Kirsty Blackman
MP for Aberdeen North · Scottish National Party · United Kingdom
“I first raised the issue of self-generated images in Parliament more than four years ago. I have asked almost every single Culture, Media and Sport team about the issue of livestreaming. I am pleased to hear from the Secretary of State that action is being taken, and about the belt-and-braces approach that is coming in.”
“Labour promised £200 million for Grangemouth, none of which has materialised. Labour promised 1,000 jobs for GB Energy, and it turns out that a third of the 130 delivered so far are not actually in Scotland.”
“There is a geographical divide on this issue starker than I have ever seen in this place. Across all parties, every Member representing a Scottish constituency has stressed the issue of jobs, and how important this is to the north-east of Scotland.”
“There is a fundamental question here about what our priority is. Is it to reduce the bill, to reduce the amount of money that we are spending, or to ensure that disabled people can access all the human rights that the rest of us can, access society and be supported? We must recognise the extra costs of disability. What is the priority?”
“May I continue to encourage the Minister to talk to Social Security Scotland and our colleagues in the SNP Government about their experiences of the adult disability payment and whether the changes that have been implemented in Scotland would make a positive difference to those claiming PIP?”
“I will point out where things are today and how we can improve them, rather than looking at what was done in the past, but first, I recognise that although Pride is about celebration, it is also about being angry. We should be angry about the injustices.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,119 lines we hold for Kirsty Blackman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 80 of 103.
“Amendment 111 would ask the Secretary of State to come back with regulations defining what “international law” is for the purposes of the clause. As has been stated, if the Law Society of Scotland does not think that is clear, perhaps it needs a bit more fleshing out. Amendment 112 suggests to the Minister what he might mean by “international law.” We tabled the amendment to see if that is what the Government mean. If they do, perhaps they will accept it. Amendment 113 attempts to do something similar, but we are giving the Government a little more time in which to define what they mean by “international law” in the clause.”
“I rise to speak to amendments 111 to 114 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. I am aware this is a framework Bill, but the clause is particularly short and skeletal. It would have benefited from being a bit longer and fleshed out just slightly, because then the Government could have explained more adequately what they are talking about. Amendment 111 deals with an issue raised with us by the Law Society of Scotland, which said: “Clause 15(1)(b) makes reference to international law but it is not clear what is meant by this. It would be helpful were the Minister to explain precisely the circumstances in which the Government would need to deal with a dispute by varying the import duty.” If would be useful if the Minister, either in summing up or at a later point, could provide a bit of clarity.”
“I rise to query something the Minister said and to ensure that I heard him correctly. Is it the Government’s intention, at the negative procedure stage, to explain in the explanatory notes the basis in international law and the reason for the measure being introduced?”
“Amendment proposed : 114, in clause 15, page 10, line 18, at end insert— “(3) The Secretary of State must lay before the House of Commons an annual report on the exercise of the powers under this section including information on— (a) the relevant international law authorising the exercise of the powers in each case, and (b) the matters in dispute or issues arising in each case.” This amendment requires the Government to report on the circumstances of, and international law basis for, each variation of tariffs as a result of a trade dispute. — (Kirsty Blackman.) Question put , That the amendment be made.”
“Therefore, I do not intend to press amendment 111 or amendments 112 and 113, but I do intend to press amendment 114 because I am not yet convinced that the Government will provide enough feedback about how this mechanism is working, and it would be appropriate for them to do so. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I would appreciate it if the Minister also wrote to me, because I brought that up last week. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Oxford East is pursuing the issue. It is important that the Government have the power to lodge schedules with the WTO and the power to make the technical rectifications that the Minister mentioned—those may or may not end up being technical rectifications to things like quotas, given that some of the countries in the WTO are challenging whether they would be technical rectifications or would constitute modifications. On our amendments, the Minister has provided some information around how Parliament will be provided with evidence for each of the things that comes up.”
“Clause 19, in effect, gives the Government power to create loopholes—tax reliefs—in the legislation. Given that this is a tax Bill, does the Minister not feel that it would be better for the tax reliefs it creates to be subject to more scrutiny, not less, so that they do not have unintended consequences?”
“Given that the measure seeks to encourage industry to flourish and to allow artworks to come to this country to be displayed, it will have a real impact on the UK’s future, so it is completely reasonable to ask the Government to allow more scrutiny. Such instances will not be that frequent, and the measure will have a big impact.”
