Pat McFadden
MP for Wolverhampton South East · Labour · United Kingdom
“In his review Alan Milburn considered that issue and said that, “the UK’s NEET crisis is much more long-term and deep-seated than any decisions taken in the last few years.” As I said earlier, 400,000 more people are in work this year than last year, and the number of young people in employment is up since the election.”
“Since our last DWP questions, both Alan Milburn and the Pensions Commission have published their respective interim reports on young people and on the current state of saving for retirement. I look forward to receiving their final reports later in the year.”
“As Alan Milburn pointed out in his recent report, the UK’s NEET crisis is much more long-term and deep-seated than any decisions taken in the last few years. There are 400,000 more people in work than last year. The number of young people in employment is up by 74,000 since the election.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman and send him commiserations for whatever has left him reliant on his crutches today. I am happy to congratulate the businesses he mentioned in his constituency. He raises a serious point: it is important not only to come up with the right policy, but to make it simple for businesses to use.”
“My hon. Friend is right, and I thank Cardiff football club for being a partner. We are supporting nearly 1 million young people and creating up to half a million opportunities for jobs and training.”
“We are making strong progress on expanding youth hubs, with around 130 already in operation across Great Britain. In March, I announced the locations that we want to open in this year, and I have just announced a further 180 locations for the following two years.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,181 lines we hold for Pat McFadden, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 30 of 104.
“Can he guarantee that he will not be back here or that the Government will not extend the waiver beyond the first six months of next year in some other way? What if there is ongoing friction at ports? Will Ministers continue to waive the requirements for these declarations in the future? What discussions has the Minister or the Treasury had with the Home Office about this in order to minimise the impact on border security? He mentioned weapons, I believe. Will he clarify what he meant when he mentioned weapons and how the regulations will affect them? The volume of pre-departure declarations is likely to be greater after the end of the transition period because they will need to be made for goods exported to the EU as well as the rest of the world.”
“The organisation began in 1952 as the Customs Cooperation Council and the UK was a founding member, yet today’s regulations would hinder our country’s ability to support the SAFE framework. We are literally opting out, on a temporary basis, of something called SAFE. That is what the Government are doing. What does it say about the Government’s management of this process that in order to help business avoid the impact of disruption to exports at the border, they are taking powers to risk our border security in this way? Why should the price of free-flowing trade be the introduction of a smugglers’ charter that increases risks to us all? The regulations say that this will only be the case for up to six months, ending on 1 July next year, but can the Minister guarantee that?”
“It is a quote from the Government’s own explanation of what they are doing. What exactly are these risks that the Government have identified? What exactly are the risks that the regulations could enhance? Why have the Government found themselves proposing a policy with such potential consequences? What a trade-off to put the country in to, really. To avoid disruption to trade, we have to take measures that potentially put our border security at risk. I repeat that that is not an allegation from me; it is the Government’s own explanation, before the Committee right now, of what they are doing with these regulations. At the moment, as the Minister said, pre-departure declarations enable the UK to meet international standards for safety and security relating to the movement of goods, following the World Customs Organisation’s SAFE framework.”
“The regulations respond to that dilemma by granting HMRC the power to waive the need for these pre-departure declarations, or to modify the time limit for their submission. In tabling these regulations, the Government are openly acknowledging that they are taking powers that, if used, would water down the safety and security requirements we have in place for exports through our ports. The explanatory memorandum that accompanies the regulations —these things are normally pretty dry explanations of the technicalities involved—is clear about the possibilities. Paragraph 7.4 states: “There may be risks associated with using these powers…for example, to border security.” There you have it. The regulations are not technical. That is not an allegation from me. It is not an allegation that the Opposition have made.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. The Minister, for whom I have great respect, as he knows, describes these regulations as technical, but I must differ from him. I think they are more than technical. They are very significant and a graphic example and symbol of the mess the Government have got themselves into as we approach the end of the transition period. I say that because through these regulations the Government are acknowledging that they cannot guarantee that the current safety and security requirements on exports can continue to be met without causing disruption to border security. They have put themselves in the invidious position of having to introduce regulations that compromise our security to guarantee the free flow of goods at the border.”
