Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

That is right. These regulations will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, with the exception of paragraph 1 of schedule 11, which makes amendments to existing domestic legislation regarding the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls that, in the current regulations I referred to, extends only to England and Wales. This Government, and this country, have to be ready for the prospect of not being part of ECHA—the European Chemicals Agency—in future, and we therefore need to put in place the regulatory framework that means we will continue to have a safe chemicals industry in future.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

The Minister will be aware, I am sure, of the concern that has been expressed by Rolls-Royce, and others, that the SI does not take account of all the scenarios. It mentions, in particular, an application for EU authorisation submitted by a European economic area entity for which a decision has not yet been made and on which a UK downstream user is dependent. Its concern is that post 29 March, in the event of a no-deal exit, UK companies could be left without a proper authorisation, putting many of them in an incredibly difficult position.

[Dr Coffey]

Actually, I am not aware of the reference to that by Rolls-Royce. Yes, we do need, in effect, to replicate the database, and that is what part of these regulations establishes. However, I want to make it clear to the House that CEFIC—the European Chemical Industry Council—and the Chemical Industries Association in the UK have made a joint statement to their members that the contracts that currently exist between consortiums should be amended so that information or data is available both for REACH and for UK REACH in future. None of the consortiums can force their members to do that, but I believe that it is in their best interests to make sure that the data and information required is available to both chemicals regulation systems.

As I said, the regulations apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. This Government and the devolved Administrations have worked together closely on these regulations and have agreed that a UK-wide REACH system will mean a coherent UK market backed by consistent policies and chemical management. The devolved Administrations have been involved in the drafting of the SI and have given their consent. That includes the Labour-run Welsh Government and the SNP-run Scottish Government. Indeed, this was also scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament, which also gave its consent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I associate myself with the concerns raised by the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), and by the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). For those who raised the specific point about the risks of no deal, the most serious concerns could be avoided by the Government simply ruling it out. That is why it is so important for Parliament to assert its authority this week, to prevent the disaster of leaving the EU with no deal.

I will confine my main remarks to a question raised by Rolls-Royce, which contacted me in my capacity as Chair of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I challenged the Minister during her opening remarks, but I have to say that I was not convinced or satisfied with her response so I want to return to the issue. The concern is that, as it stands, the draft statutory instrument looks as if it is flawed, and that flaw could have very serious consequences for UK companies.

The UK REACH SI takes account of a number of scenarios, addressing, for example, the issue of an EU authorisation held by a UK entity on which a UK downstream user is dependent and, equally, that of an EU authorisation held by an EEA entity on which a UK downstream user is dependent. However, it has been put to me that the scenario that is not addressed—I really would like the Minister to deal with this specifically—concerns an application for EU authorisation submitted by an EEA entity for which a decision has not yet been made and on which a UK downstream user is dependent.

According to Rolls-Royce, approximately 10 applications for authorisations to use or supply particular chemicals are waiting for a decision by the European Commission, which, as its decision-making process proceeds, takes advice from the European Chemicals Agency and from member states. The likelihood is that the applications currently submitted will not be decided by 29 March. The applications have been submitted by an EEA entity, not by a UK company. However, UK companies downstream in the supply chain—the end users of those chemicals—are reliant on the EEA manufacturer and supplier holding a current authorisation. In the event of no deal, if the EEA entity manufacturing and supplying the chemical to a UK company has not received its authorisation from the EU by 29 March, the UK company that uses that chemical would immediately become non-compliant with the UK REACH SI.

I would be delighted if the Minister intervened on me to address this specific question: what will happen to those companies, including many small and medium-sized enterprises that probably have no idea about all this complexity, that will immediately become non-compliant after 29 March? The consequences for them are potentially disastrous. They would be acting unlawfully in using those chemicals in this country after 29 March. I would be delighted if the Minister reassured the House now. If she is not able to do so, then this statutory instrument has to be opposed because it will have devastating consequences, quite apart from the other concerns that have been expressed in this debate. I urge the Minister, who remains silent, to take this away, rethink it and ensure that it addresses those concerns properly and fully. Without doing so, there will be very serious consequences.

[Mary Creagh]

I, too, have been contacted by Rolls-Royce and Make UK, the former Engineering Employers’ Federation, which says that the chemicals affected—these in-flight chemicals, if you like—are a range of chromates using coatings, sealings, paints, primers and touch-up preparation, including chromium trioxide, which is used in the chrome plating industry and is significant for the automotive supply chain. It says that limiting the use of these substances would affect a wide range of component part manufacturers, processing houses, and maintenance and repair facilities, as well as other equipment manufacturers. This is exactly what the Environmental Audit Committee warned about two years ago: market freeze, where we simply freeze our automotive supply chains. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in a heavily regulated industry such as aerospace people cannot just switch suppliers from one day to the next?

