Daniel Zeichner
MP for Cambridge · Labour · United Kingdom
“I recall, as a shadow Minister, visiting a major institution in the country and sending the management into panic when I asked them where the bus stop was to get back to the station.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the location of bus stops. I am so frustrated when I have taken the train to Cambridge, arrive at the station, see the bus, but have to walk 200 yards around the platform, come out of the station and walk 200 yards back to the bus stop, to find the bus has gone.”
“Devolution and local government reorganisation are different things. To be honest, they should probably be considered separately, but they have become so interlinked and intertwined in this debate that it is impossible to do so. If we are to have a stronger devolution settlement, it is right to spend more time getting it right.”
“I commend the Secretary of State and his team for their determination and resolve in the transfer to renewables. In the extraordinary and unprecedented weather that we are having at the moment I can assure the House that some shade would be really welcome in parts of the east of England.”
“I commend all the hard work that has gone into both the road map and the profitability review by the civil servants, the ministerial team and so many people across the sector, including Baroness Batters.”
“On that point about speculative building, I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is probably not a fan of big, bold projects of this kind, but does he agree that there is a very good example just down the road in Cambridge?”
The complete record
Every one of 5,991 lines we hold for Daniel Zeichner, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 61 of 120.
“Data is the lifeblood of modern economies, but the data provisions in the UK-Japan deal, which Ministers have been boasting about this morning, make it less likely that the EU will grant us the vital adequacy agreement that our researchers and businesses need in just a few months. So can Ministers explain how these contradictions are to be resolved?”
“Member for Carshalton and Wallington for calling this debate and optimistically encourage him to support our amendments to the Environment Bill when they are debated on Report, because that is how we will seize the opportunity to put incineration behind us and move forward to a new world of ambitious and effective recycling, one that recognises and unlocks the value in what was once seen as waste.”
“I urge the Minister to make the strongest representations to Treasury Ministers to ensure that councils have the resources they need. The Minister will recall that until the end of last year we were covered by the EU waste directive, among other pieces of waste-related legislation. Can she update the House on what she is doing to ensure no lowering of the standards in that directive now that the transition has come to an end? Can she also confirm that the UK will maintain the EU definition of waste? Labour is committed to increasing recycling rates and improving the processes around doing so. We recognise the importance of taking people with us and argue that if we do not have buy-in from the public, we are unlikely to achieve the sort of change and progress that our planet desperately needs. I am grateful to the hon.”
“The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), has put it well: “The government has made big promises to match environmental standards from Europe and to ban plastic waste exports. There can be no dither or delay. The British people expect to see these exports banned, more recycling of materials at home and faster action on the climate crisis. It is up to ministers to deliver on their promises and fast, but this does not look good.” In conclusion, I urge the Minister to think about the social cost of the issues we are discussing, as well as the environmental costs. It is important to remember the role of local authorities here too. They are on the frontline of waste collection and recycling.”
“Did the Minister and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington have the opportunity to read a piece in The Guardian over their porridge? If not, I want to let them know that the UK has been accused of failing to honour its promise to “curb shipments of plastic waste to developing countries, after it emerged Britain’s new post-Brexit regulations are less stringent than those imposed by the EU.” The article notes: “From 1 January, shipments of unsorted plastic waste from the EU to non-OECD countries were banned. But Britain will continue to allow plastic waste to be exported to developing countries”, despite a Conservative party manifesto commitment to banning the practice. That is important, because we are one of the biggest producers of plastic waste in the world, and we export about two thirds of it.”
“The containers, which were shipped to Sri Lanka in 2017, were found by Sri Lankan authorities to contain illegal materials described as mattresses and carpets which had been exported for recycling. With the shipment now back on English soil, EA enforcement officers will seek to confirm the types of waste shipped, who exported it and the producer of the waste. Those responsible could face a custodial sentence of up to two years, an unlimited fine, and the recovery of money and assets gained through the course of their criminal activity.” That answer is telling, because we cannot rely on incineration, nor should we think we can simply ship our worries and our waste overseas. The ship that left Britain in 2017 with our waste came back to bite us in September 2020. We simply need to resolve these issues. This subject is topical.”
