20/03/2018 House of Commons

any benefit that accrues from the

subsidiary actually goes to the NHS

because it is fully owned by the

public sector.

Order. Urgent

question, Alistair Carmichael.

I'd

like to thank you for allowing this

urgent question and giving us a

voice in this chamber today. I wish

to ask the Secretary of State for

environment, food and rule affairs

if you'd make a statement on the

progress of negotiations relating to

future fisheries management

associations after the UK leaves the

EU.

Thank you. I'd let to thank you

for this opportunity to update the

house. Can I begin by paying tribute

to the hard work of ministers and

especially the civil servants of our

country's negotiating team who

concluded an agreement on the nature

and length of the implementation

period which will help us to prepare

for life after Brexit. An agreed

text will now go to the March

Council of the European Union and

after that council at the end of

this week the Prime Minister will

update the house on Monday. The

house will be aware there are

important legal and technical

questions relating to fisheries

management which means it occupies a

special position in these

negotiations. Both the EU and our

negotiators were always clear

specific arrangements would have to

be agreed for fisheries. Our

proposal to the EU was there during

the implementation period we'd sit

alongside other coastal states as a

third country and equal partner in

annual quota negotiations and in

making that case we did so after

full consultation with

representatives of the fisheries

industry. We pressed hard during

negotiations to secure this outcome

and we are disappointed that you

were not willing to move on this.

However, it is the case that thanks

to the hard work of our negotiating

team, the text was amended from the

original proposal and the commission

have agreed to amendments to the

text which provide additional

reassurance. The revised text

clarifies the UK's share of quotas

will not change during the

implementation period and the UK can

attend international negotiations.

The agreement includes an obligation

on both sides to act in good faith

throughout the implementation period

and any attempt by the EU to operate

in a way which would harm the

fishing industry would breach that

obligation. These arrangements were

all dig-mac only apply to

negotiations in December 2019 where,

at the table, and in December 2020,

we will be negotiating fishing

opportunities as a third country and

independent coastal state deciding

who can access our waters and on

what terms for the first time in

over 40 years. It is important we

use this transition period to ensure

we can negotiate as a third country

and independent coastal state in

2020 to maximise the benefits for

our coastal communities to ensure we

can control who accesses our waters,

on what times and ensure we manage

our marine resources sustainably. We

are already looking at a range of

considerations for future fishing

opportunities. In the UK, exclusive

economic zone. There is a

significant prize at the end of the

implementation period and it is

important that all of us in every

area accept this and period is

necessary. For our coastal

environment, it is an opportunity.

It is critical that all of us in the

interest of the whole nation keep

our eyes on that prize.

I'd like to

thank the Secretary of State for

that answer. As recently as two

weeks ago the Prime Minister didn't

see this as a necessary step. I have

to tell him if he doesn't already

know it that the mood in fishing

communities today is one of palpable

anger. This is not what they were

promised. And the basic question the

Secretary of State has to answer

today is this. If they can let us

down like this over the deal on a

transitional period, how do we know

they will not do it again when it

comes to the final deal? When it

comes to it, will they trade away

access for waters to access for

markets or anything else? Mr

Speaker, the house needs to hear

today how this bizarre arrangement

is going to work in practice. The EU

Norway deal in macro is due to

expire at the end of this year. We

thought it would be rolled over for

12 months. Is it still going to be

the case? And Swat Valley will there

be to the EU Commission agreeing

another bad heels for our feet? The

Secretary of State should know that

British boats have a particular

problem with hate as a choke

species. That is a problem for our

fleet and nobody else. Does he

really expect the other 27 member

countries are going to come up with

a solution to something that is a

problem only for us and not for

them? Mr Speaker, it is reported the

government's Chief Whip today turned

back yesterday told his backbenchers

it isn't like the fishermen are

going to vote Labour. If that is

true, it betrays a certain attitude

and the Secretary of State shouldn't

be complacent. He should not take it

for granted that in the future they

will be voting Tory either.