“I am concerned that this is a tax relief, and about the unintended consequences that might flow from it. The Minister almost seemed to say that the Government will make decisions on a case-by-case basis, but that should not be their intention. They should lay out the circumstances in which each kind of widget falls into each category. They are not deciding whether the Bayeux tapestry should be exempt from this duty, but whether artworks should be exempt. Those are pretty significant and major decisions, and I do not think they will be made with the frequency that the Minister suggests. It might be that in 10 years’ time the world will have changed dramatically and we will be quite a different country, importing things that will need relief in a different way. That is fair enough, but the situation will not require regular change.”
“I beg to move amendment 115, in clause 21, page 14, line 15, at end insert— “(9) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the proposed exercise of the power of the HMRC Commissioners to make regulations under subsection (7), including in particular— (a) the proposed criteria for appointment of Customs agents, and (b) the proposed standards which persons must meet to be approved for appointment.” This amendment requires the Government to report on the proposed use of regulations to prescribe standards for Customs agents.”
“That will provide a level of certainty to companies about what criteria customs agents will be expected to meet in future. It is an incredibly uncertain time for businesses that export; they do not know what will happen next. This would give them a bit more understanding about the landscape that they will face.”
“This is another amendment to try to get the Government to provide more information on the framework of the Bill. As I have said, I understand that it is a framework Bill, but more information could have been provided, particularly in the context of companies already having to contend with the move from CHIEF to CDS and the massive changes in customs that will be introduced. It would be good for companies to have an understanding—sooner rather than later—of customs agents and the hoops that those agents will need to jump through to be approved. The amendment asks for the Government to produce a report in relation to “the proposed criteria for appointment of Customs agents, and…the proposed standards which persons must meet to be approved for appointment” within three months of the passing of the Bill.”
“I appreciate the Minister’s clarification and I hope to be able to share that with businesses and organisations that are concerned about the possible change. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 22 Authorised economic operators”
“This is a pretty comprehensive amendment, and it relates to a number of aspects of the authorised economic operator scheme that I have concerns about. I hope the Minister will provide a degree of certainty about all of them. If he cannot, I will be keen to press this amendment to a vote.”
“The Government may decide that they want a first application to take that long, but I would contend that even that is pretty excessive. It would be incredibly useful for the Government to set out what the targets are, so that companies know, when they are going into the system, how long the Government intend to take in making a decision. When a company is considering, for example, exporting to a new market or changing the way it does it exporting, it should be able to look at the Government’s timeline and plan on the basis of how long it will take them to process the authorised economic operator approval or renewal. It would be sensible for the Government to come back with all those answers. Businesses would be very happy if the Government gave them more certainty about all those matters.”
“Given that I assume the Government expect to see a dramatic increase in the number of applicants for authorised economic operator status because of the number of companies that will be exporting for the first time, it is reasonable that they should report on how they intend to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to seeing the process of authorised economic operators through. Paragraph (e) is about “the target timetable for the authorisation of…new authorised economic operators in each class, and…authorised economic operator certification renewals in each class.” We have heard concerns that the renewal process for an authorised economic operator can take 12 months. If that is so—that may be an outlier—that is a ridiculous length of time for a renewal.”
“Paragraph (c)— “the proposed differences between the structure that is proposed to be established by the first exercise of the power to make regulations under subsection (1) and each of those structures described in accordance with paragraph (b)”— would again require the Government to provide us with more information in advance. Paragraph (d), on “the level of proposed resources to be allocated by the HMRC Commissioners for the authorisation of new authorised economic operators”, is pretty critical.”
“Although the scheme is internationally recognised, the way in which it is implemented and the way in which the equivalents of HMRC oversee it varies wildly by country. In some places, the system is much quicker, and it is much easier to get through the process. Companies receive more assistance and guidance to get them through the process, and the officials make a determination about applications more quickly. It is important for the Government to look at other countries. The British Chambers of Commerce said that Austria and Germany do this in a much smoother way; that is why those countries are included in the amendment, but it would be completely reasonable for the Government to include any other countries that they think are relevant.”
“That is how things have been applied and work now, but if we suddenly include the, I think, 130,000 new companies that have not previously had to do customs checks, we will need a different system, because those companies will not have someone who has been working for three years in a customs-related role. The Government will have to agree that some sort of external company can take on the role of that person, or that the companies can have a differentiated system until they have had that three years of experience in exporting. It is reasonable to expect the Government to be a bit more flexible. Our proposed new paragraph (b) asks for “an assessment of the structure of the authorised economic operator system in Germany, Austria and such other countries as the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers relevant”.”