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

I do agree. One is left reaching the inevitable conclusion that this is chaotic. The party in government prides itself as being the party of business, yet it is putting very many companies in this country in an invidious—indeed, impossible—position unless that is properly clarified.

It is really important that this does not proceed. I know these issues will be raised in the House of Lords, but I hope that this House defeats these regulations this evening. I again urge the Government to withdraw and think again.

Fur Trade

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I want to bring word from the far north of Scotland to all who are here today, and perhaps I had better clear the decks by confirming hon. Members’ worst suspicions: I do live in a house in a very remote part of the highlands that contains, I am afraid to say, some animal trophies. Worse than that, I am old enough to remember when well-off ladies wore fur coats. They were made from skins that were probably farmed in those days. My aunt had a fur coat, although I doubt that she paid for it, such was the precariousness of her finances.

That is my background. I now want to give hon. Members a short physics lesson. If we take a rod of glass and rub it with a piece of silk, it takes a negative charge. If we rub it with something else, it takes a positive charge—I am sure that we all did this in physics lessons—and if we put it near little bits of paper, it will pick them up. What shook me at the age of 12 or 13 was what we rubbed it with, which was cat skins—pussycats; moggies. In the physics lab at my state school there were cat skins, and as a young lad I thought, “This was somebody’s cat; it was a pet, surely. What on earth is going on?” So at that age I was put off the whole idea that has led to today’s debate.

I take great comfort from what other hon. Members have said—I will be brief, because I know that many Members want to speak. I am referring to the widespread support for a ban. It is just as deeply felt in the remote parts of Scotland as it is in Camden, the west country or Yorkshire. Believe you me, that is true—I have had a shedload of correspondence about it. Even last week I was contacted by a lady who comes from a crofting background on Skye, Alexandra Smith. One would think that a crofter, out in the sticks, would know about the rougher end of life, but she, a good Sgitheanach lady—a Sgitheanach is a Skye person; that will test Hansard—said to me, “Please speak in this debate. This practice is abhorrent. I hate it and everything else that is cruel to animals: transporting animals, fur farming and”—

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I just want to make a very quick point. Does my hon. Friend agree that it makes no logical sense that there is special protection, in the form of an EU ban, for cats, dogs and seals while other animals are left unprotected? If the logic applies to them, it should apply to the protection of all animals.

[Jamie Stone]

I absolutely agree. My good and right hon. Friend is quite correct. One thing that we should be proud of in this country is our well known love of and care for animals. We should never forget that. If the Government can see their way to a total ban, perhaps we will set an example to the rest of the world and do away with this horrific and hateful practice.

Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the seasonal agricultural workers scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. There are two points to this debate: first, to highlight the current problems experienced by many in the horticulture and agriculture sectors in recruiting enough seasonal workers; and, secondly, to propose a new seasonal agricultural workers scheme after Brexit and ensure that the industry has enough seasonal workers to pick British fruit and veg.

It is no secret that this country relies on foreign labour to pick its fruit and veg. Some 80,000 seasonal workers pick and process British fruit and veg every year. The majority of them are from the European Union. Many are from Romania and Bulgaria. For better or worse, that is the current situation. Without those workers, British fruit and veg could rot in British fields, and that is the last thing we want. The problem is that seasonal EU workers are getting harder to recruit. Brexit and uncertainty about the status of EU migrants in Britain have played a part. Improving living standards in eastern Europe, particularly Poland, mean that fewer workers are attracted to Britain for higher pay. Perhaps the biggest factor in the labour shortages is the fall in the pound against the euro. The reduction has been between 17% and 20%.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the soft fruit industry in this country is a big success story. One of the major producers in my constituency is 77 staff short at the moment. That means leaving fruit unpicked. There is a real risk that this major success story could be undermined unless we get a good new seasonal agricultural workers scheme deal in place for the post-Brexit situation.

[Neil Parish]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. We have an extremely successful soft fruit industry. In parts of the country, we have very good vegetable growing, too. By their nature, those crops are perishable, so we have to have the labour there at the right time.

The fall in the value of the pound has immediately made work in the UK less attractive to EU migrants. It is time that the large retailers did something. If they do not buy British fruit and veg, they will have to buy it from the continent and pay more for it because of the value of our currency. It is high time that they stepped up to the plate and ensured we are getting a good price for an excellent crop that has nowhere near as many food miles.