I'm very

grateful to the honourable gentleman

Orchestra and detailed comments. The

first thing I'd happily acknowledge

is there is disappointment in

fishing communities. I know as

someone whose father was a fish

merchant and his grandparents went

to see two fish I understand how

fishing communities feel about the

situation. I share the

disappointment. The second thing is

the honourable gentleman asks about

future negotiations and the role we

will play. There is a unique

12-month period leading up to 2019

when at the end of 2019 in the

December council the EU will argue

on the UK's behalf the UK will be

there as part of the delegation,

consulted in order to ensure all the

legitimate interests he raises are

fairly represented. It's also the

case he raises the discard ban. The

truth is every single fishing nation

is affected by it and buy a choke

species and that we operate

collectively with our neighbours in

order to ensure that we have the

correct means of marine conservation

because unless we have a system that

involves the discard ban, we can

have overfishing which has led in

the past to an unhappy outcome to

fishing communities. The final point

is that of course no one takes any

one vote for granted, certainly not

the votes of people who work so hard

in order to make sure we have food

and played. The only party in this

house actually committed to leaving

the common fisheries policy is the

Conservative Party.

I should say, in Fenners, our

colleagues in the Democratic

Unionist Party share that as well.

It's critical that we ensure that

leaving the common fisheries policy

at the end of that, means that the

communities that all of us have the

one of representing benefit from

what that will bring.

Another

secretary state knows that 45 years

ago the fishermen felt they have a

very bad deal. They want their

fishing rights back. Can I be

reassured by him that as we have

this interim deal that we can

actually register ourselves as an

independent coastal state, so that

on the 1st of January 21 we have

complete control of our waters?

Yes,

my honourable friend the chairman of

the select committee is absolutely

right. One of the things we can do

is make sure that not just from the

1st of January 2021, but in December

2020, that we are negotiating as an

independent coastal state and we

will be able to join the fishermen

management association in advance of

those, which any state has to be

part of to ensure that the marine

environment is adequately protected.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm grateful

to the right honourable member for

Orkney and Shetland for securing

this urgent question and for the

secretary state's opening comments.

But I still have several questions.

The secretary of state, alongside

fisheries minister, have asserted

time and time again that the UK

would take back absolute control of

the Borders after leaving the

European Union and the London

Fisheries Convention. Following

those announcements, we know that

the rest of the Government has been

having very different conversations

with the EU 27. The announcement

made by the sexual state for exiting

the European Union and the chief

negotiator Michel Barnier, head of

the negotiations, made clear that

the UK would continue to be part of

the fisheries policy in a

post-Brexit transition period,

extended to 2020. The announcement

that the total allowable catch will

remain unchanged during the

transition period contradicts all

previous Government statements, and

it is understandable that many

coastal MPs and fishing divinities

feel so angry and let down. The

government backed's failure to meet

previously stated aims through

negotiations is one that requires

greater explanation and examination

on the floor of the house. This

Government must be absolutely clear

about who is leading the

negotiations on fishing and what its

position is. Has the government

backed failed to secure the desired

position, as advocated by the

fisheries minister, all was that

never the position of the

negotiating team? If the red line

has moved, and the secretary of

state tell the house if there has

been an exchange and what wasn't

secured instead? Last week, I asked

the Fisheries Minister if he had

seen the negotiation, and what was

the response? He said at the end of

the day does not matter what the

European Union asks for, but what we

are prepared to grant it. Can the

secretary of state be explicit in

outlining what the Government is

prepared to grant the EU in relation

to fisheries? Can he also inform the

house what the transition

arrangement with EU will mean for

the London Convention? Sexual state

will have seen the comments from the

less than satisfied fishing -- the

Secretary of State will have seen

the comments from less than fishing

amenities. It must have a

sustainable approach at its very

core. What we now need from the

Government is a move away from the

chaotic approach we have seen this

week, and instead honesty and

clarity about the negotiating

position and exactly what that

means, Mr Speaker, for the fishing

industry.

I am grateful to the

honourable lady for her questions.

The first thing to make clear is

that the London Fisheries Convention

we will be leaving, and we will be

out of that, and the Common

fisheries policy, by the time the

fermentation period ends. It is also

important to recognise that during

the period that the fermentation

period covers, it will be the case

that our share of total allowable

catch will not be altered. This is a

protection during the period of 2019

for all of those that want to make

sure that we have, during that

period, the stability required in

order to prepare for the additional

opportunities that will come at the

end of this fermentation period. The

critical point remains that the

dividing line, I hesitate to say it

redline, but the dividing line

between the Government and its

supporters and those that are its

critics is that we believe when we

leave the European union we should

leave the Common Fisheries Policy.