“Part of that is about giving businesses certainty further in advance, and part is about ensuring that the Government think about how the authorised economic operators scheme will go forward. Among the various things we are asking for in the amendment is “the proposed criteria to be applied in determining whether or not any person should be an authorised economic operator”. Part of that is to do with the issue that the UK Government and HMRC have had with requiring companies to have someone with three years of customs experience in order to be approved as an authorised economic operator.”
“The Government’s customs White Paper mentioned that people could be authorised economic operators, and basically suggested that that would solve all their woes. Given how difficult it is for companies to become authorised economic operators, and given HMRC’s shortcomings in overseeing the process and ensuring that it is as smooth and quick as possible, I have real concerns that the system cannot be used effectively by many businesses as a way to ensure—slacker customs procedures is not the right term—slightly different customs procedures that would allow things to move a bit more smoothly. In the amendment in my name and that of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, we are looking for the Government to provide more information.”
“It is most unusual to hear the Lords held up as champions of democratic accountability, but the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the Bill has been incredibly useful, and it has allowed us to have a more knowledgeable debate on the subject. It was quite reasonable of the Opposition to have brought forward their amendments. I will speak to amendment 116, which I intend to press to a vote. It is about authorised economic operators, which is what the clause covers, because I have real concerns about the system. I am not the only person to have concerns—they have been expressed previously—about how the UK manages the AEO scheme within the UK. The UK scheme is managed dramatically differently from schemes in other countries, which is a real concern for businesses.”
“The amendment does not call for a review at all; it calls for a report to be provided. It is not about concerns being raised about the current operation of the scheme, but about how HMRC will look at the scheme going forward.”
“It would be very useful to know whether the Minister has any idea when the regulations will come forward. Part of my concern was the lack of advance notice for businesses.”
“Border Force is the first line for many imports, ensuring that customs declarations are made appropriately and that all appropriate processes are followed. On HMRC, the concern was that no customs officers will be based north of Glasgow or Edinburgh. If goods are coming in to places such as Inverness, it is a three-hour drive for people to get there and look at those goods. What assessment has the Minister made of the extra resourcing that HMRC will need to fulfil the obligations in the clause and the schedules? Reasonable concerns have been expressed by businesses and organisations.”
“It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee, and to take part in the scrutiny of this important piece of legislation. The Minister is right to talk about the administrative nature of the clause and its associated schedules. It appears to be the Government’s position that the UK will choose to leave the customs union. We are not yet clear whether they will pursue another form of customs union with the EU, but if they do not, or if they do not manage to get a customs union with the EU, it is likely that significantly more customs declarations will be required because we will not have those coming from the EU. My concern about the clause arises from Tuesday’s oral evidence sessions, and it would be useful for the Minister to provide an update on that. Various organisations expressed concerns about the resourcing of HMRC and Border Force.”
“Other than the resourcing, which the Minister has fully addressed, I am concerned about the geographical issue. We do not want people to be a number of hours’ drive from the customs officials. Can the Minister give us some comfort that even though there might not be hubs in the area, there will be customs officers based closely and able to respond on a 24-hour basis?”
“I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 8, page 5, line 27, after “other”, insert “relevant”. This amendment requires the Government to classify goods in regulations giving effect to the customs tariff only in relation to relevant factors.”
“Similarly, amendments 105 and 118 are very small technical changes that the Law Society of Scotland suggests would be preferable or useful additions to the clause. It suggests that clause 8(3)(b) say, “the number, weight or volume of the goods or any other measure of their quantity or size.” Again, the aim is just to tighten up the language and ensure that the laws that we are starting off with in this wonderful Brexit Britain are as good and clear as possible and can be interpreted, if they need to be—by a court, for example—in the best possible way. As I said, they are very small technical changes, and I would appreciate it if the Minister would consider them.”
“At the very least, this should be limited to ‘any other relevant factor’ but it would be preferable to limit the scope of this provision by giving an indication of the types of factor which might be appropriate in this context.” So, in our amendment, we have taken up the “very least” option suggested by the Law Society of Scotland. It seems a bit extreme for the Minister to be able to make changes or decisions on “any” factors, some of which may not be relevant. Adding the word “relevant” would ensure that, under the clause, the Minister was stuck to making changes or decisions in relation to relevant factors. It is simply a small technical change that would tighten up the way the law is written.”
