The Economy

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

You are looking at me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will make some progress.

I am going now to focus on tackling inequality. This Queen’s Speech offers no rays of sunshine. In Scotland, we are bringing forward all our spending review plans, our programme for government and our national performance framework and looking at the plans on the basis of the wellbeing of people who live in Scotland. Scotland and New Zealand are leading the way in the world in this space. The UK Government are not taking account of wellbeing, as we can see by the fact that every time Conservative Members stand up they talk about how great it is that we have such low unemployment, how rich everybody is, how well everybody is going and how much higher their wages are. If we ask people in the streets and people at our surgeries whether they feel as though they are richer than they were before a decade of austerity, we find that they all say that they are not richer and that this Tory Government have catapulted them into poverty. We are seeing increasing numbers of children in poverty. In Scotland, we are doing everything we can to combat that, through things such as the baby box and the Scottish child payment. Our Government are doing everything they can but they cannot mitigate every one of the excesses of Tory austerity, no matter how hard we try, because we do not have all the levers that would be available with independence.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady share my disappointment that in opening this debate the Government were unable to give us a date when they are going to close food banks?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree. I am incredibly concerned about the increase in food bank use that there has been, particularly among people who are working. The Government talk about the fact that so many more people are at work, but so many more of those people who are at work are having to go to food banks. People are having to make the choice between heating their homes and feeding their children. Half of families have less than £100 in savings and, if their washing machine breaks down and their kid needs a new pair of shoes, they are into debt. That situation cannot continue. We need this UK Government to step up to ensure that people are paid a living wage that they can actually live on. It does not matter what age they are, be it 19, 29 or 59, they should be paid a living wage that they can live on.

Mortgage Prisoners

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant). I thank the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) for co-sponsoring the motion, the all-party groups for their work and the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating a very important, timely debate for the mortgage prisoners.

To own our own home is one of the aspirations of this society, but to have safe, secure accommodation is a basic need within the hierarchy of needs. Without that, nothing else can happen in a family or for an individual, so how has this country, which ranks home ownership so highly, found itself in a position where we are debating the situation of citizens who are trapped in a contract to make repayments to stay in their property, but who are unable to exercise the right to pay off that mortgage debt against their property so that they can benefit from lower interest rates and make lower monthly payments?

Most people’s understanding of home ownership is that they find a property, approach a lender and suggest the amount that they can put forward by way of deposit. The lender then lends them the difference so that they can purchase the property, and they repay the lender the principal sum and an additional sum by way of interest. They have the property, they are repaying the principal and they pay the interest. When someone wants to move, they sell their home, repay the amount owed, acquire their new property and borrow again. Alternatively, if they can find someone who will lend to them more cheaply, they use the money that person lends to repay the original lender and they move forward, freeing up some of the equity in their house or taking the benefit of lower payments.

Some of us are old enough to remember the silly idea of saving with the building society. We would pay in money month after month, building up a track record of financial stability so that when we found a property we would be lent other people’s money so that we could buy our property. That would be decided on the basis of our financial history. At this stage, I would like to cue the music from “It’s a Wonderful Life” with James Stewart, who acted as George Bailey, who chose to whom he would and would not lend other people’s money from the town. If only we could go back to that and say no to the algorithms and the committees that have led to the bundling of what are called “risky loans” that are sold on. The people who are trapped in their mortgages find that they owe money not even to the original lender, but to someone else who might be abroad and for whom there is just an email address and no regulation, and who controls their mortgage, the interest rates and the payment periods. There is nothing that the borrower can do.

That might be an oversimplification, but it is a reality for constituents. As the hon. Member for Dover pointed out, it works out as between 300 and 400 people in every constituency in the United Kingdom. They are our friends, neighbours and families. These are not risky mortgages. These are individuals who, in many cases, have never missed a payment in their lives. These are people who understood that when they took out the mortgage they would go to the ends of the earth and cut other things so that they made the mortgage payments at the end of the month, because they wanted their house. They made that honourable contract and unfortunately today, it is with another party that, I will say, is less than honourable.

A blame game is developing. There are arguments between the interested parties over the fact that this is all the fault of the EU and the legislation that was tightened around the lending market. There is the almost nonsensical situation that if someone remortgages with an existing lender, which admits that it is the lender, that person can bypass the requirements for the payments but cannot do so with a new lender.

The reality is that the UK Government, in seeking to do right, as they believed they were with Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, bundled up and sold mortgages to companies—these vulture funds—such as Cerberus, which we have heard about. They have trapped individuals and families as mortgage prisoners. The action of the UK Government and industry led to the selling of loans that the borrower had no say over to an unregulated, overseas vulture fund. The job of such a fund is not to lend money; it is a financial model to exploit and make profit. It would appear that following the successful stamping out of “poor lending”, a new practice—a new fertile field of exploitative profiteering—has been created, and the UK Government are partly responsible for that.

In my short time in the House, I have sparred with the Economic Secretary possibly more than with any other Front Bencher. It has been a great pleasure, and I know him to be an honourable man. Let me take him back to what he said in a letter, because I genuinely believe it to be the case:

“I can commit to a determined effort to resolve this. There is no reason why these individuals should be left in this very difficult position.”

I hope that today is the day on which he will be able to set out a way to resolve this problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the regulator is not making up these rules in isolation in an ivory tower. It is working with industry representatives to ensure that the changes it delivers will create an environment with an effective outcome. There is no point having a solution that does not solve the problem. I cannot set out the range of options that will exist, but I am confident that the work being undertaken by the FCA will lead to an effective outcome. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s second point later when I talk about the points that he and others made about Cerberus.

[Martin Whitfield]

Did I hear the Minister correctly when he said that this will not extend to any sum beyond the existing loan, and that there will therefore be no facility to enter any of the equity that has accumulated, in some cases?

[John Glen]

As I have tried to set out, I am not the arbiter of this specific issue, and it would be wrong for me to be drawn into the outcome before the consultation has concluded. That is imminent, however, as is the implementation of the solution.

Financial Exclusion: Access to Cash

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) on securing the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee on facilitating it.

The banking situation has changed substantially over the past 20 years. Indeed, some of the traditional banks would say that the playing field is unfair as it stands. New incomers do not have the fixed asset responsibility of our traditional banks, yet they pick up none of the responsibility for the financial exclusion towards which we are seemingly heading. Work is needed to ensure that all those that benefit as new emergent banks are responsible for the traditional side of banking, which forms such an important part of our communities, particularly our high streets.