“The issue is not just about waste here at home, but about the fact that English waste, for want of a better description, has an international impact, too. In a written parliamentary question, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West asked the Secretary of State “what discussions he has had with his Sri Lankan counterpart on the 21 containers of waste returned to the UK from that country in September 2020.” The answer she received from the Minister, who is here today, was revealing. She said: “The Environment Agency…as the competent authority for waste shipments for England, is proactively engaging with the authorities in Sri Lanka on these containers and is leading the response on this matter. The 21 containers arrived back in England on Wednesday 28 October.”
“The Minister knows that England is responsible for the overwhelming majority of waste in UK households. It is vital that England and therefore this Government show leadership and act. If we need further evidence of the need for swift action, we need look no further than DEFRA’s own resources and waste strategy monitoring report from August last year. It tells us: “The large amount of avoidable residual waste and avoidable residual plastic waste generated by household sources each year suggests there remains substantial opportunity for increased recycling.” The message from that assessment is that a substantial quantity of material appears to be going into the residual waste stream, where it could at least have been recycled or dealt with higher up the waste hierarchy. So there it is. We have to take this seriously now.”
“I am pleased that for half of that time a Labour Government ambitiously pushed for a change of behaviour and real action on the green agenda. However, I must point out that England still falls short of the EU target of recycling a minimum of 50% of household waste by 2020. Our departure from the EU does not mean we should shift gear or slow down. We need to go further and faster. As of 2018, Wales is the only nation in the UK to reach the target, and in 2017 it recorded a recycling rate of 64%. I pay tribute to the Welsh Labour Government, particularly the First Minister and the Environment Minister, Lesley Griffiths MS. I also endorse the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who not only pointed out those successes in Wales, but made important comments about food waste.”
“Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) has an incineration facility at Hillthorn Park in her constituency. I know she is watching the debate this afternoon. My hon. Friends’ passion crosses regional and national borders within the UK. As we grasp the challenge of reducing our reliance on incinerators, our response needs to be an all-nation response. Will the Minister outline what specific discussions she has had with Environment Ministers in the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and with the Cabinet Secretary in the Scottish Government on tackling the over-reliance on incineration? Over the past two decades, the household waste recycling rate in England has increased significantly, from just 11.2% to almost 50%.”
“In previous debates, he has made clear his opposition to the incinerator planned by an English company for the east of his constituency, which is currently with the Welsh planning inspectors and which likely plans to burn commercial waste shipped across the border. I will also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who has a particular interest in the impact of incineration on the health and wellbeing of her constituents in north London, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who chairs the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, and who I remember expressing concerns in this very Chamber about the planning decisions that he feels do not consider the cumulative impact of multiple sites in close proximity. Similarly, my hon.”
“That over-reliance will prevent us from moving up the waste hierarchy in dealing with waste generally and will stop us looking at waste as a resource that can be recycled and reused, its value unlocked rather than buried or contributing to toxic air. I also know that a number of my hon. Friends around the country have raised concerns about incineration in their communities in recent months. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who wanted to speak in this debate but could not be here today, has asked me to emphasise a point he has made about the urgent need for clarity from the Minister on waste movements around the UK, including between England and Wales.”
“As we have also heard, however, existing capacity already exceeds the quantity of genuinely residual combustible waste. Allowing even more incinerators would exacerbate that overcapacity, giving rise to avoidable pollution and expense while harming waste reduction and recycling efforts. In short, we should now acknowledge that the time for incineration is over and that the age of incinerators should come to an end. Once, one might have said that incineration was an improvement on the previous practice of landfill, but I no longer feel that that is the case. I note that across England, incineration has increased in inverse proportion to the reduction in landfill in recent years. I say to the Minister that an over-reliance on incineration as a means of tackling waste will, in the end, serve no one.”
