways maintenance between 2021 and 2024-25, and in the Budget last year, the Chancellor found an extra £200 million for eligible highways authorities. The £8.3 billion is on top of that, so I would urge voters in Wellingborough to vote for our fantastic candidate, Helen Harrison, who will make a fantastic Member of Parliament to serve on the Government side of the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Mark Harper and Bill Esterson(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Pothole repairs halved since 2016; insurance premiums up; fuel prices up; electric charge point roll-out 10 years behind schedule; £950 million EV charge point fund still not open three years after being announced; 10% trade tariffs threatening consumers and manufacturers—which of those is not an example of where this Government have failed drivers over the last 13 years?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman had a number of things that he purported to suggest were facts. Let me just pick one of them: the roll-out of EV charging. That is absolutely on track according to the independent assessment from the National Infrastructure Commission. The number of public charge points is up 43%. As the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) set out, we have published and laid before the House the legislation to implement our zero-emission vehicle mandate, which gives the industry the confidence to invest in and roll out those charge points, to drive the roll-out of electric vehicles. We are absolutely on track to do that, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome it.
Rail Services
Debate between Mark Harper and Bill Esterson(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
The particular set of circumstances the hon. Gentleman talks about requires Network Rail to work closely with Transport for London, as it is doing, to look at those circumstances. I know there have been issues with the timetable on his particular line and I remember a conversation he had with my hon. Friend the Rail Minister at the last set of oral questions, where my hon. Friend was able to supply the House with some positive news. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will take that away and look at it to see whether there is more we need to do in the short term to improve performance for his constituents.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Many of my constituents are unfortunate enough to have to rely on Avanti. They thought the Secretary of State’s predecessor should not have extended the contract last time, let alone this time. I want to look at some of his claims about improved performance, because they do not stand up to scrutiny over any extended period of time. Everybody knows what is going on here, because they have experienced the service for themselves. The average number of cancellations between September 2022 and March 2023 was just as high as over the previous six months, and Avanti had the highest proportion of trains more than 15 minutes late on record. The travelling public know it, we know it, and I suspect he knows it too: Avanti should be stripped of its franchise.
Mr Harper
I think we should judge Avanti’s performance fairly. The hon. Gentleman is mashing periods together. Before December, I was quite clear that Avanti absolutely had to deliver an improved timetable—that did not start until December. Of course, as I said in response to previous questions, the first month or so of that was disrupted enormously by industrial action either in the train operating company or in Network Rail, or in both. Since Avanti brought it its new timetable, it has delivered 40% more services. Yes, it has not delivered sustained reductions in cancellations, but it has delivered reductions more recently.
There is no point in looking at the performance last summer and autumn, which I have accepted was terrible. There was a problem to fix, which is why Avanti needed to bring in its new timetable. Since it has done that, it has delivered improvements. Are they good enough? No, which is why I have extended it for a further six months only. Avanti is very clear that it has to deliver sustained performance improvement, and I judged that that was the best way to deliver improved performance for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and those of other hon. Members.
draft Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Import, Export and Placing on the Market) (amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Debate between Mark Harper and Bill Esterson(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, on an issue that is of extreme interest to many of our constituents. The brevity of the Minister’s opening remarks possibly does not do justice to the size of the mailbag that many of us receive on such occasions.
I was struck by how odd it was that we were given this statutory instrument to scrutinise while we have not been asked to scrutinise certain others, such as the 42-page and 79-page trade remedies statutory instruments that the Minister’s Department laid before the House of Commons on 5 March and brought into force the following day, missing the 21 days for which it is custom and practice to let such instruments be laid before us to consider and, if we so wish, object to. It is odd to compare such a small, uncontroversial SI as the one that we are considering—we will support the Government in what they propose—with such significant documents as those on trade remedies, with their far-reaching implications. Frankly, that shows what a bizarre situation we are in.
Mr Harper
I will keep my remarks focused on this Committee. Is not the reason why we are considering this statutory instrument that the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which scrutinises the range of European statutory instruments and makes a judgment about whether they should be considered using the negative or affirmative procedure, decided that it should be considered in this way and, I presume, that the others should not?
Bill Esterson
I shall not be drawn too far in responding to that intervention, Mr Paisley, but of course it is not just the statutory instruments Committee that can decide whether an SI is considered using the negative or the affirmative procedure. The Government can decide, in the first instance, whether an SI is dealt with using the affirmative procedure.