“I mentioned during Second Reading that the Law Society of Scotland had produced a paper on the Bill, and I offered to provide the Minister with a copy. If he does not yet have one, I am still happy to do that. The paper explains more fully the rationale behind these three amendments. The amendments are not necessarily about changing the tack of the Bill; they are about making better law and ensuring that the law is clearer. I will quote a short extract from the paper submitted by the Law Society of Scotland. It states that, “the power under clause 8(1)(a) to classify goods ‘according to their nature, origin or any other factor’ is a very broad one.”
“Just to be clear, it is not just me who sees them as necessary in terms of clarification; it is the Law Society of Scotland, which, I assume, knows quite a lot about the law, and therefore feels that these are appropriate changes that would be helpful in terms of the actual law.”
“In this case they are asking us to trust the Treasury. I think the Government can understand why there may be a lack of trust at the moment, given that we have been promised things that have not been followed through on. It would not be too much to ask to insert the word “relevant” into that clause, so that in future, if we do not have as rational a Minister as this one, we can ensure that they have to make the regulations on the classification of goods on relevant factors, rather than on ones that may be irrelevant.”
“I am not going to press the Minister on the word “number”, but on the word “relevant”, I think the Minister dug a hole when he was talking about “rational” Chancellors or Ministers in the Treasury. We are looking at ensuring that this regulation is future-proof, ensuring that if a Minister is not as reasonable as the one standing here, we can ensure that they are held to making relevant regulation. The clause states: “The Treasury must make regulations establishing, and maintaining in force, a system which…classifies goods according to their nature, origin or any other factor”. The Government are asking for this House to give them a significant level of delegated authority. They are asking for us to trust the Government, or any future Government that come after, in relation to making these regulations.”
“On the point about the public interest in general, we are all here to represent our constituents—we are here to ensure that their views are heard in this place—so it is completely reasonable that the Minister and the Treasury, in making any rules under this aspect of the clause, would consider the public interest generally, as well as the other four factors already mentioned.”
“We suggest including a reference to the public interest generally, so that the Minister and the Treasury, in making these decisions, would be required to look at whether the public interest generally would be served by the rate of import duty that they were imposing. All three proposals are relevant considerations for the long-term future of manufacturing which, given the not-very-good productivity in the UK, is hugely necessary and something that we need to protect. I do not know how anybody could argue with looking at sustainable development, given that the future of our planet is at stake.”
“Traidcraft says: “It is therefore vital that consideration of sustainable development is contained in primary legislation to avoid the potential for the UK to inadvertently contravene its global commitments…If sustainable development were added to this list it would ensure the Government were able to fulfil its global commitments.” That is a strong message from Traidcraft about this aspect of the clause. Because, as I said, the Minister has not included in it “any other relevant factor”, we want to be clear that the Government are protecting the interests of manufacturers, but also the interests of the future of the planet. Amendment 106 is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. Again, the factors that the Minister is required to consider when setting the rate of import duty are not wide enough.”
“The Scottish Government are in a much better place in that, in relation to steel and Tata Steel specifically, we have saved the Lanarkshire plants, and we have worked with BiFab. If the UK Government had previously taken actions like that, we would be in the much better position of feeling that they would be likely to protect the interests of manufacturing. We are therefore happy to associate ourselves with the Labour amendment. Amendment 78 has been suggested by Traidcraft. I will talk about exactly why Traidcraft says that it is important. The UK has signed up to the sustainable development goals. They are incredibly important for the future of the world—for our children and our children’s children—in ensuring that there is sustainable development.”
“The clause already includes “the interests of consumers…the desirability of maintaining and promoting…external trade…the desirability of maintaining and promoting productivity…and…the extent to which the goods concerned are subject to competition.” On amendment 1, I associate myself with many of the shadow Minister’s remarks about the importance of manufacturing. It has been concerning that the Government have not taken into account the interests of manufacturing in many of the actions that they have taken. Therefore, it would be useful for the House to have the comfort that the Government would have to consider the importance of manufacturing when they were making these decisions.”
“This aspect of the clause is about “considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply to any goods”, and we have tabled amendments. The Government have chosen not to include in this provision a reference to “any other factor” or even the preferable “any other relevant factor”, but have laid down a number of factors that they are believe are relevant in this case. Both the Scottish National party and the official Opposition, with amendments 1, 78 and 106, are trying to increase the number of factors that will be considered when the rate of import duty that ought to apply is being considered.”