Scotland has suffered more bank closures than many areas. Over the last eight years, the number of branches has fallen from 1,625 to 1,015. Indeed, more than 400 have closed since just 2015. In East Lothian, virtually all our towns—Tranent, Prestonpans, Gullane, North Berwick and Dunbar—have suffered bank closures and changes to ATMs and branch opening hours.

We have heard about many important things, including credit unions and education, which has thankfully opened the space for the use of hubs, to which the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) referred. The Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds and Barclays have started business hubs in England. Companies that have large amounts of cash to deposit and want to transact business can go into such hubs and deal with them, irrespective of which bank is theirs.

Similarly, in Edinburgh and Glasgow an entrepreneurs’ hub has been formed, orientated towards new businesses. That model will work on our high streets. The challenge for banks is that, in essence, two separate software systems are operated. However, that can surely be overcome. The advantage of a hub, shared by branches, is that when someone goes in they are dealing with their bank. The challenge facing post offices is that often the employees on the other side of the counter, employed by the Post Office, do not have the banking experience or knowledge to deal with sometimes significant problems, and it is basically unfair to expect it of them.

Through legislation and Government and local authority work, the facilitation of hubs would allow people to continue to deal with their bank. The asset cost would be shared, and it would keep footfall on our high streets so that there is cash for our markets and for people who want to deal in it. Problems will be solved, and hopefully banking on our high streets will have a future.

Clydesdale Bank and SMEs

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I have extreme sympathy for everyone who has had the sort of experience that this constituent has had, but I do not think it is right for any Government to make policy on the basis of one case. It is incumbent on Government to set out a framework and a policy that will deliver real answers to complex questions. I do not accept that the regulation of bank lending would be a good step forward. I understand the argument that it would give certainty to small businesses, but my view is that it would discourage a lot of lending, because there would not be the same appetite for lending if that regulation was as onerous as it would likely be.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) on securing this important urgent question. We license and regulate banks to protect customers and because our economy requires SMEs to work as well as they do, but we also need to level the playing field of power between banks, SMEs and individual customers. There is overwhelming evidence that the banks have abused their position of power in the past. If I was at my most sympathetic, I would say that trust in the banking system is at breaking point. I actually fear we have gone beyond that. Is the Financial Conduct Authority really the answer to this, or has the time not come to have a financial services tribunal that SMEs, individual customers and banks can trust to resolve these problems, so that we can move forward?

[John Glen]

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman a number of times. As I have said to him previously, we need an effective mechanism that small businesses can get reliable and efficient access to and answers from. I have seen the investment that has gone into the expanded provisions of the ombudsman service. I know that he is not convinced, but this matter is not set in stone forever. Obviously the service needs to deliver. In my conversations with the chief executive of the ombudsman service, as in my conversations with UK Finance and the chief executive of every bank, I have said that this is the top priority in this area of my portfolio.

Social Media and Screen Use: Young People’s Health

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

Molly Russell’s father, Ian Russell, spoke out after we completed our report, and what he said about the experience of his daughter is central to our recommendations. There must be much greater transparency, as well as mechanisms to ensure that the very harmful materials that Molly saw on Instagram do not come in front of children online. Children must be protected from such harm, and the hon. Lady is right to highlight that issue.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve on the Committee chaired by the right hon. Gentleman, especially with regard to this report. I wholly agree with its conclusions, but draw particular importance to the point about data access, which is vital for future knowledge, as well as the duty of care. Does he agree that our conclusions about parental engagement are of equal importance? Parents have a key role to play in empowering their children and giving them resilience online, but they themselves need huge support to educate their children. The onus is therefore on Governments across the United Kingdom to ensure that parents have the right remedies, right knowledge, and right access to information to be able to educate their children and protect them online.

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, which I entirely share as I enjoy working on the Committee with him. He is right to highlight the need for guidance and advice from the parents’ perspective, which is why I welcome the chief medical officer’s report today. One thing she highlights, which is potentially uncomfortable for us all, is the fact that children report being concerned about parents who use social media in front of their children, rather than engaging with them. In a way that makes the point that we all have a responsibility. The Government have to act, because the time for legislation is long overdue, but as we grapple to cope with the social revolution that has happened over the past five years, we as a society all have a responsibility.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

In my relatively brief contribution I just want to ask the Government why there is disagreement about these perfectly reasonable new clauses that ask the Government to review the impact on poverty and inequality. When the Minister responds, will he say whether he refuses to keep under review any of the budgetary measures to be implemented through this Finance Bill to see whether they impact on poverty and inequality? Is that honestly what he is saying? If he is not saying that, why cannot he accept a new clause that is asking him to review this? Who disagrees with looking at whether our Government’s policies are actually tackling poverty and inequality? I find this absolutely incredible.

The Minister can say that this is all rhetorical nonsense, but let us see what he says about how he intends to review the impact of the Government’s policies. For example, he knows that one of the key challenges for Government policy is that, despite what they have tried to do, the number of working people in poverty is increasing. That is a policy challenge. It is not a Labour-Tory thing; it is a policy challenge. If the Minister simply retrenches on this, he is not acting as a Minister of the Crown or a Government Minister responsible for our country; he is acting as a Tory party politician, and that is not what a Minister of the Crown should be doing.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I find it sad to have to ask this, but does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the reason why the Government will not accept the new clauses is that they would provide the evidence that these policies are wrong and that they are harming our citizens?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pinpoint the cost of living. Opposition spokesmen sometimes dispute this, but it is more expensive to live in a rural area. It is more expensive to heat one’s home. Travel costs are higher, usually in the absence of public transport, meaning that the running of a car is not a luxury but a necessity if one is to access even the most basic of public or retail services.

[Martin Whitfield]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Simon Hoare]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not, because I want to refer to the speech by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). I hope that he will not think it is untoward for me to say this, but the passion with which he delivered his speech was powerful and incredibly compelling. He struck on a point that I was going to make and on which I had jotted down a note or two, and it is a point I have been making in recent speeches around the place. I often admire the Labour party—

[Simon Hoare]

There is always a “but”, though. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that my career has definitely gone now. I did not even know that I had a career, so that is going to be interesting.