“The Minister has just said that nothing changes in terms of relations with the EU because we are part of the single market. From 1 January, we will not be part of the single market so quite a lot changes.”
“The Minister has not answered a couple of questions that I asked. One was whether he can guarantee that there will not be an extension of these provisions beyond the first six months of next year, and the other was the question of weapons that he mentioned in his opening remarks. Can he explain exactly how these regulations will affect the export of weapons?”
“They threatened to do that in this Bill as well as in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. As so often, it was a threat posing as strength that ended up doing more harm to us than to anyone else. That is why this Bill was so late, and that is why the time to debate it is so short. The Government, immediately before they embark on a new future based on trade deals, chose to advertise around the world that they were willing to break the last one that they signed. Boasting about your willingness to go back on your word is not an illustration of strength; rather, it is a graphic portrayal of what Brexit has done to the Conservative party.”
“So why is it, just three weeks before that deadline, that the Government are only publishing these arrangements and this timetable now? Businesses in Northern Ireland, and those that do a lot of trade with Northern Ireland, could have been given some idea of what was coming long before now, but as it stands, not even the Bill before us gives them certainty, as so much of it has to be followed up with further regulations. The truth is that there was no need for this last-minute legislative scramble. The real reason we are in this position—the reason why this business motion is before us and gives the House so little time—is that the Government thought that it was a good negotiating tactic to breach the agreement, or to threaten to breach the agreement, that they reached with the EU last year.”
“I want to make a few comments about this business of the House motion, because I think it is indicative of where we have got to. After four years, we have a Bill on the taxation arrangements after Brexit that is to be debated in less than four hours. Not only that, but it is a Bill of over 100 pages in length that was published less than 24 hours ago. The Minister may claim that the House has passed emergency legislation in a single day in the past, and of course that is true: the House can do that in emergency circumstances. But this deadline that we face at the end of the year is not new. It is not a surprise. It has been known ever since the withdrawal agreement was reached. The Government have said repeatedly over the past year that this was an immovable deadline.”
“There have been many comments on the state of things in recent days, but perhaps the most pithy has come from the chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, who said this week, commenting on the border arrangements: “Frankly, it’s just a mess.” The bigger point here is that the reason why we are in this position is that the Government’s approach to all of this has relegated concerns about business, prosperity and people’s livelihoods to a distant second place. This motion and the approach behind it are not only bad for the legislative process, but bad for the country too.”
“I am going to continue, because I do not have long to go. As the House has been reminded, it was Mrs Thatcher who said: “Britain does not break treaties. It would be bad for Britain, bad for our relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade”. The threat to do so has left us with the timetable for this Bill. That inevitably means that scrutiny of today’s measures will be severely truncated and parts of it will go through without being properly examined. What we have before us is the appearance of scrutiny, not the reality—Potemkin scrutiny. That is what a timetable like this gives us. This is not just about us here in this House—it also leaves businesses affected, with little or no time to absorb and understand what is being planned.”
“They may say that is the remorseless logic of Brexit, but no one should doubt the significance, because what it means is that, for the first time in history, we have a Government and a process where questions of investment, of people’s prosperity and of their living standards have been progressively relegated to a more and more distant second place. We will see the results of that choice over the coming months. Perhaps after tonight’s dinner in Brussels, we might even be a bit clearer about the results in the days to come, but in the end what has been described as a negotiation is, in fact, a choice. The Government have made their choice, and we will see the effect in the months to come.”
“These measures are likely to pass the House quite quickly tonight, but the real action at the moment is of course not here, but elsewhere. As we debate this Bill, we still do not know whether there will be a free trade agreement reached. After four years, the public and companies and their staff do not know what they will be facing in January, and the root of that decision remains what it has always been: this choice between sovereignty and market access. The story of the past four years has been the Government moving more and more towards the sovereignty side of that choice.”