It is not the position of any other

party in this house that we should

leave the Common Fisheries Policy

and take advantage of the

opportunities that accrue. In that

regard, the comments of my right

honourable friend about the capacity

of the UK to say what it will accept

and what it will not accept refers

clearly and unambiguously to what

will occur after the implimentation

period ends and we are an

independent coastal state outside

the European Union.

Thank you, Mr

Speaker, for granting this urgent

question. I think it shows the level

of interest in this subject across

the house. I am sure the secretary

of state will understand that there

is no way I can sell this deal in

the transition period as anything

like a success to fishing amenities

in Moray, Scotland or the UK. Can

the Secretary of State confirm that

when we leave the Common Fisheries

Policy in 2020 we will have full

control over fish stocks and vessel

access? If fishing amenities feel

let down and anger that this

Government is doing at the moment,

they need that guarantee.

That will

be the case across the north-east of

Scotland and across the United

Kingdom, people will be disappointed

that the proposal that we sought to

ensure that would apply for 2019 did

not apply for that year. I think it

is also important to recognise that

this is a 12 month additional

extension to the maintenance of the

EU

extension to the maintenance of the

EU, and we accept that to secure the

greater prize, which he is right to

remind the house is only available

if we leave the Common Fisheries

Policy, take back control and make

absolutely clear to other countries

that access and quotas will be in

our hands.

Mr Speaker, with the

Conservatives it is always somebody

else's false, Mr Speaker. When the

Conservatives tag -- somebody else's

fault. When they took us into the

Common Fisheries Policy, Scotland's

fishermen were described as

expendable. We are used to Scottish

Tory sell-outs, but even Scotland's

fishermen will be surprised how

quickly that one was turned around.

Will the Minister tell me at what

point the fishermen became a

bargaining chip, or has that been

the case all along? Does he agree

with me that we are now in the worst

of all worlds, that we are in the

Common Fisheries Policy, but no say,

and will he also tell me why, over

the years, the SNP has proposed

changes to bring greater control

over fishing policies, but they have

been rejected? Does he agree with me

that it is because it is a big

industry in Scotland, important to

the Scottish Government, but means

nothing at Westminster?

Mr Speaker, psychologists have a

phenomenon called projection, it

means when you describe someone else

you are really talking about

yourself. It is really interesting

that the Scottish National Party

spokesman should talk about always

blaming somebody else. It always

being somebody else's fault. For a

party that has raised grievance to

an artform, they have a downed cheek

making that case. They have a

particular cheek making that case,

because it is the Scottish

Nationalists's policy to stay in a

customs union and the Common

Fisheries Policy. The party that is

committed to giving Scottish

fishermen and all fishermen across

the United Kingdom a brighter future

by leaving the Common Fisheries

Policy is this party and this

Government. I'm afraid the 90

seconds of concentrated... What is

the word? It is probably

unparliamentary. The 90 seconds that

we just heard from the gentleman, I

think, will be met with the contempt

it deserves.

I think it was 56

seconds. The honourable gentleman

has involved in some statistical

rounding. John Redwood?

Will the

Government go to the council that we

can say the deal from the EU is

unacceptable, that we voted to take

back control of fish, money, Borders

and laws, we have accepted a two

year, nine month transitional

period, so will the Government just

get on with it?

I completely

understand the Right Honourable

Gentleman's feelings on this matter.

I want to reassure him that our

negotiating team negotiated hard

coming good faith, and armed with

the support of our fisheries

industry to try to get the best

possible deal. We did not get

everything we wanted, but it is the

case that it is the view of this

Government, and I think the majority

of people in this house, that we

need to make sure that this

negotiation period succeeds to get

the greater prize that Brexit gives

at the end of it.

I would like to

congratulate the honourable member

for submitting this urgent question.