Labour shortages are already having serious consequences. A recent BBC survey of members of British Summer Fruits and the British Leafy Salads Association showed that one in five growers already has fewer pickers than they need. Last year, when the Select Committee did an inquiry, an asparagus grower told us that he employed 900 staff. Those staff are needed when the asparagus is fit. A full 78% of respondents said that recruitment had been more difficult in the past year. That shows that the problem might be getting worse and the situation getting tighter.

A separate National Farmers Union survey from May reported a shortfall of some 1,500 workers. It also reported fewer returning workers in the first five months of the year. That paints a worrying picture. In the short term, it means that some food might simply not be picked. It also means higher prices in the shops for the fruit and veg that is picked. In the long term, if British farmers struggle to source the labour they need, that may delay decisions to invest. That could be a real problem. It could even export jobs and agriculture and horticulture industries abroad. We must not export our industry.

We also need greater flexibility in our labour market. Constituents come to see me because they often find it difficult going on and off benefits with short-term work. They get that work, but if they cannot get any long-term work, they have to go back on benefits. They are not always encouraged to get those jobs, and we want to see more of our own labour out there in the fields.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is right and that is a good point. Going around polytunnels now, one can see that everything is raised. I am sure the hon. Gentleman respects and appreciates the fact that the work is labour-intensive, and there is no way of getting around that. Some of the producers and berry farmers in my constituency have considered all sorts of ingenious measures and machines to try to find other ways of doing things, but people are still left picking the crop from the plant. We must accept that that will continue to be a feature of the activity on berry farms.

There is huge concern about the future. Soft fruit farmers in my constituency are increasingly alarmed at the fact that there seems to be no strategy to allay concerns about the availability of labour. I was waiting for the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton to mention Brexit, because it is all about that, and the ending of freedom of movement. Getting rid of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme almost worked. I remember the days of seasonal agricultural workers and participated in several debates when the scheme was being cancelled. We were told it was not necessary any more, because we were all part of the European Union. The accession nations—the Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians who were traditionally part of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme—were now part of the EU and could come in to take part in that activity. They cannot any more, because this clueless Brexit and the ending of the freedom of movement has ensured that it will not happen further.

[Norman Lamb]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an urgency about this? In my constituency a company has halted expansion plans until something can be sorted out with regard to availability of labour. It cannot expand its business in the current situation.

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. I will come to that very point. The issue is time-limited and we must ensure that we get something in place. A feature of the Government’s approach to Brexit is the cluelessness at the heart of it: they fail to accept and recognise some of the consequences of going ahead in such folly, and the way it extends to agriculture—particularly seasonal agriculture. We are left high and dry because all the people whom we relied on to come and pick the fruit will now be limited by the daft ending of freedom of movement, and we will not be able to take advantage of it. That is why it is doubly important to cobble together some sort of scheme, so that farmers like those in my constituency and in North Norfolk are not left high and dry.

We know the difficulty. This month a report from the trade organisation British Summer Fruits predicted that the cost of strawberries and raspberries could soar by 50% if Brexit makes it harder for growers to recruit overseas. We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that, if the problem is not resolved, the crop will simply go unharvested and wither on the vine. Such decisions would be disastrous for Scotland’s food and drink sector and its worldwide reputation for quality produce. This is all about the Government’s immigration obsession, and the way the whole debate about Brexit seemed to be focused entirely on stopping freedom of movement. Protecting freedom of movement is vital for the Scottish agricultural sector, and EU workers are important to virtually all parts of the modern farming industry.

The wonderful James Hutton Institute is in my constituency, in the Carse of Gowrie, and it does great work on genetics to improve crops so that they are more resilient and pest-hardy. Most of that work is done by EU nationals. The scientists working in the James Hutton Institute come from across the EU. Thank you, Conservative Government: that will probably be ended almost immediately. The involvement of EU nationals goes from there right down to the fields, where people from Poland, Romania and Bulgaria pick the crop. We are totally dependent on freedom of movement to ensure that the whole sector, from science research institutes to the pickers, can depend on people from the EU. That makes it doubly important to get things together.

As things stand, there is a danger that the UK Government will abandon something that is good for Scotland—membership of the single market—to restrict something else that is good for it: freedom of movement. That is another example of the absurdity of this clueless hard Brexit, and of the case the Government make. It is a good demonstration of why the Government must think again and change their mind and approach.