There is usually no embarrassment on the Labour side at talking with passion about the burning injustices that we see in all our constituencies and having a clear determination to do something about them. There is no inhibition at all on the Labour side. On my side—I say this as somebody who has been a member of our party since 1985—I occasionally find that we get slightly inhibited about talking from the heart. Other Members have referred to this. We can bandy the statistics about—relative or absolute, percentage this versus percentage that, up, down, more in this, fewer than the other—but it does not matter, because if someone is poor, the statistics do not affect them: they are poor. They want to know that their elected representatives, locally, in this place and those in Whitehall are doing their damnedest to make their life just a little better.

I make this plea to my colleagues on the Treasury Bench: we on the Conservative Benches do not talk enough about the whys of politics. We talk a lot about the whats, but we do not say why. We find homelessness gut-wrenchingly upsetting. We find the closing down of hope, aspiration and life expectancy intensely moving, and we burn with the desire to help. It certainly motivates me every morning to get out of bed and to do my best for my constituents in whatever way I can by supporting policies that I fundamentally believe have the power to make our local economy, and therefore my constituents’ lives, better. If anybody in this House is not motivated by that fundamental political passion to stir up the soul to go and do something about it, I say to them with the greatest of respect that they should not be here. That, I think, must be our principal function. Members from both sides of the House want to arrive at a place where aspiration, hope and opportunity are available for as great a number of our citizens as we can possibly facilitate.

We also want to make sure that the economy is buoyant. Why? Because warm words butter no parsnips. The emotional speeches may salve our consciences, but we need the economic policies that deliver the taxes and pay for the safety net below which, I am determined, none of my constituents should, or will, ever fall on my watch. We need to be ever vigilant to make sure that our economic policies are delivering that growth.

[Martin Whitfield]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I say with the greatest respect that he is making a very good speech for the two new clauses. The knowledge gained from reviewing policy implementation feeds into the decisions that go forward, so, at this stage, I invite him to support the two new clauses.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman is—what’s the phrase?—pushing his luck on that. I think that the divide here will be on the theoretical and the practical. I am always conscious that we can go to any Minister’s office, or any Department, or any local council, and find gathering dust, spiders and dead flies on many a window sill reports, reviews and assessments of this, that and the other, and they have a pretty short shelf life. I would much prefer to spend Government time focusing on delivering those policies of hope and growth.

Christmas Adjournment

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, in these unusual surroundings. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for ensuring that the debate took place today. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I would like to associate myself with his comments regarding our Jewish colleagues, friends, family and communities across the United Kingdom, both for the remaining part of this year and in the future.

I hope to talk about a number of matters, including one which was brought to my attention this morning and which raises great concern. I heard today that the RZSS WildGenes laboratory at Edinburgh Zoo has said that in all probability the Scottish wildcat is now extinct as a gene pool. The gene pool of one of the most endangered wild mammals in the world, which resides in Scotland in very small numbers, is now so affected by the domestic cat that it cannot be identified separately. The only gene pool we have is in approximately 100 Scottish wildcats that are in captivity. With the enormous challenges that face this country and the world, it is interesting to look at one small aspect, in this case an animal that lives in the United Kingdom, was far more widespread in past decades and is now literally extinct in the wild. If the follow-up tests that are currently being done confirm this, it would be truly tragic news.

As we approach Christmas, it is a salutary lesson to think that in the United Kingdom we were asked to take care of a mammalian group and we have managed to do that so badly that it has fallen into extinction. We look at the giant panda, the tiger and the elephant—all of which rightly require care—and yet we may have let one of the most important and unique groups of animals slip into extinction on our own doorstep. I find that very saddening, but I compliment Edinburgh Zoo on the work that it does.

[Bob Stewart]

One of the great things about these debates is that we always learn something—I had no idea about the information that the hon. Gentleman has given us about the iconic Scottish bobcat. I am still a bit unclear; is he saying that the Scottish bobcat is still there in the wild, but has mated with domestic cats and become a sort of mixture of the two? In other words, does it remain in the wild, not as a bobcat but as something mutated?

[Martin Whitfield]

A more succinct description I could not give. The gene pool is now so diluted that individual Scottish wildcats that have been caught and tested in the wild are almost impossible to distinguish from domestic cats. That is the nature of cats generally, but it is disappointing that we have reached that stage. The only gene pool with a guarantee of wildcat status exists in the 100 or so that are kept in zoos and wildlife parks around the world.

I thank the teachers and teaching staff of East Lothian and those who work for East Lothian Council, as well as the pupils who have done so much this year, such as those at North Berwick High School who held a UN model assembly at which schools from around Scotland gathered to debate important matters. It was a great privilege to go into what were effectively committee sittings and listen to highly intelligent and articulate young people discussing such important matters—indeed, some of their ideas and proposals merit consideration in this House. I feel very hopeful for the future and for politicians to come. At primary schools I have visited, children have asked questions that I just could not answer; I had to do the honest thing and tell them that I did not know, but would go and find out.

I want to mention people who have invisible disabilities, and the work of Grace, a campaigner from Prestonpans in East Lothian who created Grace’s Sign. I also want to mention Judith Dunn, whom I invited to Parliament on #AskHerToStand day. It was such a wonderful day: so many women came from all around the country, and it speaks so positively of what we can achieve.

The Civil Nuclear Constabulary is a strange and almost unknown group of police officers who protect our nuclear establishments, but who are separate from the police force and are a civilian group. They are the armed backup to our police forces. They have been in a pension dispute for a long while now; I was able to ask a question about it this morning in business questions. This Government have kicked down the road the question of their pension settlement and when they can retire. I had hoped that for this Christmas they would have had a present of knowing what was going to happen to them; I sincerely hope that by next Christmas they have an understanding.

I wanted to talk about universal credit, which has been in my constituency since 2016. We are not a constituency where it is being rolled out; we were one of the test beds. East Lothian reflects the statistical make-up of the United Kingdom and particularly Scotland very accurately, so it was a test bed for universal credit, and it has not gone well. We have problems with universal credit that go beyond that roll-out. It was a great pleasure to hear hon. Members making points earlier about the significant difficulties where there are two payments in one month and then nothing follows in the next month, and the pressure that that brings to bear on families and individuals. Other people are persuaded—I use that word carefully—by advice from the Department for Work and Pensions to set up their own business and then, 11 or 12 months down the line, are let down by the very system that persuaded them to set up their own business because their earnings are such that they suddenly lose their benefits.

