, , , ,

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

I want to set out my thoughts about the Deal and explain my reasons for reluctantly voting in favour of it.

It is clear for all to see that the deal has serious flaws:

  • UK firms will lose automatic access to EU financial services markets, which form a significant and vitally important component of the UK economy. We have already seen jobs moving out of the City and into Europe – the deal as it stands will do nothing to protect those jobs and may even turn a trickle of job losses into a flood.
  • This deal adds new burdens and red tape onto British business, with some businesses facing new customs checks on their products in order to prove their point of origin. In practice, UK firms will now need to get two sets of approval certification if they want to sell their products in both the UK and Europe. This is especially galling, given that during the referendum campaign businesses were sold the lie that Brexit would mean freedom from EU regulation.
  • The Government seem to have completely forgotten about the Arts and Creative Sectors when negotiating this deal. In practice, this will mean that actors and musicians will now face country-to-country restrictions, meaning multiple Visa applications and logistical red tape. This is both needless and unacceptable – this issue was specifically raised by Sir Keir Starmer in his formal response to Boris Johnson at the start of the Parliamentary debate today. Labour also proposed an amendment that would require urgent action from the Secretary of State to negotiate a specific agreement to rectify these problems.
  • Boris Johnson has negotiated for a divergence of employment and environmental rights legislation. Clearly, he has not done so because he wants to strengthen your rights at work or to improve environmental protection standards. I have deep concerns that the government has a desire for a race to the bottom that may impact both your rights at work – such as health and sickness protections, maternity and paternity rights – but also vitally important standards, such as the use of pesticides, the need for clean air and of course practices such as fracking.

These are by no means all of the problems with the Government’s Deal, but they do give a flavour of the mess that Boris Johnson has made of his negotiation.

The idea that this deal settles the issue of our relationship with the EU is deeply flawed. As laws change within the EU, we will have to either align our standards to match these changes, or risk a financial penalty, most likely in the form of new tariffs on trade. Rather than free our businesses of what some saw as the burden of EU rules and regulations, we have simply given up our influence over the making of those rules. Something that in the long run I believe we will come to regret.

Despite the deep flaws with this deal, it is my view that I have no choice but to vote in favour of it. At this stage of the process, this is not about whether or not Brexit can be stopped, or whether or not we can add more time for a new negotiation – the chance for either of those outcomes ended with the result of the last General Election. The only choice at this stage is between this bad deal, or a no deal exit.

Exiting on January 1st without a deal would mean chaos, with the potential of food and medicine shortages as well as substantial regulatory barriers and tariffs placed on trade. I do not believe it is morally right for me to vote against a deal – which at this very late stage would be to effectively vote for a no deal exit – unless I am prepared for that eventually to occur. Therefore, I feel that I had no choice but to support this Bill.

This is by no means the end of the Brexit process. The deal that the Government has negotiated must be the minimum agreement that we reach, not the final agreement. As we move into the New Year, the Government must urgently look to plug the gaping holes in the agreement it has negotiated before too much economic damage is done. Needless to say, I will be pushing the government hard on our future relationship and holding them to account to do all that can to ensure this deal is significantly improved.

I campaigned hard for Remain during the referendum and I stood on a manifesto that would have given the British people a confirmatory referendum. I spoke to many people during the General Election who were furious at what they saw as their vote during the Referendum being ignored. Whether we agree with their view of Brexit or not, I believe that we must acknowledge the deeply felt anger that people feel over the way that Parliament has handled the issue of Brexit since the referendum.

This is not the outcome that I pounded the streets and spoke at meetings for, nor is it one that I know many of you will have hoped for. I know that some constituents will not agree with my decision to vote for this deal, but I have done so in good faith and for the reasons set out above.

I hope that you have a healthy and happy New Year.

/by
, , ,

Ban the import and sale of fur in the UK

Dozens of constituents have written to me about fur sales in the UK. I strongly believe that we should implement a ban on the import and sale of fur in the UK. This outdated and unnecessary trade should have no place in the UK’s fashion industry.

According to Humane Society International, more than 100 million animals are killed for the global fur trade every year. Animals are treated terribly in the fur trade: farmed animals are kept in small cages for their entire lives and wild animals are caught using cruel leg-hold traps.

I am proud that the UK was the first country to ban fur farming two decades ago. Since then, the EU has also banned the importation of dog, cat and seal fur and this has been retained in UK law after Brexit. However, as many constituents have raised with me, although many retailers now refuse to stock it, fur from other species can still legally be imported and sold in the UK. Consumers may also be misled into buying real fur, believing it to be fake.

I believe we should ban the importation and sale of fur all together and I urge the UK Government to implement such a ban, starting with a public consultation. We should not have a fur trade that relies upon the suffering of animals abroad.

The UK Government says that during the transition period, it is not possible to introduce restrictions relating to the fur trade. It says that once our future relationship with the EU has been established, there will be an opportunity for the Government to consider further steps it could take in relation to fur sales. However, I believe they should offer clarity on their intentions now.

I have asked the following question to seek further clarity about their intentions:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what further restrictions on the fur trade his Department plans to make once the transition period of exiting the European Union is over?”

I will continue to call for a ban on the import and sale of fur to be implemented at the earliest opportunity.

/by
, ,

Policy response – AG bill

Many of you have been getting in touch with me about the Agriculture Bill and the crucial importance of maintaining our high animal welfare and food standards in future trade deals.

I very much share your deep concern that if we do not have provisions in place to prevent future trade deals allowing in imports produced to lower standards than our own, this will severely threaten our British farmers and our high animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards.

Like the British public, Labour will not tolerate Trump’s chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-injected beef on our supermarket shelves, with all of the animal welfare implications surrounding these products.

While the Prime Minister has said that our standards won’t be lowered in future trade deals, you are entirely right that these are nothing but warm words until we have legislative guarantees binding the Government to this promise – particularly when the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has already made it clear that in any future US trade deal they will expect the UK to accept such lower standard products.

This is an area I am highly concerned with and I previously scrutinised this bill in my role on the Agriculture Bill Committee. I was also PPS to Luke Pollard MP assisting his team in important work in ensuring that the Agriculture Bill legislates for the continuation of the UK’s good food and animal welfare standards.

A Labour colleague tabled an amendment to the Bill in Committee stage to include a legal requirement that food imported to this country must not be produced to lower standards than our own, but this has been rejected by the Government.

My Labour colleagues and I will continue to press the Government at every available opportunity to safeguard our animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards and legislate against lower standard imports. I will certainly be supporting amendments in the Agriculture Bill’s Report stage seeking to do precisely this.

/by