The truth is that the Tories are

treating this industry as

expendable. The Secretary of State

talked about revival. But industry

can't revive based on the status quo

the Government has delivered on the

CFP. Does he understand why my

constituency, Great Grimsby, will

see this as a total sell-out, with

not even a say at the negotiating

table for the next two years?

It is

not the case that anybody on this

side of the house regards fishing

communities or the fishing community

as expendable. That is why we are

investing more in our top-level

marine scientific advisory bodies,

why we are investing more in the

marine management organisations that

will be responsible for making sure

our fisheries industry is effective.

Why we are investing more in

protection vessels to ensure that

the opportunities, DC opportunity

from outside the CFP can be properly

taken advantage of. The idea we

don't care about fisheries and the

idea we are not investing in their

future, it is not true. The

honourable lady may express

disappointment. I will frankly

expressed his appointment that we

did not secure everything we wanted

in these negotiations. It is vitally

important we all focus on the bigger

prize ahead, and I can completely

understand why there are some

people, and I exempt the honourable

lady, who wants to make partisan

points. But the future of the

fishing industry is bigger than

that.

Mr Speaker, why won't my right

honourable friend and Sir

specifically the question raised by

our honourable friend for Moray? Why

will he not give a guarantee that in

2020 we will take back control over

our fishing and our waters?

I had

believed, and I must apologise to

the house if I did not make it

clear, that I made it clear in my

original statement that even before

the transition period ends, we will

be negotiating as an independent

coastal state. I hope that is

sufficient guarantee and reassurance

to my right honourable friend, as

well as my honourable friend, the

member for Moray.

Given we export

such a large proportion of prawns

and other shellfish to Europe,

shouldn't we have the freest

possible trade with Europe?

Yes.

Jacob Rees-Mogg?

I am slightly concerned by my right

honourable friend's tone in relation

to negotiations that the European

Commission would not allow us

something. In a negotiation, surely

it is a question of what importance

we put on something as to whether we

get it? Therefore, I ask my right

honourable friend what did we get in

return?

The big prize that we have

secured is an implimentation period

that allows us as a country to

prepare for all of the benefits

Brexit will bring. Having campaigned

with the Right Honourable Gentleman

ensure that Britain can leave the

European Union, it is important we

do so in good order. It allows us

the time and space to do just that.

As the sector stayed well knows,

meetings of the fisheries Council

tend to go on into the early hours.

-- the secretary of state. Could he

clarify, under the terms of the

transitional agreement, whether

Britain will have the possibility of

being in the room when those

decisions are made, or does Article

125 of the draft agreement mean that

we will be able to provide comment?

If we can only provide comments,

what impact does he expect the

comments to have one final decisions

are taken in the meeting itself?

It

is very clear we will be consulted,

not just consulted in a perfunctory

way. The scientific advice and

evidence that our top-level marine

scientists generate will also shape

the negotiations. It is only for one

year, December 19, that we will be

in that position. The principle of

the European Union operating in good

faith towards the UK is one that I

do take seriously, because if the

European Union were to act in a way

come in at one year, that would

demonstrate bad faith, apart from

the mechanisms that police the

withdrawal agreement and the

implantation period, it would also

be the case that Britain, having

taken back control of its waters,

might be in a position to be less

generous than the EU would want us

to be.

The economy of Cleethorpes and its

adjoining towns have never really

recovered from what locals see as

the betrayal in the original

negotiations to enter the EU. During

the times, successive governments

have not given sufficient attention

to coastal communities. Can the

Secretary of State assure me that he

and other government departments

will support these coastal

communities to a greater extent, but

a clean now they've got to wait that

little bit longer before the

benefits of leaving the EU are fully

felt?

I think my friend Mike is

right in two areas. Number-1-mac, we

are the waiting longer before we are

out of the common fisheries policy.

As we mentioned earlier, to reverse

that trend, it's important we

recognise the particular challenges

coastal communities face in the

decline of fishing is one of

acquiring attention from the

government.

I must declare an

interest. My daughter Lisa Roberts

and her partner Sean Williams bought

a fishing vessel master and they are

ambitious and excited at the start

of their business venture. What the

minister proposes means they now

face a maelstrom of perishable

foodstuffs held up at customs,

continued pressure on seafood

species and no say over quotas and

alternative catches. In what way has

and he used the fishermen and women

as Brexit bait?