I want to talk about the WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Many women in my constituency, who are well through their administrative complaints procedure, have received a letter that their case is now being stopped because of the High Court case to allow the judicial review. My understanding is that that letter is incorrect and actually all that has happened is that their case has been postponed until the outcome of the hearing. However, again, it is an indication of how communication from the Government to our constituents is so far from being clear and understandable that it brings more challenges.

With only 99 days to go, however, I want to spend two minutes mentioning the real threat of a no deal. It has come up before and I fear it will come up again, but it needs to come up for a reason. I asked the Prime Minister who she would blame if there was no deal, and she indicated that it would be Parliament’s responsibility. It may well, in one view of it, be Parliament’s responsibility, but the Government are the Executive, with the power to ensure that that does not happen.

I can talk about the announcement today that the word “unlikely” has been dropped from the preparation notes that have been issued. I can talk about the 3,500 troops who have been placed on standby, the cut to any holiday requests from 1 April, the reversion to World Trade Organisation rules, the fact that we do not have an immigration policy that can come in in just over six weeks’ time, the fact that the problem at the Irish border will not be resolved by then and the bottom-line forecast that no deal will be an economic disaster into the future.

Some people have suggested that it is a ruse—that it will never happen. Some people have said, “It could well happen. We don’t know.” Some people have said, “Oh, don’t worry about it,” and some people have said, “Everything will be fine.” People see many versions of the future, but I know it rests with the Prime Minister and within the power of the Government to say, “No deal won’t happen.” I disagree vehemently with leaving the European Union, as do my constituents, but putting that political decision to one side, I find the executive decision about whether to put the country in a position where it will leave with no deal saddening, upsetting, annoying and frustrating. I also find it—I choose this word carefully—irresponsible, and I would expect far, far more of any Government of the United Kingdom.

At Christmas, I urge that the risk of no deal be removed so that we can move on in whatever way suits the United Kingdom. That will remove the fear. As the children said to me at a high school when I asked them about Europe, “But it’s our future.” It is their future. I am not asking to stay in Europe or for a people’s vote, both of which would be brilliant; I am saying, “Please remove this option, which has no agreement across the House.” For whatever reason it is still on the table, but it is the one thing that should be removed.

I wish everyone a very happy Christmas and a very peaceful and prosperous new year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for that comment.

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) for securing the time for this debate in Westminster Hall; I think that it has worked quite well here, actually. When he began his speech, his comments suggested that he did not quite trust the Government actually to deliver; I cannot imagine why. However, having had so much time to discuss the chaotic and now—frankly—reckless handling of Brexit by the Government, it is a crucial time for hon. Members to have a chance to talk about other issues affecting their constituents. However, to quickly look back, this time last year we had just voted against the Government’s attempts to sideline Parliament on the deal. That should have been the point at which the Prime Minister took a different, more inclusive path to involve MPs and Parliament in that proposal. However, it is 12 months later, and in the past few weeks we have seen the problems that have arisen as a result of not choosing that inclusive path. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) that it is irresponsible not to rule out a no-deal Brexit: it is entirely possible to do so, and to take away some of the fear and uncertainty of our constituents.

I think that all colleagues here today share a frustration that other policy areas are not being addressed, some of which we have heard about. For me, one of the most important crises facing the country is social care, and recently, the Green Paper has yet again been delayed: it has been delayed five times since summer 2017, when we were promised it. We are now being told that it will be published at the first opportunity in 2019, so perhaps the Minister could take back to the Government the message that the first opportunity needs to come very quickly. That delay is also tied up with the NHS plan, on which I chaired a session with NHS England in Parliament last week. We know that plan is ready, but again it has been delayed, and we do not know when it is coming. That means that local health providers are facing great uncertainty at what is a very busy time for them, which is not acceptable.

We have actually passed legislation in the past year since we last rose, and although we sometimes think this place is a bit arcane, I am pleased that Dame Laura Cox’s report on bullying and harassment has been published, and that the House of Commons Commission has agreed a way forward. I hope that there will be some progress on that, and that conduct across the House will improve.

We have heard a great range of speeches today—I have enjoyed these debates when I have heard them in the past, because we get to learn an awful lot. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead took us through a number of issues in his constituency. To me, one of the main issues was the cuts that are happening, not just to local government but to all the partnership bodies and charities that are working together, and the impact that is now having on local people. We had the usual sweep from Southend: I too am looking forward to the centenary party for the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). The thing I learned most is that Brexit is going to stop in the Amess household on 25 December, for one day only. We all look forward to that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) reminded us of the debate that she so powerfully led in this place last year. The fact that those poor families are yet again in that so-called temporary accommodation is really scandalous. We are all aware of the issue of rent arrears from universal credit that my hon. Friend mentioned, and I would certainly like to take up her offer of more information on the great work that the WISH Centre is doing for young people—as, I am sure, would many hon. Members. I had not heard the debate about isotretinoin, but I know that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) will keep that debate going and keep it in Members’ interests.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan) about the trials and tribulations of the Cougars, and the breakthrough that is rugby league and rugby union co-operating on something. That has taken a number of years, so if that is happening, there is hope for all sorts of co-operation breaking out. My hon. Friend also highlighted an important issue about the scandalous lack of accountability of regional schools commissioners for the very important decisions that they are making in our communities. We have perhaps all experienced that, and I wish my hon. Friend luck in addressing that issue. Mr Robertson, you missed out on an important contribution: we have a tip for the King George VI on Boxing day. We are all going to be waiting patiently at Kempton, so that was very useful. I completely agree with my hon. Friend about Boxing day travel. Fans will be travelling from Brentford to Bristol City on Boxing day, and public transport is important every day of the year for local people, but is especially important for grounds on Boxing day. That is a really important campaign, and I wish my hon. Friend well with it.

We heard from the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about the great work that he has been doing, particularly on housing and other issues. I commend him for his vital work on the holocaust memorial, and the importance of continually combating antisemitism in our country. From my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian, we learned a lot about cats—perhaps more than we wanted.

[Martin Whitfield]

Wildcats.

[Karin Smyth]

Yes, wildcats. I visited Edinburgh Zoo as part of the British–Irish Parliamentary Assembly this year, and it does some great work, so I wish my hon. Friend good luck with that. As I said, I agree with him about the major part of his speech: the irresponsibility of the Government on Brexit.