I have heard something encouraging today. I have been to a couple of debates on this topic before, and, with all due respect to my Conservative friends, we usually hear from them—the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) today said the opposite—that local people can do the work instead, so we do not need European nationals, as if a tap can be turned on and we can somehow create a volley of people to come and do it. We know that that cannot happen. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire mentioned low unemployment. There is low unemployment in my constituency, too. Another thing about the soft fruit sector is that farms where seasonal agricultural work happens are in prosperous, rural and hard-to-reach areas. There is not a huge hinterland of people available to do the work. Thank goodness we are not hearing the usual nonsense from Conservative Members that we will just give the work to local people. We know that that is not possible and will not happen, and I am pleased we have got to that point.

We need to hear from the Minister that he will announce a new seasonal agricultural workers scheme. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said that it did not work too badly in the past. When I was a new Member of Parliament in 2001, it was still in operation. It was useful and helpful. I have been looking at the figures. Some 21,250 visas were issued in the last year of the scheme’s operation, for people who came to the UK for between five weeks and six months. As the National Farmers Union pointed out, there was a 98% return rate. All the concerns about immigration and people staying did not apply to the seasonal agricultural workers scheme.

It is worth pointing out the other benefits. One of the great pleasures and privileges of someone who has a constituency with soft fruit centres and berry-picking is to go to some of the cultural events. For example, in Perthshire, round about Blairgowrie, a number of the producers have ceilidhs and cultural evenings where people come in and speak. That is a great feature for young people—they are the brightest and the best from their countries, and they are coming across to experience the best of Scotland. They will leave Scotland with a favourable impression of our nation and hopefully at some point in the future will decide to come back for a vacation or a holiday. That is good for us—it is soft power at its very best, and it is something that we very much value as a feature of our community. It is good for the producer, it is good for the person that comes to harvest the fruit and it is good for the country. That is why we need a scheme as soon as possible.

I say to the Minister that the clock is ticking. Some 750 tonnes of Scottish soft-fruit production is hanging on the Brexit precipice. Autumn farmers need to start recruiting for next year, and there is no certainty about freedom of movement, the movement of labour or even a permit scheme to let workers into the country. Something will have to give.

Producers cannot plant what they cannot pick, so by next autumn, big decisions will have to be made, which could possibly involve ending soft fruit production in areas such as mine. The situation is absolutely urgent. If we do not go ahead, it will be disastrous for the fantastic produce that comes from my constituency, for Perthshire, for Scotland’s food and drink sector and for its worldwide reputation for quality produce. We could end up in a situation where, although we have a fantastic product, the summer shelves are stacked with foreign strawberries and raspberries, shipped into Scotland because we simply do not have the workers to pick what is hanging from the fruit trees in our own fields.

The solution lies in the hands of the Government. The rest of us can only savour those delicious Scottish strawberries and raspberries for as long as we can. We want to continue to enjoy them. I plead with the Minister to get a scheme together, give security to our producers and growers and ensure that everybody can continue to enjoy the wonderful symbol of our summer that is our strawberries and our raspberries.

Norfolk and Suffolk Broads

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Simpson]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. The planning department in the Broads Authority has considerable powers, and I would like the Department to examine that. That leads me on to my second point, which is the governance of the broads.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I completely share his view that it is important to maintain the current balance of interests and that any rebranding must not disturb that in law. I want to raise with him the question of the draft Bill from the previous Parliament, because I am concerned about the legitimacy of organisations that have no directly elected people on their board. There was overwhelming support in the broads, and certainly in my constituency, for the idea that the local community should have a say through a directly elected person, or preferably persons, on the board of the Broads Authority. That has been the case in similar authorities in Scotland for some years, and the world has not caved in. Does he share my view that it is important for the draft Bill to become law, so that we have directly elected people on the board?

[Mr Simpson]

That is the second main purpose of this debate. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), was enthusiastic about the draft Bill a year ago, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk and I raised the issue back in 2007. The issue goes back some time. Basically, since 1988 there has been considerable local pressure for direct elections, and there is no doubt that the case was strengthened by the passage of the Broads Authority Act 2009 and the rebranding of the broads as a national park.

Last year’s draft Bill would have resulted in direct elections to the Broads Authority, amended the political balance requirement on local authority appointees and allowed for a wider range of parish representation. As the right hon. Member for North Norfolk suggests, the draft Bill’s aim was to improve local accountability without necessarily increasing the number of representatives. If I were being harsh, which I am not, I might argue that the Broads Authority is a quango, because nominees are nominated either by local councils or by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with the noble objective of having a cross-section of interest groups represented on the Broads Authority. Ultimately, those representatives are all nominated, and now is the time to consider how we could have a truly elected part—although not necessarily a truly elected whole—of the Broads Authority. The arguments against will be that party politics could come into it and that there would be questions about how to define the electorate, and so on. Those issues could be resolved, and it would be a cross-cutting exercise as much as anything else.