May I wish the

honourable lady's all the very best

in taking to see. Coming from a

family with a fishing heritage

myself, I know the risks and rewards

that come from pursuing fishing

opportunities. In her very eloquent

question she conflated a variety of

issues, some to do with quotas, some

to do with trading opportunities.

When it comes to future negotiations

over trade should be separate

fishing.

It is just as well the

implementation period is shorter

than was sought, isn't it?

As

ever... I have to say that my

honourable friend sums up my

thoughts with more pith and

eloquence than I can aspire to.

Sometimes, the Minister is so able

he beguiles the house and we are

unsure what he believes. Following

the example he has just given, can

he offered two yess to these

questions, when we leave will be

control fishing waters totally?

Wilkie offer every fishing port

Freeport status?

I can say yes to

the first. On the second, that is

above my pay grade. As for knowing

what I believe, I think the best

guide has always been the honourable

gentleman's capacity to get to the

heart of the matter, as he does so

effectively on this issue.

Brixham

in my constituency lands the most

valuable catch in England so will

the Secretary of State visit it in

person to meet with all parts of the

sector to do dig-mac discuss the

serious concerns they have that the

final deal...

My honourable friend

has been persistent lobbyist for

Brixham and all those associated

with that industry privately and I'd

like to thank her for the work she

has done. The industry in Brixham

has a highly effective and able

advocate and of course I will visit

those fishermen in her constituency

to explain to them how we intend to

ensure that after the implementation

period the opportunities available

to them are theirs to enjoy.

When is

the Secretary of State going to

explain to the house article 157 of

the draft agreement that was

discussed between the Secretary of

State for exiting the EU and Michel

Barnier which sets out a new joint

committee between the EU and UK for

deciding all matters in relation to

the transition period including

fisheries, citizens' rights,

everything, but gives no power

whatsoever for Parliament to have

any say on any of those issues? How

can Parliament, having heard his

decision today, have this voice

during this transition period?

I

know the honourable gentleman takes

seriously his duties. One thing I'd

say is there is a draft agreement

which covers a variety of issues. I

am answering questions relating to

fishing. That draft agreement will

be agreed in March, I hope. The

Prime Minister will be here on

Monday and she will be giving a

statement then and there will be an

opportunity to have the honourable

gentleman's question answered fully.

Like many fishermen across Scotland,

I feel very badly let down by this

deal because not going to take

control of our waters as quickly as

we'd hoped. Wonder if my honourable

friend will give me the guarantee

that we will seek control of our

vessels and mortars after we finally

come out of this initial period as

we leave the EU?

Can I thank the

honourable gentleman for mentioning

and raising the role of the Scottish

Federation for fishing. I felt his

response to Dave balancing the

disappointment many felt that we got

the right deal at the end of this

process was a constructive approach,

reflected in the question put by my

honourable friend and it is the case

that we will seek to secure those

opportunities of the Scottish

fishermen 's Federation and others

want to secure.

What a load of

codswallop from the Secretary of

State who is all out at sea on this

issue. They will never be trusted

ever again by the Scottish

fishermen. He drew a lead line with

the leader of the Scottish

Conservatives which has gone

quicker. Can he save us time and

tell us what is the next thing the

Schoeman can expect from his

government?

I have enormous

affection for the honourable

gentleman. It doesn't diminish the

respecter of affection it has for

him. It is his party's policy to

remain in the single market and the

common fisheries policy. As a

result, his capacity to criticise

any other party in this house for

seeking to secure additional

opportunities for fishermen in

Scotland and elsewhere is undermined

by the fact he doesn't believe in

giving those opportunities to

anyone.

I thank the Secretary of

State for his statement but also

he'll remember his visit to New. I

hate to prolong the point but will

the Secretary of State categorically

confirm that in 2021 it'll be our

decision who fishes in UK waters

from 2021, that we regain and retain

control, and will he be announcing a

fund to improve and enhance our

vessels, airports and processing

plants to prepare for that date?

I

did enjoy my visit, and I'm grateful

for the honourable friend that he

does on behalf of his constituency.