I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said about the local enterprise partnerships: some are better than others, and it is for local people to help out in their communities. I look forward to the Labour Government sorting out those direct trains for him. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the issues around Coney Street, and we have all been affected by the so-called consultation by the Post Office. That is something we all recognise, and I know that my hon. Friend will make sure the Post Office does its homework better. Regarding Bootham Park Hospital, she and I have joined forces with NHS Property Services on the importance of NHS estate being part of those communities and overcoming the fragmented nature of the health service, working better to help local communities with big, important decisions. Again, my hon. Friend is right to highlight the social history of places such as our football grounds: those public spaces need to be taken into those communities and consulted with properly.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) has reminded us of the debates he has raised previously about drones. What has gone on today is shocking; we have not caught up with all of it. I also agree with him about new developments—I have a number of those in my constituency—needing infrastructure when they are built, particularly GP access and school places, which help to get communities on board. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) on his first full year, and his 167 contributions to debates. Well done.

HBOS Reading: Independent Review

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing the debate. I echo his concerns about the failure of the Griggs review and whether it really provides an outcome for the victims of this terrible fraud, many of whom have suffered far more losses than just financial ones.

The Griggs review was established to offer fast and fair compensation to the victims, but its reality is very different. The all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance has received many representations, as have I, that have described it as a farce, a cynical whitewash and, above all, not fit for purpose, because it is an internal scheme with complete control held by the bank.

We have seen that tactic time and time again in the financial industry. It establishes an internal compensation scheme and conducts an internal investigation to give an illusion of accountability, when the reality is that it can maintain significant control with minimal independent oversight. That is evident from the Dobbs review, which was intended to establish whether issues relating to the HBOS Reading fraud were properly investigated and appropriately reported to the authorities, and whether individuals in the Lloyds Banking Group deliberately tried to conceal or cover up information relating to the fraud. Although we are not questioning the integrity of Dame Linda and her team, the fact remains that they operate within the scope and parameters set by the bank, and they do not have the statutory powers required for a robust and thorough investigation of the matters.

Worryingly, as has been mentioned, the review will consider events only between 2009 and 2017, thereby ignoring the damning conclusions of the Turnbull report, which states that the cover-up of the fraud commenced as early as 2005. There will also be no interim report and the findings might not even be published. Lloyds bank must ensure that the findings are made public, otherwise the public and Parliament will simply not have confidence in the review.

That still leaves some important questions. Where are the regulators and the investigative agencies in that? The Financial Conduct Authority, the Serious Fraud Office and others seem comfortable to simply outsource their regulatory responsibilities to the organisations being investigated. In a recent letter to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, the director of the SFO, Lisa Osofsky, stated that it would not be appropriate for the SFO to comment on those matters, given the work that is currently being undertaken by the National Crime Agency and the Dobbs review. It cannot be acceptable that the organisations responsible for investigating fraud at the highest level are content to allow the bank that is under investigation to set the parameters and scope of their investigations. That cannot be right.

UK Finance has recently announced that the industry has agreed to establish a new ombudsman scheme for larger small and medium-sized enterprises with a turnover between £6.5 million and £10 million and a balance sheet up to £10 million. The APPG has written to the Minister with several concerns about the proposals. Crucially, there will still be a gap in accessing justice for those businesses with larger claims above £600,000. The FCA’s consultation on SME access to the Financial Ombudsman Service clearly shows that an award limit of £600,000 would exclude 41% of complainants because their claims would be above that level. The activities of the Global Restructuring Group were upwards of £1.7 million, so the limit would mean that a lot of people would not gain access to justice. Other people watching and experiencing that are questioning the responsibility of our banking system.

We require an independent mechanism for resolving such disputes that can decide cases on a fair and reasonable basis, capture unregulated entities, force the disclosure of information and the attendance of witnesses, and make those decisions in the public domain. That is what a financial services tribunal could do. I am afraid that I believe that is the only mechanism that would give businesses the confidence they require to borrow, that would give justice to those people who have come here today and who are watching outside this place, and that would put the banks back where they belong—as cornerstones of our communities.

Draft Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2018

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 General Committees

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2018.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Austin. For most people in the UK, pensions are their largest financial asset, but that, unfortunately, makes pensions an attractive target for fraudsters. Pension scams can have a significant and devastating impact on people’s lives. Scams can lead people to face retirement with a greatly reduced income and unable to build their pension savings back up.

From recent debates in the other place, I am aware of the strength of feeling on tackling cold calling. As well as being a nuisance, cold calling is the most common method used to initiate pension fraud. According to Citizens Advice’s most recent statistics, 97% of pension fraud cases brought to it originated from a cold call. That is why the Government are taking action to ban pensions cold calling.

Before I discuss the regulations, I will briefly explain how the current system works. The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003—PECR—permit firms to cold call consumers for marketing purposes, subject to a couple of exceptions, which are where the consumer has notified the caller that they do not wish to receive such calls, or has listed their number on the telephone preference service. The current regime, therefore, permits cold calling unless a consumer has proactively opted out.

The purpose of these regulations is to amend PECR in order to much more tightly restrict firms from cold calling consumers about their pensions. The regulations do that by creating an explicit opt-in regime that prohibits all such calls unless one of two tightly drafted exemptions applies and the caller is authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority or is the trustee or manager of a pensions scheme. The exemptions mean that the ban does not have an unnecessary or disproportionate impact on legitimate activities.

It is important to highlight that the exemptions do not apply to so-called introducers, which are the marketing firms that seek to establish leads that they then pass to financial advice firms. Introducers undertake the majority of pensions cold calling. Under the proposed regulations, there are no circumstances under which introducers are permitted to call consumers about their pensions.

The first exemption applies where the consumer has given consent to the caller to receive direct marketing calls about their pension. It has been included so that consumers can seek information on pension products. The regulations are fully in line with the general data protection regulation, which sets a high standard for consent. Consent must be actively given—for example, the use of pre-ticked boxes is not permitted.

The second exemption applies where the consumer has an existing client relationship with the caller, such that they would expect to receive such calls. It means that individuals can receive information about investment opportunities from firms with which they have a client relationship.

To help to future-proof the regulations, the definition of “direct marketing in relation to pension schemes” has been drafted widely, which will help to ensure that we capture new activities that may evolve in future, as well as activities that we know scammers already use.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

On the changing approach taken by the scam companies, will the regulations cover the use of texting and contact through messaging? I know from constituents’ experiences that a response by way of text is deemed to be consent and they then get the phone call.