We will move on. The detail of the European Union’s impact assessment, when it brought the regulation in, acknowledged just how straightforward, important and uncontroversial that was, and its assessment was extremely thorough. That is in stark contrast to the fact that the Government did not feel the need even to revisit what was in the EU’s impact assessment of some years ago and to make similar points about the desirability of these regulations in removing the trade in cat and dog fur and the implications for trade in the fur of other animals. It is regrettable that yet again we have an SI without an impact assessment, especially given the quality and depth of the EU’s work, even on something so straightforward and uncontroversial.
I shall explain why I am raising the matter now. I am sure that all hon. Members will reach the same conclusion: this measure is straightforward and clearly something that we need to adopt in UK law and will all want to support. However, without the evidence that we could have been given in a thorough impact assessment and without the engagement of a full consultation process, how can we, as laymen and women without the necessary expertise, really be in a position to judge whether these regulations deliver the technical detail needed to achieve what the Government say they want to achieve? We are having to take this as an item of faith, without the necessary scrutiny to back up the decision making. I place on record that that is a concern we have, but we will have to put that to one side later on.
I am aware that this instrument replaces a similarly named instrument previously laid and subsequently withdrawn because of a technical error. That sort of makes the point that I was alluding to about concerns regarding the technical nature of such regulations. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could advise the Committee of what error was made in the initial drafting and how the amended drafting rectifies the errors or individual error.
That said, the regulations before us seem right and proper to ensure that the UK maintains the existing ban on the import and export and placing on the market of products that use cat or dog fur, with the attached criminal penalties for any breach of the ban. It is entirely right that steps are being taken to ensure that the ban remains in place once the UK has withdrawn our membership of the EU and where we are no longer covered by the existing legislation, which comes by way of EC regulation 1523/2007 as adopted in domestic law under the Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Import, Export and Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008.
The issue brought to our attention by the sifting Committee is the power conferred on the Secretary of State to
“make regulations allowing the placing on the market or the import or export of cat and dog fur or products containing such fur for educational or taxidermy purposes.”
I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government have any plans to bring forward regulations to that effect, and if so, how they propose to determine the intended purpose of such imports and how they would ensure that any such future concession is not subject to abuse.
The ban was introduced due to public indignation and moral outcry about the trade in fur products and is considered a potential test case for future efforts to end the trade in furs, pelts, skins and other products that have been subject to animal cruelty concerns about the way in which they are harvested. As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire pointed out at the start of the Minister’s remarks, there is great public interest in this—so much so that 400,000 people signed the “Fur Free Britain” petition.
It would be helpful to know the Government’s policy intention in that respect and whether the regulations may be followed in due course by other measures to bring about an end to the fur trade or the importing of goods that are considered to be in contravention of our domestic standards on environmental animal welfare or sanitary and phytosanitary grounds. Recent public opinion polls suggest that fewer than one in 10 people in the UK find it acceptable to buy or sell dog, cat or seal fur products.
There is, of course, a risk that cat and dog fur products may still enter the UK market, having been mislabelled or otherwise, and I ask the Minister to clarify what efforts the Government are making to police that. He will remember that great concern was raised in the European Union’s impact assessment about the challenge of products from outside the EU in the trade in cat and dog fur. What efforts have been made and what analysis have the Government carried out to determine how much of a problem this trade from outside the EU has been, and what plans do the Government have to address that after we have left the EU?
My party has been clear that a Labour Government would ban fur imports entirely. Do the Government intend to bring forward their own policy proposals in that respect? Article 20 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade lists the general exceptions under which members may introduce restrictions on trade, which include measures:
“(a) necessary to protect public morals”
and
“(b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health”.
As such, the EU and US bans on cat and dog fur products have not been challenged through the World Trade Organisation since their introduction more than 10 years ago.
Bill Esterson
We are very clear that we want to maintain minimum standards and alignment with the EU as part of that customs union, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows. It is as important to influence what goes on in the European Union as it is to develop our own domestic policy.