“The Minister will recognise this familiar refrain from our many hours spent on the Environment Bill; we tried to make constructive and effective suggestions for improvement but, as these things go, they were sadly voted down. As we have heard, incinerators emit large quantities of CO 2 , with roughly 1 tonne released for each tonne of waste incinerated. About half of that is derived from fossil sources such as plastic, meaning that England’s incinerators rely on fossil fuels for feedstock, as most plastics are derived from crude oil or natural gas. I am told that incineration capacity in England is currently around 17.2 million tonnes—some 14.6 million of built capacity and 2.6 million under construction—and the waste industry is proposing a further 20 million tonnes of capacity for England.”
“Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for calling the debate. I listened with great interest to his account of the difficulties around the Beddington incinerator, approved by the Lib Deb-run London Borough of Sutton and clearly causing a range of problems for him and his constituents. However, the collective task of tackling waste, improving recycling rates and taking the steps needed to protect our environment and preserve our planet is one that we need to do together. I am afraid it is no secret that the Opposition side of the House have concerns about what we see as a lack of ambition on the Treasury Bench when it comes to these issues.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey, and to speak for the Opposition this afternoon. I should say at the outset that I am a mere stand-in for my departmental colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), who is the shadow Minister for waste. Because of the travel restrictions, she has to be in Wales and, until we have the motion on Westminster Hall debates later today, there is a requirement for these debates to be held in person. I must say, it is quite extraordinary that we are all being put at risk, including the staff in this place, because—to use the jargon—it was not possible to “flex” the rules sufficiently. I hope it can be fed back how unhappy some of us are about being put in that situation. More positively, I pay tribute to the hon.”
“Behavioural scientists are clear that to get people to self-isolate requires that they have the capacity, motivation and opportunity to do so. So far, frankly, the £500 on offer is not achieving that. What assessment has the Chancellor made of that scheme, and what is he planning to do to improve it?”
“I have listened closely to the Prime Minister, but at no point have I heard him apologise to education leaders, teachers, students and parents for the chaos earlier this week. He rightly asks the public to change our behaviours, which is in all our interests, but there is a reciprocal obligation on him, too. What has he learned from all this, and what will he do differently in future?”
“They have not celebrated those who isolate, and they have not provided accommodation or the right financial support to ensure that people have the opportunity to do so. That is why it has not worked. I drew the Secretary of State’s attention to that weeks ago, when I learned that just 14 people in Cambridge had taken up the offer of financial help to isolate. The Secretary of State kind of shrugged. It is that kind of failure from Government that means that the situation we are in today was not inevitable. It could have been different, but this is a Government unwilling to acknowledge mistakes or learn from experience, and we are all at risk because of it.”
“The diminished powers of local authorities, particularly second-tier districts, are brought into stark focus when councils such as Cambridge City Council find that they do not have the powers necessary to deal with public health hazards. The temporary closure of Cambridge market is a case in point, where the lack of the precise powers needed has led to an overall closure that no one wanted. I will support the legislation today, but I also want to highlight another Government failure. We have heard a lot about testing and vaccination, but precious little about isolating. Behavioural scientists advise that people do what they are asked when they are motivated and have the opportunity and capability to do so. Sadly, the Government have failed to motivate.”
“The headteacher at St Matthew’s in Cambridge, Tony Davies, describes a day of chaos and observes: “So much heartache could have been saved if they had made this decision in a timely manner.” Niamh Sweeney of the National Education Union rightly observes that, because of the chaos, “the Government has jeopardised public health.” The problems in education go further still. While local education authorities such as Cambridgeshire have stepped up, they are hampered by the patchwork of competing Government arrangements now in place. They can advise, but for multi-academy trusts the decisions in some cases are made far from Cambridgeshire—out of sight, beyond local scrutiny or influence.”
“Leaders in educational establishments in Cambridge have been left in an impossible position, on Monday trying desperately to set up testing measures demanded by Government, and trying to reassure pupils and parents that they would be open the following day, only to get texts and emails late in the evening completely contradicting the previous advice. Now they are suddenly expected to switch to delivering teaching remotely. BTEC exams in further education colleges have had to be cancelled at the last minute. On schools, the front page of today’s Cambridge Independent tells the story: “a disgrace”, say teachers.”