[John Glen]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The pensions cold calling ban does not include direct marketing via texts and emails, because they are already closely restricted under PECR. Under regulation 22, texts and emails are restricted unless consumers have given consent. That is an opt-in regime.

[Martin Whitfield]

To pursue that point, is the Minister saying that a response to a text is not deemed to be consent for a subsequent phone call?

[John Glen]

Those regulations deal with that matter; I am dealing today with the banning of cold calling. I will move on to enforcement, and then I will be happy to respond.

The ban will be enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office, a world leader in the protection of information rights. The ICO’s tough enforcement powers include fining offenders up to £500,000. I am also pleased to say that from Monday next week, 17 December, directors of companies making unlawful calls may also be personally liable for penalties of up to £500,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Members for Oxford East and for North Ayrshire and Arran for their points, which I will try to respond to as fully as I can. I will start with the last point, about the delay. All I can say is that, since I have been in office, this is something I have focused on. It came out of the legislation that was introduced in the spring. I am pleased that we are at this point. I cannot account for the delay fully, but I am glad we are at this point today.

The hon. Member for East Lothian asked whether, if someone has opted into receiving text messages, they are opting into receiving calls. The answer is no, because the GDPR requires granular consent to something clear and specific. Consent to receiving a text is not consent to receiving a call.

[Martin Whitfield]

Just to clarify, the experience that I am aware of is that a text message was used, which itself invited consent. The caller used the consent given by the response to the text message to phone again. The measure talks about the specific line that the caller has been authorised to use, but I wonder whether the Minister understands that, in the regulations, the consent to approach a person has to be for the telephone number/line, in which case the text messaging system would not be consent at any time.

[John Glen]

As I say, text messages are not the subject of these regulations, which relate to the PECR. I am relying on box notes to clarify the point. I will have to take this away and write to the hon. Gentleman. I understand the specific example that he has raised, and I will not leave him in any ambiguity on that point. Currently, my understanding is that one cannot opt in to receive cold calling by text message, but I will write to him as soon as I can on that matter.

The hon. Member for Oxford East raised issues relating to the ICO and the FCA. I will not rehearse those points again, as we have already have discussed them, but I will respond to the concern about the effectiveness of the ICO as an enforcement body. The ICO will enforce restrictions on unsolicited electronic direct marketing under PECR, and it is appropriate that the planned ban is enforced through that existing framework. As we have discussed, the ICO has tough enforcement powers, including a fine of up to £500,000. There would be a risk of confusing consumers and industry if we had different cold calling enforcement regimes for different sectors. If the Committee agrees to introduce the ban, the FCA will work closely with the ICO where breaches of the rules by FCA-authorised firms are identified and, crucially, the ICO will be able to enforce bans on introducers that are outside the FCA’s remit, because they are not FCA-authorised firms.

The hon. Member for Oxford East also talked about the telephone preference service. This statutory instrument would change it from an opt-out to an opt-in regime, which makes restrictions on pensions cold calling much tighter. In addition, although not all consumers are aware of the TPS, those listed on it would still be protected by the ban.

The ICO’s guidance is indeed clear that consent under PECR is to be understood in accordance with GDPR. Although the FCA is not prohibiting the use of personal data collected by third parties through cold calling, the Government and the FCA will keep the proposal under review as the effectiveness of the ban is monitored. An authorised firm that accepts business from an introducer must meet the FCA’s regulatory requirements, including carrying out due diligence on the introducers they transact with. If customers are given unsuitable advice by an introducer, the authorised firm may be held responsible and subject to regulatory action. The FCA has alerted investment advisers and authorised firms to their responsibilities when accepting business from unauthorised introducers or lead generators. Organisations are already required to process or handle personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR.

I assure the hon. Members for Oxford East and for North Ayrshire and Arran, and the Committee as a whole, that the Government are engaged in an ongoing process. As I said in my opening remarks, this is not “job done”. I recognise that there are a range of concerns from consumer organisations and different parts of the industry about whether further restrictions or bans should be in place. One of the reasons for the draft instrument is that, in future, we can introduce additional restrictions more speedily should they be required.

Leaving the EU: Timber Industry

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect on the timber industry of the UK leaving the EU.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies; I thank you and the Minister for being in your places today. I welcome hon. Members and guests from across the timber industry, who are eagerly anticipating the Government’s response on how the industry will be affected by the terms of our withdrawal from Europe. It is also good to have Hansard here so that we do not have to face the age-old philosophical question: if no one is there to listen to a debate on tree-felling, does it actually take place? Perhaps today we will see through the wood and hunt out some of the trees of questions that are outstanding. Let me put it on the record that, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the timber industries, I shall raise a number of concerns from those who come to our meetings to discuss the problems they face.

Our debate is about the industry and the terms of withdrawal. I wish to focus on three distinct root and branch problems, of which the first is our crashing out of the customs union and single market. I will discuss the real-terms consequences of the Chequers plan for the strategy for the future of house building, for the tax bombshell that could hit the industry after March 2019, and for the importance of upholding regulatory standards when importing and exporting goods after we leave.

The timber industry is very diverse. In Scotland, we have Scotframe, which produces timber-frame house kits from trees grown in the United Kingdom from UK seedlings. It also takes wood from across Europe to manufacture the kits that it sends out to be constructed on sites across the UK.

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. Although 92% of large contractors would support an industry-wide commitment to using more home-grown timber, the UK remains one of the world’s biggest timber importers. Some companies unnecessarily specify grades of timber that are more common abroad, when home-grown alternatives would work perfectly well. Does he agree that we should work to facilitate a stronger domestic market for timber post Brexit?

[Martin Whitfield]

This is certainly an opportunity for the industry to review itself. It is important to note that the timber industry is neither for nor against Brexit. What it seeks is clarity and a way of moving forward, both through increased home-grown production and through facilitating the import and export of wood, which will continue to be a requirement. Interestingly, in 2016 we were the second largest net importer of wood products; only China has a higher net import ratio. We rely heavily on wood and timber from across the EU and from across the world.