“Similar phrasing is used in clause 2 in relation to goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK, and the same point applies: when will businesses know what is happening? On the VAT regime in clause 3, will the Minister set out how the EU’s VAT regime, as it applies to Northern Ireland, will interplay with the UK’s VAT regime—the question raised by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)? Similarly, on excise duties, how will the measures in clause 4, which apply to everything from spirits and beer to tobacco products, differ from current arrangements? Are the insurance premium tax changes thought necessary in the event of no mutual assistance provisions between the UK and the EU? If they are, are such provisions likely to be part of any deal which, if agreed, would then mean that the clause was not needed?”
“The Bill sets out the new customs regime for so-called at-risk goods moving to and from Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Although it empowers Ministers to levy the necessary duties, there is still much that, as clause 1 says, will have to be clarified in new regulations from the Treasury. We only have 22 days to go. When will we see these new regulations? When will businesses in Northern Ireland, or those anywhere else in the country that send goods to Northern Ireland, know exactly what the new regime will be? Does the Minister really think that this is a proper way to do this, more than four years after the referendum and just three weeks before the end of the transition period?”
“In all the twists and turns that got us here, Ministers might think that they have acted tough, but threatening to legislate to set aside parts of an international agreement that the Government signed only a year ago has only done damage to the country’s reputation. The Government have not communicated toughness; all they have communicated is that they cannot be trusted. As we embark on a process of trying to negotiate new free trade deals around the world, what a signal to send and what a starting point: do a deal with the Government who threatened to ditch parts of the last one that we signed. That was not clever negotiating tactics and it was not toughness—it was reckless, and, I am afraid, it was revealing about the character of the Government.”
“We can now look forward to the Government moving amendments in the other place to delete what they insisted was necessary in this House on Monday evening. It is one thing to play ping-pong with the House of Lords, but quite another to play ping-pong with yourself. Once again, the Government’s MPs who valiantly defended the line on Monday now have a very different line to advance before Thursday. This is not the first time this has happened, and I should guess it will not be the last. If I was a Government Back Bencher, I would be becoming a little bit more wary of following the line from No. 10 on a number of issues.”
“My first question to the Minister is: do the Government really expect to implement everything in this Bill and to secure compliance from businesses both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK on all these measures by 1 January? Is that the Government’s realistic goal? The Bill, of course, could have been very different. It could have contained clauses setting aside parts of the Northern Ireland protocol. The Government did look ready to double down on the course of action that they had embarked on in the UK Internal Market Bill, but thanks to yesterday’s statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his counterpart, Mr Šefčovič, the Government have announced that they will not proceed with such clauses.”
“Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) gave us a very welcome Northern Ireland voice on these issues. What this Bill does, first and foremost, is to put in place a framework for the monitoring, taxation and movement of goods that was not there in the past. However much the Government try to duck that issue—to pretend that everything is going to carry on as normal—the new regime is there for everybody to see in the clauses of the Bill and the regulations to follow. Business to and from Northern Ireland will be conducted on a more monitored, differently taxed and significantly more bureaucratic basis than before. There is simply no escaping that and no hiding from it, and it would be better if the Government acknowledged this as what they have agreed.”
“I thank everybody who has contributed to this short debate. To pick out a few, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) told us that he was reserving his judgment on some of these measures, particularly the Government’s decision not to proceed with the “notwithstanding” clauses. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) talked about hidden customs charges and described parts of the Government’s approach as “absolute mince”. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) spoke about the dual taxation regime, which we will return to in the Committee stage shortly to follow. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) spoke about the phenomenon of people saying that it is never a proper Brexit, no matter what kind of Brexit it is. The hon.”
“On that point about the “notwithstanding” clauses, can the Minister guarantee, given that neither the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill nor this Bill has finished its passage in the House, that the Government will not reintroduce them at any further stage?”
“I beg to move amendment 2, page 2, line 43, at end insert— “(4A) The Treasury must publish guidance setting out its proposed approach to the reliefs, repayments and remissions referred to in subsection (3)(b) within four working days of this section coming into force.””
“I hope that, in a spirit of generosity, the Government will find it within themselves to accept them, and I look forward to hearing the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wind up the debate.”