It is the case Article 1 to five in

the draft agreement makes it clear

that we think fishing opportunities

for the period of the implementation

period, and given it ends in 2020,

the December 2020's councils

negotiations are not covered by this

agreement so I can give him the

reassurance he and constituents

seek.

Unlike some of those who have

been trying to work themselves into

a lather about this decision, I,

along with the Secretary of State,

did canvas to leave the common

fisheries policy and the EU in

totality but I must say to him I can

remember the promises made when we

visited Aberdeen. Many people will

be alarmed and concerned about this

particular agreement and I'd like to

ask you one thing. He has said that

during the transition period that EU

will act in good faith and not seek

to undermine existing fishing

communities. Given the record to

eight in these negotiations, how can

he be sure that legislation,

directive and rules will not be put

in place which will further

undermine the fishing industry?

First of all my honourable friend

has been a consistent campaigner to

leave the EU and the CFP and the

role he plays as a champion for

those who have argued for that is

exemplary. I sympathise with the

concerns people express about the

past record of governments with

respect to the fishing industry.

What I'd say is that the

opportunities that exist after we

leave our considerable and it is

only one year, December 2019, when

we will rely on that good-faith

provision, with respect to

fisheries. As I mentioned earlier in

response to the questions from

Labour colleagues, if the EU were to

choose to act in a way in that year

that acted against our interests,

the consequences that would follow

for all would not be happy.

For

decades, EU crawlers have plundered

our waters, fished in ways that have

caused damage to our marine

environment and it seems to be that

is the situation the Scottish

Government are prepared to accept in

perpetuity. Whilst I am... And,

indeed, we further comments they

don't trust the EU in the year, I'm

afraid I haven't trusted that EU in

its negotiation strategies over the

fisheries policy for a long time.

Can be Secretary of State confirm we

will have greater control not only

of our fisheries but our fishing

processes that have been so damaging

to the Marine environment and a lot

of us would like to see the end of?

Yes, it isn't the case of the

fishing industry benefiting by being

outside the CFP, but the marine

environment benefits. And the point

the Scottish Government who want to

keep us in the CFP, they want to

deny Scottish fishermen 's the

opportunities of leaving the CFP,

and, in that position, their

protestations ring hollow this

afternoon.

The paradox of this is

that conservative fishery ministers

have been very successful in the

common fisheries policy in

negotiating more sustainable

catches. In his 25 year environment

plan, he talks about all fish stocks

being recovered to and maintained at

levels that can produce their

maximum yield, which is an exact

replica of the EU's CFP. In that

plan, he neglects to mention the

linked application of the

precautionary principle to fisheries

management. Can he reassure the

house that in the future fisheries

fill there will be no return to the

bad old days of days at sea or

fishing effort?

A number of

important points raised in that

question. Yes, previous fishing

ministers in this government,

particular Richard Benning, have

done a lot to improve the CFP and

making a bad situation better. The

second point is she is right that in

the 25 year environment and there is

an commitment to ensuring we follow

the signs in order to ensure we have

the best approach to making sure

fish stocks are healthy and

sustainable in the future. The

broader point about the

precautionary principle, it's clear

during the time we've been in the

EU, there have been a number of

things that have worked against the

informal interests of this country,

the precautionary principle properly

applied can be a very powerful tool

in order to ensure our environment

is protected and enhanced and we

will be saying more about the

environmental principles that have

evolved in our time in the EU and

the means by which we will keep in

line with these principles in due

course.

I granted this urgent

question because I was clear in my

mind the matter warranted the

attention of the House of Commons

today. I think the judgment

vindicated by the level of interest

in participating. I am keen to

accommodate the inquisitorial

appetite of the house but that is

now a premium, given there are two

statements to follow, on a degree of

brevity. It is normally demonstrated

by the honourable gentleman the

member for New Forest West but he

has already asked his question. Can

I exhort Connex to follow his

excellent example.

I'll keep this

short. As my honourable friend agree

that we owe a debt to our fishing

communities? And that we must not

guaranteed to the EU at the end of

this implementation period any level

of access is in favour of a longer

term trade deal?

Yes.

Splendid.