“Actually, subsection (7) goes on to say that the Secretary of State “must have regard to the matters set out in subsection (5)(a) to (d)”, and not to other factors such as sustainable development.”
“If the Minister is clear that that will be looked at anyway, or if the Secretary of State decides to get involved in any decision, it does not cost anything to add that into the Bill. If the Minister is clear that the Government will consider the interests of manufacturers because they are integral, it does not cost anything to add that into the Bill. It would be useful and helpful to businesses and would be a nice sign of confidence in businesses. It would be great for the Government to not just talk about increasing productivity, but to say to manufacturers, “We will support you and ensure that your interests are protected.” If the Minister is clear that such things are going to happen anyway, it would not cost the Government anything and they would lose nothing, but it would ensure that people feel more positively about the Bill.”
“Specifically on what the Minister has said, it is clear from various evidence we have received that the Government have not chosen simply to replicate things such as the Union customs code. In some places they have chosen to replicate it, but in others they have chosen not to. The concern is that the Government’s judgment has not been great in choosing which parts to replicate and which parts not to replicate. The measure has clearly been drafted in a hurry. From the Minister’s argument in relation to what the Secretary of State would have regard to, it is clear that this section of the legislation has not been particularly well thought through. Opposition Members are not asking for unreasonable things. Having regard to sustainable development is completely reasonable.”
“I have previously complained about the composition of Public Bill Committees, given the UK Government’s gerrymandering so that they can have a majority in Bill Committees despite not having a majority in the House. The change would mean that scrutiny would be done effectively, and not just by Committees with a majority of Government representatives who will win every vote by 10 to nine. The amendment is incredibly important and would ensure effective and appropriate scrutiny, and make for better legislation.”
“Although clause 8 has deficiencies, it is my working assumption that even if we were in a customs union—which would be my preferred option—we would still need to set our tariffs and to lodge those schedules with the World Trade Organisation, so, even in the event of the UK being in a customs union with the EU, I imagine that there would still be a requirement for the Government to have the power to set tariffs. On that basis, clause 8 is necessary whether or not the Government decide to come out of the customs union or to pursue a customs union. So, although it is deficient, we need to do something. It would be useful if the Minister was to say that he might consider coming back on Report to some of our amendments—even if he said he would consider it, that would be incredibly helpful—but as I said, we will support Labour’s new clause.”
“It is a pleasure to be here and to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Main. We support new clause 1, which has been tabled by the Opposition, and we would be happy to support it if they decide to put it to the vote. I have concerns about clause 8 because of the deficiencies that we discussed earlier. I hope that, by Report, the Government will have come back to some of the suggestions that the official Opposition and the Scottish National party have made, and given them some level of consideration.”
“In the absence of those kinds of changes, which are outside the scope of the Bill, we are asking for the Government to definitely make the regulations—if they are bound by an international treaty or agreement, it would be sensible to do so—but to consult with relevant stakeholders. We want to put that duty of consultation on the Government.”
“The Government have said that if they are varying the rate of import duty downwards rather than upwards, there should be a less rigorous procedure, but if the rate of import duty is varied downwards, that may have a greater effect on our local producers and manufacturers. The amendment asks for there to be “consultation with relevant stakeholders” in advance of not just international agreements, but any of these changes. When the Government are deciding to make international regulations, it would be useful if they first consulted the House using the existing processes. I understand that most Governments across the world make trade regulations with the authority of the House, rather than simply by the authority of the Executive.”
“This short amendment would make two changes to the Government’s intentions around the clause. First, it would leave out “may make regulations” and insert “must make regulations”. In subsection (1), the Bill states that, “the Treasury may make regulations to give effect to the provision made by the arrangements”. If there has been an international agreement, surely the Treasury must make regulations, because that would be sensible. That is the first change we suggest. The second change we suggest is on consultation. It is clear that there has not been the right level of consultation.”
“I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 9, page 6, line 24, leave out “may make regulations” and insert “must make regulations following consultation with relevant stakeholders”. This amendment requires the Treasury to consult relevant stakeholders before making regulations giving effect to an arrangement for a preferential tariff. To explain the reasoning behind our amendment I need to mention a couple of things in the clause. It is headed, “Preferential rates: arrangements with countries or territories outside UK” and the explanatory note explains more about those: “This clause broadly covers any arrangements, international agreements or memoranda of understanding”. Therefore it relates to whenever there is a move away from a most favoured nation tariff into a free trade agreement, or some other form of preferential tariff rate.”