“As it stands, the Bill does not fully answer them, nor does it set out a timeframe in which they will be answered, which is why we have tabled amendments 2 and 3 to the Bill. Finally, new clause 2 is an attempt to give both Parliament and the public some timetable—some road map—for the blizzard of regulations that are enabled by the Bill and to secure a report on their impact in the future. As I said, this is a new regime. The Bill legislates for something that we have not had to do before in the United Kingdom, and we should at least have the courtesy of reporting on how it is operating in the future. New clause 2 asks for both a timetable of the regulations and a report on how the new regime has operated. These are completely reasonable amendments.”
“I hope she is right and that any scepticism that all these arrangements will be completed in the three weeks between now and 1 January is unfounded. Let us hope that she is right. The amendment asks for the Government to outline precisely how these duties and tariffs, if they are necessary, will be rebated. Businesses will be asking that question and, quite reasonably, they will want an answer. Will businesses be required to pay up front and then be reimbursed by HMRC, as envisaged in the Northern Ireland protocol? Is that what the Government have in mind? If so, the Minister should know that there are fears that such a rebate system could be hugely complex. Indeed, some fear that it is not fully built, but we are told that it will all be ready for 1 January. These are vital questions.”
“But even if it is too late, we cannot afford more delay, which is why our amendment calls for the publication of guidance on this within a few days of the Bill coming into force. I should stress that nothing in this amendment alters the regime that the Government are trying to bring in. Everything in the amendment is fully in line with the Northern Ireland protocol and with the commitments that the Government have made as part of that. We want to provide clarity for businesses as soon as possible, rather than leaving open-ended the time for these regulations to be published. In response to my question at the end of the Second Reading debate, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said with confidence that she was sure this could all be done by 1 January.”
“Businesses in Northern Ireland and those that do a lot of trade with Northern Ireland will be asking, “What does this mean for me? What processes do I have to go through? What do I have to pay? If the goods remain in Northern Ireland, will I be entitled to a rebate if I have paid? How will I claim that rebate? How will this system work?” Those are all legitimate questions about the new regime being introduced by the Bill and the regulations enabled by it. Amendment 2 asks the Treasury to reach conclusions and to publish answers on these matters in the coming days. Frankly, it is already too late to expect businesses to absorb more than 100 pages of legislation within a few weeks.”
“Clause 1 is specific about that, for example in new section 40B of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, which states that the Treasury “may by regulations provide” for which goods the new duties will apply to, and make “provision about reliefs, repayment and remission…checks, controls or administrative processes” and other matters. My broad point is that that is obviously a description of new arrangements that are not in place right now; that is why they are being introduced in the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, it would be better for the Government to acknowledge that this is a new regime with new requirements, instead of the pretence that everything will carry on exactly as it is. As I also said on Second Reading, we only have three weeks to go.”
“There therefore needs to be a system for at-risk goods that do not leave Northern Ireland, in line with the agreement that Northern Ireland remains part of the UK’s customs territory and that customs duties should not apply to goods that travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland if Northern Ireland is their end destination. The protocol and the arrangements agreed yesterday by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his counterpart create new requirements for businesses to be set out in regulations.”
“However, we welcome the announcement of a trusted trader scheme today, although it comes very late in the day. That scheme will remove some of the possible tariffs on goods that move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit, but for other goods we are clear that we do not want to see additional costs for businesses and communities in Northern Ireland. The House should note that Northern Ireland consumers have, on average, about half the discretionary income of consumers in the rest of the United Kingdom; the long and the short of it is that they simply cannot afford such additional trade tariffs on goods.”
“As well as speaking to amendment 2, I will speak to amendment 3, which makes the same points, and say a word about new clause 2. All three have been tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Clause 1 sets out the new customs regime that will apply to goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—specifically those that are deemed to be at risk of entering the EU single market. The Northern Ireland protocol that the Government have signed up to requires such a regime as a result of their decision to leave the single market and the customs union. It will mean a system of paying customs duties for those who move such goods. As yet, none of us knows whether a deal will be agreed, although we know that an important dinner is taking place in Brussels tonight.”