Today is Saint Cuthbert's Day so

it's right to celebrate the

wonderful seafood of Northumberland

from kippers to Lindisfarne oysters

injured by my constituents and

exported around the world but should

be coastal communities who depend on

them ever have believed that a Tory

party funded by the city would

provide and prioritise a deal on

fishing as highly as a deal on

finance?

It is Saint Cuthbert's day

and Saint Cuthbert was given a gift

of fish in order to sustain him. It

is a day resident for a number of

reasons. Actually, it is a

conservative government that has

been invested in all the steps

required in order to make sure we

can take advantage of the

opportunities when we leave the CFP.

We want to ensure her constituents

and others are protected when their

fishermen are engaged.

Jeeves used

to encourage Worcester to eat more

fish. It is good for the brain.

As the British fishing industry has

been hammered over decades with our

membership of the Common Fisheries

Policy, we have now been given a

guarantee we will be leaving towards

the end of the implantation period.

Could he use his good office to

ensure that we find imaginative ways

to get some support to the fishing

industry as we embark into this new

era.

Yes, my right honourable friend

is absolutely right. The point was

made very well by the member for St

Ives as well. We will be saying

more, with the publication of a

fisheries White Paper, but

additional steps to prepare for life

after the transition period.

When

will we actually know the detail

about the great future he is

referring to, before or after the

29th of March 2019?

Before.

I share

the disappointment of north-east

fishermen, with a transition deal

that falls short of what they hoped

for. Can the secretary of state

guarantee that the first January

2021 we will leave the Common

Fisheries Policy, take back control

of our waters, set our own fisheries

management policies, and quotas?

Will he looks including that in a

fisheries Bill? Does he share the

concern that I have, and the

Scottish fishermen is federation,

that the SNP Scottish Government

will keep us in the Common Fisheries

Policy in perpetuity, and it would

sell Scotland's fishermen out, in

perpetuity?

My honourable friend is

absolutely right in every

particular. It was instructive when

the chief executive of the Scottish

fishermen is federation was

interviewed on the radio, he made it

clear how disappointed he was in the

Scottish Government's determination

to keep us in the Common Fisheries

Policy.

Given the assurances that I

and others over the past year were

given right from the Prime Minister

down that we would leave the Common

Fisheries Policy in March 2019, who

actually was negotiating this? And

did they really care about fishing?

It seems to me, and I would like the

Secretary of State to answer this,

did the officials actually argue

that we could be left out right away

and it would be nothing to do with

the implementation period?

A very

direct question, absolutely it was

the case. I shan't... Well, we had

an immensely hard-working team of

officials that negotiated incredibly

hard on our behalf. They were in

constant touch with ministers every

step of the way. They encountered

intransigence on the part of the EU,

which was disappointing. I make no

bones about it. One thing that

cannot be faulted is the hard work,

determination, mastery of detail and

determination to get the very best

deal for Britain of the civil

servants, and I will not hear a word

said against them.

Going forward,

what confidence or guarantee can you

give that control of our seas will

not be sacrificed on the altar of

Brexit?

My honourable friend is

absolutely right to stress that one

of the great prizes of Britain

leaving the European Union is taking

back control of our territorial

waters. That is why we must maintain

our eyes on that great prize at the

end of the process.

Mr Speaker, I am

a daughter of a man that was a

member of the Grimsby deep sea

fishing fleet, so I know it is one

of the hardest jobs in the world. It

does not stop me understanding that

the processing side of the industry

is incredibly important to coastal

communities such as Grimsby and

Peterhead. On that basis, will the

Secretary of State guarantee that

the processing side of the fishing

industry will not be sacrificed to

other priorities in trade deal

negotiations?

The honourable lady

makes a very good point. I have had

productive talks with

representatives of fish processing

organisations. Absolutely, we

appreciate they have specific

demands in terms of access to other

markets and also for Labour, which

we will do everything possible to

help them achieve.

The SNP have

admitted they would hand powers of

fisheries not to Edinburgh or

London, but to Brussels. Can my

right honourable friend assure me

that wouldn't happen?

I can give a

guarantee that under no

circumstances would I ever adopt the

craven and abject surrender that the

Scottish Government take towards the

European Union by accepting that the

Common Fisheries Policy should

persist ad infinitum.

The future of

the fishing industry as a

politically sensitive issue in Hull,

and Ukip have talked about a fishing

fleet being re-established there.