This debate takes place under exceptional circumstances. On 29 March, we will leave the European Union. We have had almost two years of negotiations with the EU about the terms of our withdrawal. Admittedly, we are not quite 95% of the way through this period, but the gap for the Prime Minister to secure a workable deal with Europe is closing. The protracted negotiation period has left several key industries, including timber, in the lurch—or out on a branch—over the impact of Brexit.

The sector contributes more than £10 billion a year to the UK economy and has a workforce of more than 200,000. There are profound questions about the nature of our withdrawal and its impact, particularly on the small and medium-sized businesses that make up a substantial part of the industry. As well as being of great national worth, the timber industry supports jobs in my constituency, which has BSW Timber, Windymains Timber and Alba Trees. In East Lothian, we take the acorn to the oak and then cut it up for the use of others.

I am here to express the industry’s concerns about the terms of our withdrawal from Europe and to make a personal case for continued membership of the customs union and the single market after we leave. The technicalities of our withdrawal can appear confusing, but the way in which timber currently enters the UK market from Europe is remarkably simple and has been developed through work across the EU—within the timber industry as much as by the Government. When timber enters the UK from the EU, it clears the ports immediately, with no need for customs checks to be carried out. The materials are then instantly available to be used or sold.

Leaving the customs union threatens the efficiency and simplicity of our current arrangements. The real-terms impact of a poor deal or no deal would mean timber arriving in Britain from Europe and sitting in customs checks for weeks on end. Indeed, the timber industry in the Republic of Ireland is so concerned about that possibility that it has written to its members with advice on it. This is the reality for companies importing timber from outwith the EU, particularly from North America, and it gives a worrying glimpse of the potential post-Brexit future that our timber industry faces. The time that it will take for businesses, most often small and medium-sized enterprises, to not only get hold of timber but store it before selling is of great concern.

I feel I might be wasting the Minister’s time if I asked for his support for a deal to keep us in both the customs union and the single market, so I will be a little more generous with my two questions. Will the Government commit to ensuring that, after we leave the EU, timber imports will continue to clear customs in the same manner? Will they assure the industry that there will be no up-front costs after we leave the EU, particularly for SMEs that trade with EU countries?

Let me turn to the house building strategy. The timber industry provides the frames and parts for virtually all our houses. In East Lothian, there is a commitment to 10,000 new homes in the near future, and the requirement for wood frames for roofing and joists will be exceptional. Our future relationship with the EU will go hand in hand with our current house building strategy, so I want to explore the impact of our withdrawal on the construction of new homes.

We have an unprecedented housing crisis across the UK, and nowhere more so than in Scotland. I accept that, in my constituency, the responsibility for increasing home ownership and eradicating homelessness rests with the Scottish Government, but the desire to achieve those ends is felt across the whole United Kingdom. At least 150,000 households are on waiting lists for homes in Scotland, while just a quarter of people under the age of 34 own their own home, which is down from just under half in 1999. This is a challenge that the Scottish Government are failing to meet.

These simple figures foreshadow an impending crisis in the supply of raw materials, notably timber, after we leave the EU. Some 60% of wood imports come from Europe, but for the timber that we need to manufacture homes, the figure stands at 90%. It is simply not feasible for the UK to become self-sufficient in timber production by next year or even by the end of any transition period that has been discussed. Of course, a move to greater self-sufficiency would be admirable, but there are questions about climate and about the quality of wood grown for purposes ranging from pulping to open joists in houses.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I do not share his concerns about Britain leaving the EU; I feel that the forestry sector, the timber sector and indeed all sectors will have a very good future after we leave in March. However, does he agree that, although trees planted today will not be ready for next year, the British Government are woefully behind on the tree-planting targets that we need for future years? Forestry and timber is an ongoing industry, not something that will stop tomorrow.

[Martin Whitfield]

The hon. Gentleman is right. If we look back to the planting of the great forest, done all those decades—nay, centuries, ago—with the intention of providing this country with the raw materials it was perceived it needed at the time, and we look at the, frankly, very poor forestry planting record of the recent past, we can see that we are in a desperate situation that needs to be addressed. The tree nurseries in East Lothian grow their plants for about 18 months, until they are large enough to plant out without too much protection. We are then still looking at 20 years before there is usable wood. It would need 60 years for that wood to be of use in house building and for ornate furnishings. What we choose to do today will not be of any benefit to us, but will be of benefit to our children and grandchildren—to those who come after us. It is that foresight that is needed by Governments and politicians, in order to make the correct decisions.

[Chris Davies]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that commercial forestry—the planting of softwoods—should not be seen as a crime in the countryside? The industries that we are talking about rely on softwoods, not necessarily hardwoods, which would not mature for 100 years.

[Martin Whitfield]

Absolutely. A diversity in timber planting is essential for the surrounding ecology and for the intended subsequent use of the trees. What is needed is a diverse plan that recognises the differences that are needed in the future. I commend the ambitions north or south of the border on revitalising house building in Britain, but any housing strategy must factor the strength of timber imports into that.

I turn to what is called “the tax and revenue bombshell” in the timber industry. There is a long-term vision for house building, which is vulnerable to any flawed Brexit deal that the Prime Minister may come back with. The current VAT payment system that timber companies are signatories to when importing from Europe is critical for the cash flow of small and medium-sized businesses. The system allows companies to spread the payment of VAT on EU imports, so that goods are sold before they have to pay. In the August no deal papers, that issue was recognised and confidence was given to the timber industry that, in the appalling situation of a no deal Brexit, they would be in a better position with regard to VAT than potentially under any deal.

The Timber Trade Federation is clear that the impact of the VAT bill would fall directly on to small business owners, operating on tight margins, who are the most vulnerable to this change. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that the existing VAT payments system for imports from the EU will remain in place in case of a deal? Alternatively, will the Government commit to establishing a new system that maintains the same benefits?

The immediate impact to consumers of the scheme collapsing would be massive additional costs on building materials, leading to increased costs for basic building work. Piling more money on the base cost of building new homes will not ease the financial burden of encouraging new homeowners. I hope the Government heed the industry’s call and look to fix this issue.

I turn finally to standards. Any industry of this size, which operates with trade heading in either direction, requires a regulatory environment that is fit for purpose—an environment that is strong but that is also standardised. Membership of the EU has created a standardised model that has effectively reduced individual national standards within Europe from 160,000 in 1980 to 20,000 today. That simplification has acted as a passport to trade and minimises the financial barriers that imported goods face. Crucially, standards exist not just to benefit those sitting in boardrooms, but to provide a firewall for consumers across the country. They build consumer trust and they ensure customer safety. One sector-specific issue within the timber industry is the assurance that products are both sustainable and secure.