“I point out to the Minister that he said guidance was published in October; he cannot be referring to the guidance referred to in clauses 1 and 2, which talks about the regulations under the Bill. However, on the basis of the whole debate, we will not press the amendment to a vote tonight, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Amendment proposed : 1, in clause 5, page 7, line 44, leave out subsection (3).— (Alison Thewliss.) This amendment is connected with NC1, which would make all substantive regulations under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“(2) This report should include— (a) the status of negotiations towards the recognition of regulatory equivalence for UK financial services firms operating within the European Union; (b) a statement on areas in where equivalence recognition has been granted to UK based businesses on the same basis as which the UK has granted equivalence recognition to EU based businesses; and (c) a statement on where such equivalence recognition has not been granted.”— (Mr McFadden.) This new clause would require a report to be published on progress towards, or completion of, the equivalence recognition for UK firms which the Government hopes to see following the Chancellor’s statement on EU-based firms operating in the UK. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“No. New Clause 2 European Union regulatory equivalence for UK-based financial services businesses ‘(1) The Treasury must prepare and publish a report on progress towards regulatory equivalence recognition for UK-based financial services firms operating within the European Union.”
“Finally, if the outcome is positive, the Government will probably want to report back anyway. If the outcome is not positive, Parliament has a right to hear about that, too.”
“Everybody wants the exact detail of how that will affect their local economies. If that is the case, it is only right that the Government report on the economic consequences of the other major process that we are going through. That is the intention behind the new clause. The sector is hugely important for the United Kingdom, as has been mentioned many times during our debates over the last couple of weeks. All that the new clause does is to ask for a report on where we are on market access. I very much hope that we have a positive outcome on that. Some of it may be about good will, and it might depend on what is agreed in the next week or two—we do not know. It is certainly in the interests of the sector to have a positive outcome. The least we can ask is that the Government report to the House on that.”
“It would mean better access for our firms than without that process. It certainly would not give them what they have at the moment, but that is water under the bridge—we debated that earlier in Committee. The converse is also true, of course: if we do not get equivalence recognition, it would have implications for jobs, tax revenue and how the UK is viewed as a home for inward investment in the financial services industries. All that the new clause does is to ask for a report on where we have got to in the process or, alternatively, a statement on who has refused to grant equivalence of recognition. I hope the Economic Secretary does not mind if I point out that I cannot be the only one who is struck by the clamour, particularly on the Government Benches, for economic evidence to justify covid-protective measures.”
“We have discussed that quite a few times in Committee, and the Minister said that the Government are not interested in diverging for the sake of divergence, but of course there are many in the Government, and in his party, for whom divergence is the whole point of the exercise, because it is all about sovereignty. Although we may be almost totally in line on day one—new year’s day—what about day 100 or day 1,000? Nothing in new clause 2 alters the power to diverge. If the package of onshoring and granting new powers to the regulators that the Minister is taking through is there, nothing in the new clause alters that, but it asks for a report on where we have reached in that process. We know that a positive outcome of this process could have a very significant bearing on the UK financial services industry.”
“Finally, in terms of the regulatory picture, we have spent a lot of legislative time in this House—probably no one more than the Minister in the past two years or so—legislating to onshore various EU directives. That is where we are. The aim of onshoring that vast body of legislation was to have a parallel position, or as near to one as we could reach, on day one of the end of the transition period. At the same time, though, we have given our regulators powers to diverge in various ways from the terms of these directives in future.”
“Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I rise to speak to new clause 2, in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. We discussed equivalence when we were debating clause 24 or 25, so it might relieve the Minister and the Committee to know that I will not repeat everything I said about how we got to this position, but let us look at what the current situation is. First, we have withdrawn from the EU, and in so doing we have withdrawn from any joint decision-making process about mutual access to financial services. Secondly, a few weeks ago the Chancellor announced a unilateral move on the UK’s part to grant equivalence recognition to EU member states and their firms. Thirdly, there is a legislative mechanism to do that in the Bill. Fourthly, we now await decisions on equivalence from the EU.”