“Sadly, the new restrictions are as inevitable as they are necessary. The Government say that it is the new variant that is to blame for the problems, but frankly it has been obvious for months that the NHS was going to come under huge stress during the winter. It is time for less flowery language from the Prime Minister. Too much bluster, too much over-optimism—frankly, we are all tired of it, just as we are tired of the lockdown itself. The chaotic way in which the latest measures have been introduced has caused particular and understandable fury, because it was all so unnecessary.”
“One of the opportunities is a pathway back into the hugely important Horizon Europe programme—important to the country but particularly important to my constituency. Of course, we will cease to have influence over its future direction—we have no seat at the table and no vote, and the payment mechanisms may well lead to perverse outcomes; that is the cost that the Conservatives have inflicted on us—but we can participate, and that is worth having. It is for that reason that I will unwillingly vote for this thin agreement today—only because it is better than nothing. That is a low bar, but it is a start, and with the prospect of new management for our country—”
“Let us hear from Government Members—I suspect that there will be a deafening silence, because answer is there none. The truth is that we do not hold all the cards. Yes, we hold some, and hopefully sense will prevail and further agreements will be made. That is my hope for the future. Bit by bit, sector by sector, we will rebuild that relationship that has been so damaged, and this time we will do it by explaining carefully and convincing the British people that sharing and co-operating with our neighbours is not surrendering something, but gaining much more, and that the noble vision of a continent united in peace and prosperity is worth striving for. In no area is that more true than in science, research and innovation.”
“We have seen in recent weeks in Kent what the failure to achieve frictionless trade can lead to. In future, any disagreement with France can lead to the same chaos. Yes, we are notionally free, but it is a pretty empty freedom that leaves our streets lined with innocent victims, trapped in vehicles without food or sanitation. We have a poor choice today: nothing, or take the scraps that are on offer. Incredibly, some gullible Government Members who told the country that “we hold all the cards” somehow think that their tests have been met. Let us take data, the lifeblood of modern economies. What is on offer? A reprieve for a few months, while the EU considers a data adequacy application. Does it have to grant it? No, it does not. What is our recourse if, as it is fully entitled to do, it says no?”
“For the overwhelming majority of my constituents, this discussion brings no cheer. Confident, outward-looking Europeans, we genuinely struggle to understand why this country should want to turn away from our neighbours, and build barriers where there have been bridges. It is an inescapable fact that in every sphere we will be worse off next week. We ask the obvious questions of the Brexiteers. They promised frictionless trade: failed. They promised the exact same benefits: failed. They promised it would be easy and simple: well, here we are at the very last, having to rush through legislation because it is far from easy, far from simple. Of course, that suits the Prime Minister, who always fears scrutiny. In prioritising notional sovereignty over practical utility, he has made a fundamental error.”
“Like many colleagues, I support USDAW’s Freedom from Fear Campaign and recently visited and met staff at my local Co-op. I was astonished to hear that, across its 12 stores in Cambridge, some 3,000 incidents have been reported already this year. That is an incident in every store every day, so how much worse does it have to get before the police take this more seriously and the Government take some action?”
“The Secretary of State talks a lot about testing and tracing but far less about isolating. The shadow Secretary of State made important points that I do not think the Secretary of State addressed. In my city, a couple of weeks ago, only 14 people had received the £500 payment. The reasons why people are not isolating are complicated, but what has gone wrong with the system? It really is not working, is it?”
“The Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford arc has been a major project that the Government have been considering for some years, but the detail seems to have been lost in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport. The highly unpopular road link has been paused for a year and there is still no clarity on whether the east-west rail link will be an environmentally friendly electrified line or a diesel line. Can we have a statement from the Minister—some Minister—to provide clarity on this subject?”
“However, they also say in paragraph 2.24 of the explanatory memorandum that they are making improvements to the domestic enforcement legislation relating to invasive non-native species. In that case, why has no assessment been carried out of the impact of these changes? We recognise the need to ensure that retained EU legislation in these important areas remains operable, and therefore will not oppose the draft regulations, but we would like clarification on the points raised.”