Importantly, the navigation element makes the broads different from other national parks, which means the broads might be better represented if there were local representatives with an interest in navigation. When we talk about navigation, we are talking about a wide remit. We are talking about tourism and the boating companies of one kind or another, and we are talking about people who sail. A lot of material is still shifted by boat on the broads. All those factors come together, making the broads different from, and unique among, other national parks.

I hope the Minister will be able to address those two specific questions. He will have a speech drafted for him by his DEFRA officials and by the Broads Authority, but he should work on the assumption—I am not being patronising—that my colleagues here know all the background detail. First, does his Department have a definitive answer to the business of the broads being a national park as a brand but quite different from the rest of the national park family?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

I am so sorry, Mr Turner; I apologise. I will stand back and face you when speaking. In fact, I will move my microphone to ensure that I am audible while doing so.

The central question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland raises is about the status of the park. Underlying the slightly technical response from the Department is a fundamental distinction between the broad philosophical arrangements of the Broads Authority, which are to protect the landscape, and the exact legal status. National parks were set up under separate legislation, and, because of the issues raised by the Sandford principle and navigation, the Department does not wish to imply that the specific legislation relating to national parks should control the Broads Authority.

Governance was the second issue raised; the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) particularly focused on it. It was addressed in a statement made by Lord Gardiner of Kimble in the other place. Lord Gardiner made explicit that the Government do not intend to bring forward the legislation necessary to enable elections to be held. I will explain, from the point of view of the Department, why that is our determination.

The determination was made for various specific reasons relating directly to the interests of the broads. One is that the number of people living within the Broads Authority area itself is relatively limited. When the Broads Authority was set up, a relatively narrow line was drawn around the edge of the authority. It crosses some population-dense areas, but the number of people who live within the authority and own boats for example—to address the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland—is relatively limited. Approximately 10,000 people currently have licences to operate boats within the Broads Authority, but only a minority of those live within the Broads Authority area itself.

[Norman Lamb]

I have two questions. First, for the avoidance of doubt, is the Minister saying that the proposed rebranding of the broads will have no impact at all on the current legal status, which excludes the Sandford principle from the Broads Authority? I would like confirmation of that. Secondly, is he saying that the Government intend not to proceed with any legislation in respect of any of the national parks in England, thereby not following the route taken in Scotland where they have introduced direct elections?

[Rory Stewart]

I am saying both those things. Just to reinforce that absolutely clearly for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they. We are very comfortable with the broads describing themselves as a national park, but that is essentially to express in common-sense terms to the public that it is a protected landscape with many of the qualities of other national parks.

We are certainly proud of the Broads Authority. We do not expect it to be a second-class authority or its specific legal status to undermine the respect and the honour that we have towards it. It is not governed under the national parks legislation; it is governed under separate legislation, and that will remain the case.

The Government do not intend to bring forward the legislation that the right hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned, and I shall explain why. It would not achieve the intention, which is to get more people involved in boats and navigation on to the board. We are achieving that at the moment. The two most recent Secretary of State appointments to the Broads Authority are of people who have licences. More than one third of people on the board are active users of boats and licence holders, and that is important. In so far as I am involved in Secretary of State appointments, I will endeavour to ensure that they include people who have an active interest in navigation as well as the environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

Can the Minister explain two things? First, one year ago, under a coalition Government in which Conservatives were in the majority, the draft legislation was brought forward by his Department. His Department therefore must have regarded its merits and been prepared to take it through. It would be fascinating to get through a freedom of information request the advice that Ministers received at the time in favour of bringing the legislation forward.

Secondly, I know all the arguments against elections, but there still seems to be the prospect of some form of election, not only for local communities, but for other interest groups—wildlife, environment or anything else. That, I think, is the view of most MPs in the area.

[Rory Stewart]

I take that point strongly on board. The advice that I have received is that the democratic element on the Broads Authority is represented by the fact that the majority of people serving on the board are elected. Nine people have been elected as councillors. The two people who have been elected by the people with navigation interests are themselves elected.

The majority of the people on the Broads Authority are currently elected and they are balanced by a minority of Secretary of State appointees, which allows us to achieve exactly the right hon. Gentleman’s point; that would be more difficult to achieve simply though elections. It ensures that we have a broad range of people with both environmental and navigation interests.