“The Minister has said that the Government will report regularly to Parliament, in which case the new clause would be entirely harmless. That is why we will press it to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“I want to respond to a couple of things that the Minister said. As I said when I moved the new clause, nothing in it stops divergence. There is no attempt to make sure that we are in lockstep with EU regulations for ever and a day. The new clause is completely silent on that. Nor does the new clause pretend that the equivalence decisions that we seek can be within the gift of the Government. In fact, from the point of view of some of us, that is the problem. We would have a say over that at present, but we will no longer have a say in future. That is precisely why we are discussing this issue. All that the new clause does is ask for a report on the outcome. What is the outcome for our financial services? It is like we are back on day one of our proceedings, when we talked about the different reasons for turning amendments down.”
“Financial services will have a huge role to play in that, and Treasury Ministers will quite rightly want to say something about it.”
“I have also said several times that the ESG agenda is really important for the UK, and the Government have said, at least in rhetorical terms, that they believe the same thing, so exactly how would it be advanced if not in the ways that we have tried to suggest—through the various amendments we have tabled to the Bill? We have a lot of rebuilding to do as we recover from this pandemic. Many people have described it as a great acceleration in trends. There will be job losses, as the Chancellor tells us, and business closures. Many of the behavioural changes that we have seen in how people live, work and purchase things are likely to stay for a long time. A differently shaped day-to-day economy will emerge from this.”
“Would there, for example, be a shift away from the traditional British strong focus on property investment to more investment in research, development, manufacturing technology and small business lending? That has been a constant theme. There is nothing partisan about it. There are many strong voices in the Conservative party as well as the Labour party speaking up for small businesses and raising the difficulties with lending and so on. That is also something that could be governed. We spoke about the environmental, social and governance agenda. The Minister has been resistant to all our amendments on that. All the votes are on the record—we have had three or four of them. The Government do not want anything added to the Bill on environmental sustainability or anything like that.”
“Then we have more difficult issues, which we have touched on, such as money laundering, fraud and so on. They are an ongoing challenge, and we will be talking more about them later this afternoon. There are probably a lot more, but those are the kinds of things that a financial services strategy might cover. There is also the regulatory approach. Now that we are no longer going to be part of a common European rulebook, what is the philosophy behind the rulebook that we will have? What will it say to assure people that there will not be a race to the bottom? What will it say on capital to get the balance right between allowing innovation and protecting consumers from organisations that do not have enough resilience?”
“It is doing more innovation, and we might hear more about that later. We have the development of cryptocurrencies, and it is in the public interest that we have a greater understanding of what that phenomenon is and what it means for investors, consumers and so on. We have the green finance debate, which we have discussed a number of times over the past couple of weeks. If we really want the UK to be the leading force in green finance over the coming decades, what do we need to do to ensure that that is the case? We have also had an ongoing debate for some years about competition and about the challenges of getting new banking players into the UK market, which is, at the retail level, dominated by four or five high street names that account for the vast majority—90%-plus—of current accounts, deposits, savings and so on.”
“That is not particularly unusual for the Government. They do that for other sectors. In the automotive sector, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has the Automotive Council UK, which brings together different players in the industry and looks at everything from supply chains and skills to inward investment. Over the years, it has played its part. The last couple of years have been pretty rocky, for reasons that we all know about, but up until then the UK had a growing, successful automotive industry. We were producing more and more cars each year, and we were very successful at winning inward investment. If we take the parallel of financial services, there is plenty that such a strategy could cover. To name just a few obvious areas, we have a growing FinTech sector in the UK, which we want to succeed.”
“That is important because the UK has possibly the most globally significant financial sector of any country in the world. We learned the hard way what the risks of that were in the financial crisis, when the sector ran into trouble. However, the converse is that if the sector is properly regulated, if it pays its way in terms of its taxation contribution, its contribution to innovation, its capacity to bring inward investment to the country and the employment it provides, and if it is properly run, it can also be a huge advantage for the UK. The new clause asks the Government to pull all of that together and take the pipeline of changes that they have in mind, together with the new context, and produce a strategy that gives clarity to the sector, the public and Parliament about where we are going.”