Mr Harper
I promise I will desist shortly, Mr Paisley. The problem is that if we are in a permanent customs union and are no longer in the European Union, we will have no say over the rules. If the European Union did not want to ban this stuff, we could not do it unilaterally, and if the European Union woke up one day and decided to allow this stuff to be imported, we would have no ability to stop it if we were in a permanent customs union. Is that not correct?
Bill Esterson
I will say what I should have said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s first remark: it is not membership of the customs union, but access to the internal market that would affect such regulations. I was making a point about the WTO, and perhaps the Minister can tell us about the assessment his Department has made of the likelihood of a challenge being made against the United Kingdom as a consequence of the regulations being transferred from the EU to UK-only competence. Assuming that the Minister confirms that such a challenge is unlikely and certainly could not be successful, will he explain why the Government have not sought to ban other imports into the EU such as hormone-fed beef or chlorine-washed chicken in line with existing EU bans once we have left the EU? There is a clear and demonstrable public opposition to such imports on morality and animal welfare grounds, let alone outstanding questions about the impact on human health.
UK-Israel Trade
Debate between Mark Harper and Bill Esterson(6 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) on securing the debate and I welcome the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who is responding to his first debate as a Minister after his enforced Trappist-monk silence in the Whips Office in preceding years—I will not go into what happened before that. I welcome the Duke of Cambridge’s comments on his timely visit. He was right to speak about the importance of economic and trade ties between the UK and Israel, but it is also right to debate where we agree and where we have reservations about our relationship.
The EU-Israel association agreement has governed trade relations between Israel and the UK since it came into force in June 2000. It grants Israeli exports preferential access to the UK market, along with the markets of other EU member states. It was supplemented by an agreement on agriculture that came into force at the beginning of 2010, and by a mutual recognition agreement on pharmaceutical products that came into effect in January 2013. Labour would welcome a new trade agreement with Israel to maintain the same market access opportunities for goods, and to deepen a potential relationship in the trade of services, where the UK has an obvious comparative advantage.
As we argued in the Trade Bill Committee, however, no Government should have a blank cheque to introduce new terms of trade without first undergoing a process of external consultation with business and other stakeholders, as well as a proper process of parliamentary scrutiny. The Government’s delegated powers memorandum to the Trade Bill makes it explicit that all the UK trade agreements needed to replace the 40 existing EU trade agreements with countries such as Israel will be legally distinct treaties. Moreover, the same memorandum acknowledges that the powers afforded to the Government under the Bill would allow the
“implementation of substantial amendments, including new obligations.”
Business representatives giving evidence to the Trade Bill Committee expressed considerable concern.
Bill Esterson
I will not give way, because we have been given so little time.
Bill Esterson
This is relevant, because the Israeli trade agreement will roll over, which is covered by the Trade Bill.
However, the Government have so far failed to confirm that they would inform business of any substantive changes to the terms of trade between the UK and its trading partners in the trade deals being negotiated to replace the existing EU ones. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure business that the Government will let it know in advance about any proposed changes to the terms of trade under which companies will be required to conduct their operations, so that they can have the required input into those negotiations before it is too late?
The existing EU trading relationship with Israel is predicated on an understanding that export preferences are available to goods produced in Israel only, and not to any goods produced in the occupied territories. Furthermore, Gordon Brown’s Government introduced labelling guidelines to ensure that consumers are properly informed as to the origin of the produce that they see in the shops and as to whether goods are from settlements in the illegally occupied territories. I trust that the Minister will confirm that that crucial distinction will be honoured in any future UK-Israel agreement. I look forward to hearing what further measures the Government are proposing to take to reinforce clarity on that point.
Bill Esterson
I will not give way; I have told the right hon. Gentleman that already.
Will the Minister confirm that any UK-Israel trade agreement will maintain the existing clarity about the fact that market access preferences offered to Israeli exports into the UK do not extend to goods produced in settlements in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories? It is extremely important that we maintain cross-party recognition of the status of the settlements in the west bank.
The Government have consistently reiterated that the UK considers those settlements illegal under international law, and they have continued to speak out forcefully against Israel’s expansion of settlements. Last October, the Foreign Secretary expressed his concern at Israel’s approval of settlement construction permits in Hebron for the first time in 15 years:
“Settlements are illegal under international law and undermine both the physical viability of the two-state solution and perceptions of Israel’s commitment to it.”
We agree with those concerns about the occupied territories.