“Although the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 states that they should be set only for rabbits and foxes, many other animals are regularly caught in them, and, as Baroness Bennett noted in the Lords debate on this SI, there is particularly horrific film footage of badgers being entrapped, and frequent reports about domestic pets being caught in, injured by and sometimes even killed by snares. Will the Government take the opportunity, when reconsidering animal welfare, to look at the whole issue of snares and to consider joining most of the countries of Europe in banning them? On the invasive non-native species element of the SI, the Government say that an impact assessment has not been prepared for the provisions on invasive non-native species, because this instrument relates to the maintenance of existing regulatory standards.”
“I am told that we are only one of five countries in Europe that do not prohibit the use of snares, which, in the words of the League Against Cruel Sports are “cruel and indiscriminate”. In the league’s view, they are “used extensively for the extermination of native animals simply to produce as many birds as possible to be short for sport”. The league has calculated, based on the Government’s own research, that 1.7 million animals a year are killed in these traps.”
“Is there any form of discretion that can be exercised if a transporter arrives at a port without the relevant paperwork? If not, have the Government considered what kind of delay this is likely to cause and at what potential cost? What plans are in place to deal with such potential problems? Turning to leg traps, I think we will all agree that we want to ensure that there are strong provisions against these barbaric traps and that we exclude products associated with them. In paragraph 7.5 of the explanatory memorandum there is a fairly standard claim about our wonderfully high welfare standards. I do not entirely agree with the Government’s view. In some aspects of animal welfare, we frankly are not world leading.”
“CIWF also says: “The underlying principle should be that animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the farm of rearing and fattened on or near the farm of birth.” I suspect that, like me, the Minister would largely agree with that principle, but, as was raised in the Lords, that hinges on the availability of local abattoirs, and I wonder if the Minister could therefore comment on both the journey times, and the Government’s policy on the availability of local abattoirs, for which I think a powerful case has been made by campaigners in recent times. To return to the detail of the SI and the transport arrangements, it seems likely, as with any new system when it is introduced, that there will be teething problems.”
“It is proposed that pigs could be transported for 18 hours or sheep and cattle for 21 hours, and for even longer with permission from the Animal and Plant Health Agency. CIWF says that in its view that is ridiculous. There are few journeys within the UK of that length. It argues that the maximum for each species should be eight hours, with a maximum of six hours for unweaned calves. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.”
“Of course, that was intended partly to trumpet the great triumph of Brexit that we can now end the live export of animals; for some of us, that is one of the few tangible benefits that has been discernible, which is doubtless why it is cited so frequently. But let us be grateful, because although live exports may have declined considerably over the years to some 35,000 animals a year—although I am told that the figure varies—that is 35,000 too many, and we want to see an end to it. I will point out a couple of issues on which the Minister might be able to provide clarity. Compassion in World Farming has long campaigned for an end to live exports. CIWF is puzzled and disappointed, as we are, by the proposed length of maximum journey times within the UK, which in our view are far too long.”
“If not, what effect would that have? How have the new procedures been communicated to them? The regulations are about ensuring that welfare in transport is respected. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at them and the Government responded to its questions by saying: “Although EU and GB standards will remain aligned at the end of the transition period, we have ambitions to strengthen welfare in transport standards in the near future.” Of course, that was a prescient observation on the Government’s part, because last week DEFRA announced its welcome consultation on how to improve animal welfare during transport.”
“To return to the detail, as the Minister explained the SI will end the recognition in Great Britain of a number of documents that relate to animal welfare maintenance, including transport authorisations, driver and attendant certificates of competence, vehicle approvals and journey logs. EU transporters will need to apply for those documents to be issued by a competent authority in Great Britain if they wish to continue to transport animals in Great Britain after the end of the transition period. According to the explanatory memorandum: “Doing so will cause these individuals to incur a small cost.” However, it seems that no impact assessment has been prepared for the provisions relating to the changes in documentation. Why is that? What might the impact be? How many such EU transporters are there? Are they expected to continue to operate?”