Leaving Europe will limit our influence over the standards. Does the Minister agree that we should continue to prohibit the importing and use of illegally harvested timber from outwith the EU, and that we should retain the assurance and ensure that our current consistent and simplified approach to EU regulation will continue after March 2019?

There are a number of exciting opportunities present within the timber industry. It is a sector that is spread across every constituency. It provides jobs and investment. It provides training in serious skills shortages in the UK economy. Steps are being taken to seek apprenticeships that will take people from the very start of planting all the way through to the building site to see how the wooden frames are turned into houses, and to the housing factories, where ready-made houses are produced to be assembled on site. That is a massive commitment from the timber industry; it realises that the commitment to future skills is crucial in order for it to maximise opportunities. It would like the same enthusiasm, excitement and out-of-the-box thinking from the Government, to ensure that this industry can continue.

A reckless Brexit deal could affect up to 10 million cubic metres of timber, which we import every year. I hope the Minister agrees that, if the Prime Minister is serious about her personal mission to solve the housing crisis, she must start by scrapping the Chequers deal and broker an improved deal that ensures the timber industry can clear customs freely, considers the VAT question and addresses the question of the house building strategy, so that this hugely important UK industry can be at the root, trunk and branch of our future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Whitfield]

I am very grateful that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), is here. Does the Minister feel that more credit should have been given to the timber industry in the Agriculture Bill, which is currently passing through the House?

[David Rutley]

That is a good question, and I will come on to it—we will not duck it.

As the hon. Member for East Lothian said, we are the second-largest importer of timber behind China— 82% of our wood production uses imported wood. Increased import costs caused by currency fluctuation or regulatory barriers could therefore pose a challenge to the timber trade, but there is capacity in the UK to increase our use of our own forestry resource. There is a real opportunity for import substitution, which over time will help to mitigate any rise in import costs or increase in tariff barriers and will help bring more of the UK’s woodlands under active, sustainable management. That is something we all want to see.

[David Rutley]

We have a number of schemes in place, and the Agriculture Bill will introduce environmental land management systems, which will help us to promote the production of different wood types. I can meet my hon. Friend after the debate to discuss that question in more detail.

There are clear opportunities ahead, which are good commercially and make sense, given our wider ambition to increase woodland coverage and meet our carbon targets. The hon. Member for East Lothian mentioned Scotframe. The issues he raised are matters for the Scottish Government, but I am keen to discuss new timber-based construction with business, and the 25-year environment plan commitment to use more domestic timber in construction points to where we want to go. Using our timber in construction will help us create what some people call a conveyor belt of carbon sequestration here at home, helping us to meet not only the housing targets that the hon. Gentleman outlined but our long-term objectives under the Paris agreement.

Our new environmental land management system will focus public money on the provision of public goods, and put forestry and agriculture on an equal footing. Trees and woodlands provide multiple capital benefits, including carbon sequestration, soil quality preservation and reduced water run-off. There is clearly more work to be done, but that exiting development will help to address some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about VAT. The Government are committed to keep the VAT regime as similar as possible to what we have now. If there is no deal, we will introduce postponed accounting for goods imported into the UK. That was stated in the technical notice entitled “VAT for business if there’s no Brexit deal”, and a written answer from 8 October gives more detail about that. If the hon. Gentleman has more concerns, I will gladly discuss them, but the Government have set out clearly that that is our aim.

The hon. Gentleman also made some important points about EU readiness. We are preparing for any eventuality, but our primary aim is to secure a deal. In our planning for the unlikely scenario of a no deal, we are working to ensure that timber importers face as little inconvenience and as few additional costs as possible in the event that they need to conduct extra due diligence at the borders. Current due diligence checks on imports from outside the EU will remain the same, so in a no-deal scenario a large number of importers will not notice any increased costs. Although we recognise there will be some additional costs for businesses that import from EU countries—I will talk more about that in a minute—we will give them support and advice to ensure the costs are minimised as far as possible. A number of technical notices have been published in the public domain to provide such information, reduce the grey areas that businesses are working with, and give them greater clarity.

[Martin Whitfield]

Does the Minister accept that the paperwork relating to imports and exports from within the EU far exceeds the paperwork relating to imports and exports from outwith it, should that become necessary following our departure?

[David Rutley]

As I was trying to explain, our aim is to ensure any added burden is kept to a minimum. The technical notices help to set that out, but there is clearly more work to do.

We want to ensure businesses can continue to trade with the EU in a no-deal scenario, which is why the Office for Product Safety and Standards will support and advise UK exporters about what documentation they might need to give EU customers so they can fulfil their due diligence requirements. We are working hard to ensure that the supply of timber for building is not interrupted—I know that is a priority for the hon. Gentleman—and we will work with those who face any additional costs or burdens to ensure these are minimised. We are also making good progress in driving up planting rates across the country so we have a resilient timber supply for the future. We are on track to meet our commitment to plant 11 million trees by 2022 and an additional 1 million trees in our towns and cities.

As part of our planning, we are working to ensure that biosecurity standards continue to be met in ways that support trade and the smooth flow of goods. Our plant health biosecurity arrangements protect the environment from pests and diseases, and we will continue to protect the nation’s plant health biosecurity during and after our exit from the EU. That is a clear priority.

We are considering our import controls for plants and their products, including timber and forestry material, for a range of scenarios. The Government are working to ensure that systems and processes are in place so that trade continues to flow after exit.

We have set out our technical notices, including one entitled “Importing and exporting plants and plant products if there’s no Brexit deal”. Timber currently managed under the EU plant passport regime will need to enter the UK with a phytosanitary certificate in a no-deal scenario. Checks will take place remotely after the border to minimise impacts on businesses and ensure the continued smooth flow of goods.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the number and weight of regulations. Our aim is to ensure that, although we will have to adjust to any eventuality, the burden is kept to a minimum.

[Martin Whitfield]

May I extend to the shadow Minister and the Minister an invitation to meet the APPG and its members so we can take these discussions further?

[David Rutley]

I welcome that opportunity. It would be good to meet the APPG and Confor, which provides its secretariat services, to discuss these issues in more detail. I am a new Minister in this area, and it would be a pleasure to do that.