From the Trade Bill Committee, we know that Ministers intend to replicate the existing EU-Israel trade agreement exactly. Will the Minister confirm that that will also apply to the human rights clauses and that the Government intend to enforce those clauses once we have left the European Union? Will he confirm that the Government fully support the human rights of all those who will come under the ambit of any future trade agreement between the UK and Israel? The trade preferences granted under the EU-Israel association agreement are conditional on respect for human rights by both sides. Article 2 of the agreement reads:
“Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.”
I trust that the Minister will confirm that respect for human rights and democratic principles will be an essential element of any new UK-Israel agreement.
Last year, Labour’s manifesto said that trade policy should prioritise human rights through our agreements with other countries. We reiterated the importance of human rights in trade agreements during the Trade Bill Committee proceedings in January. They are particularly important in the light of ongoing human rights concerns in Israel and Palestine, yet in February, in a written answer in the House of Lords, the Government stated that they had as yet made no assessment as to Israel’s compliance with the condition in article 2 of the EU-Israel association agreement that it respect human rights and democracy. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will undertake such an assessment as part of a due diligence process when they move towards a new UK-Israel agreement?
Concerns about human rights can dominate the public debate, and if we had longer, we could go into arms sales as well. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the Government’s commitment to the consolidated criteria on arms export controls and the review of whether UK-produced equipment was involved in the use of lethal force by Israeli forces in the last few months.
It is important, however, to recognise the potential for successful trade with Israel. Together, pharmaceuticals and motor vehicles account for almost 30% of our exports to Israel, so supporting those sectors is important. The jobs that they and their supply chains bring are vital to supporting communities, but if the broader trade picture is botched, both sectors will be at risk from the non-tariff barriers that affect their supply chains, due to the just-in-time nature of vehicle components and the risk of drugs degrading in transit.
Our relationship with Israel does not exist in a vacuum; it is directly affected by our relationships with third countries and the wider world. Trade with Israel currently benefits from the fact that we are part of the EU and from the application of rules of origin and regulatory alignment. This weekend, the Cabinet needs to resolve its differences and produce a third way that delivers the certainty needed by business about border arrangements and non-tariff barriers.
Any trade deal that the UK makes with Israel must include strong guarantees that democratic principles and a fundamental respect for human rights will form a large component of that deal. Our policy on trade with Israel is to support a progressive trading relationship that brings jobs and prosperity at home and that also delivers benefits to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. Any future UK-Israel trade deal must be judged against those goals—
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Mark Harper and Bill Esterson(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
1. What discussions he has had on the definition of lobbying.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
The hon. Gentleman will know that we plan to bring forward our proposals for consultation in the new year, and this will no doubt be one of the subjects on which we will seek and receive views.
Bill Esterson
Does the Minister agree that businesses in this country should be lobbying the Government to go back to the negotiating table in Europe to get what is best for British business, jobs and living standards?
Mr Harper
That was a very contrived question. Our proposals on lobbying are very sound. On the European question, I think that the general public agree with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did. There is no conflict between standing up for Britain and ensuring that we are involved in every meeting in Europe and fighting for British interests. We saw the outcome of that in yesterday’s excellent statement on the Fisheries Council.
Prisoners’ Right to Vote
Debate between Mark Harper and Bill Esterson(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman raised two points, and I shall deal with the second one first. I did spell out the difference very clearly earlier, because as soon as things are prefaced with the word “Europe” people do roll them all in together and think that they are the same thing. The European Court is separate from the European Union; they are nothing to do with each other, apart from the fact that they both happen to be based in Europe. On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I think that the general view of those on the Government Benches is that we are not happy or pleased about having to implement the judgment, but we recognise that in a country bound by the rule of law, we have to do it.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Constituents of mine living near the new prison at Maghull will want to know which prisoners will be able to vote and which will not. So far the Minister has not answered the question, so I shall ask it in a slightly different way. In his personal view, who will be able to vote and who will not?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman read that out very well, if I may say so. He will know that the Minister does not have a personal view; the Minister is here to speak on behalf of the Government. I have already set out very clearly the Government’s view. The details about how we are going to implement the decision are still being considered—[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Front Benchers groaning just because I have said it before. It is still true. We are considering how to implement the judgment. When we have taken those decisions, they will be announced in the House in the proper way.