“It also, importantly, provides continuity to business in those areas after the end of the transition period. Much in the SI is about the reciprocal arrangements being discussed with the Republic of Ireland. Last week, Baroness Hayman inquired about progress and, of course, there was a statement in the Chamber earlier today, but will the Minister say whether those arrangements have any impact on the areas under consideration? This is perhaps a bit mischievous, given that the Prime Minister seemed unwilling or unable to answer a direct question earlier, but can she perhaps tell us how many of the 50,000 promised customs agents are in place? I am sure that Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs follow that closely.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. Last week I commented on the eclectic grouping of statutory instruments and today we have an eclectic group of things within a statutory instrument—never let it be said we do not have variety in our lives. The regulations have already been discussed in the Lords, so let me echo some of the points made by my colleague, Baroness Hayman. It is clear that the SI makes necessary changes in three areas: to secure the continuity of an effective regime for animal welfare in transport, slaughter and other areas; to continue the ban on leghold traps and the import of pelts obtained by that method; and to ensure that the strict protections placed against invasive non-native species are maintained.”
“I, too, was very impressed by that report. Going back to those journey times, there is genuine puzzlement—it was not simply a criticism—as to why those long times have been proposed. It might help some of the people responding to understand the thinking behind that.”
“I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware of the case of Giulio Regeni, the Cambridge PhD student who was researching trade unions in Cairo. He was brutally murdered five years ago. Does she agree that it is in the interests of everyone, including the Egyptian Government, that, in the end, the truth comes out and justice is done, and is seen to be done?”
“With over 350,000 licensed taxi and private hire drivers, this is the biggest employment group in the transport sector. As we speak, in London, electric cabs, which we all welcome, are being handed back because of inflexible finance deals. In every constituency, there will be hundreds of drivers laying up their vehicles. There are private tragedies going on here. What impact assessment have the Government actually done and when are they going to act?”
“With the mothballing of Crossrail 2, the four-tracking of routes out of London, through the innovation corridor, up to Stansted and Cambridge is at risk. Will the Minister look at separating out some of those schemes to ensure that we get the kind of reliability we need on those lines?”
“There are worrying developments around avian flu, which is a different issue, and the Opposition will do everything we can to work with the Government to tackle that. May I also make reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is sitting patiently? There was a suggestion from the Secretary of State as to what should be done in these circumstances, which I think rather unhelpfully was a suggestion to switch to beef. I suspect that will not satisfy my hon. Friend. He may wish to intervene.”
“It is a pleasure to be here and to speak to these statutory instruments, Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed, they are an eclectic mix of instruments, and I say at the outset that we will not be opposing them. May I say something positive about the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board? I know it is not always supported throughout the sector, but my experience has been very positive, and it does very valuable work. On livestock movement, we know how critical a tracing system is. We need only look back to some of the awful experiences with foot and mouth back in 1967 and 2001 and, indeed, to the lessons learned by 2007, and we have only to think about bovine TB and, I fear, African swine fever, which is currently moving across Europe.”
“This is possibly not the place to have this debate, but my hon. Friend is right to raise it and the Minister will have the opportunity to respond later. Of course, we are seeing problems with wool, as well, so it is a troubled time for people. Obviously we hope that we end up without tariffs, because that will be a much better outcome.”
“So can the Minister explain what consultations have been had with the devolved authorities on the content of these regulations, how the majority of their comments and suggested changes were accommodated, and what suggestions, if any, were not accommodated? This is indeed an eclectic group of instruments, but they are all important to make sure our farmers are paid, to ensure that we use the latest technology to best effect to maintain the health of our livestock and to ensure that agricultural support systems are WTO-compliant. We are not opposing them, but there are questions I have posed, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.”
“This was rejected by the Government, but the Minister committed to consulting with the devolved Administrations on the making of regulations under part 6. The Government said in their explanatory memorandum for this SI: “These regulations were drafted in consultation with policy officials from the devolved administrations, who were given the opportunity to comment at each drafting stage. It was possible to accommodate the majority of their comments and suggested changes whilst recognising that UK Government’s position is that ensuring compliance with international obligations remains a reserved issue.” I have to say that, from speaking to some of my Scottish colleagues, I am not entirely convinced they completely agree with that characterisation of the discussion.”