Wasn't one of the main promises that

we would see our removal... Sorry,

we would retain territorial rights

around fishing from day one. Isn't

that a promise that has been broken

to the people Hull?

We will, when

implantation period ends, the

exclusive economic zone that is ours

to police and control will be ours

to police and control.

If during

plantation period they can't cut the

quota, what is to stop them

increasing their quota? Having said

that, those that were bitterly

disappointed with this outcome will

take no lectures from those that

never wants to take back control.

I

entirely understand my right

honourable friend's position. I

explained a little bit earlier the

good faith provisions and other

guarantees that are there. The

outcome is not what we wanted, but

it is one that affords fishermen

protection during implantation

period.

Fishermen in Plymouth feel

utterly betrayed by the decision

announced yesterday. What does this

mean for the reform of the

unworkable discards ban, especially

for mixed fisheries in the

south-west?

The discard ban is

necessary in order to ensure we have

responsible management of all

species. We are working on ways that

it is applied in a way that makes

sure that concerns on behalf of his

constituents are addressed.

The

fishermen in Cornwall do feel very

disappointed, and in some cases

angry, and yesterday's announcement.

Can I ask, when he is visiting

Devon, if he would come further and

meet with the fishermen of Cornwall

as well? Will he lay out clearly for

the fishermen of Cornwall that the

fermentation period would only

affect one year's quota

negotiations, that the quotas will

be protected during the time, and

that by the end of the transition

period we will be taking back

control of fishing waters.

Hits the

nail on the head and I look forward

to meeting him later this year.

In defence of this negotiating

debacle, the secretary of state says

that we always knew that there would

be important legal technical

questions to be resolved. If that is

so, why, less than ten days ago, did

he and Ruth Davidson promise

fishermen across the UK that we

would be leaving the CFP in March

2019?

It is the case that there are

important questions that need to be

resolved. The one thing that the SNP

are promising is that we will never

leave the CFP. What is instructive

about the SNP is that in so many of

their questions they talk about Ruth

Davidson. They never talk about a

single fishermen, species, they

never talk about a single community.

They only attacked the leader of the

Scottish Conservatives. Why? They

are feart!

Will he confirm that in the

transition agreement we will

continue to market fish and fish

products seamlessly and frictionless

leak into the EU, and that is his

aim for the time after it ends?

We

wanted to have it as friction free

as possible, the trade agreement

with the EU and with other nations.

On Friday, the topic of the day was

let us never negotiate out of fear,

but let us never fear to negotiate.

When we joined the Common Market

effort, he sold the fishing sector

for a bowl of potage. Can he give

the guarantee that they will not and

have not been sold out by a

transitional agreement that leaves

the EU in control of fishing policy?

I appreciate the issues he raises

and I will do everything possible to

address the concerns of fishermen,

and I look forward to working with

him and colleagues across the

political divide in Northern Ireland

to provide that reassurance.

My

right honourable friend is

absolutely right to highlight the

prize in agreeing a implimentation

period. How will the UK voice be

heard and respected in the quota

allocation for 2020?

In 2020, my

honourable friend will be reassured

to know, I hope, the UK will be

negotiated and as an independent

coastal state. It will be the case,

the negotiations in 2019 will take

place on the basis that we will be

consulted, that our science will be

part of the process by which a great

Enigma code arrangements are

reached, and the good-faith

guarantees that I discussed earlier

will be there in order to safeguard

UK interests for the limited

12-month period.

The quotas for 2020 will now be set

by the European Union with some

consultation from the British

government. Now that the ball has

been handed back to the European

Union, what guarantees, Secretary of

State give to the industry that we

will get the ball back?

My

honourable friend again reasserts

the vitally important point, worthy

EU for any reason in 2019 to behave

in a way that were contrary to our

long-term interests, it would also

be contrary to their long-term

interests. I agree that the

opportunities the transition deal

provides... Forgive me, the

opportunities at the transition deal

are critically important and we must

secure them. We have accepted a sub

optimal outcome, but it is only for

an additional 12 months and we must

keep our eyes on the prize.

Far from

to use his own words a sea of

opportunity, all this deal does is

underline what the heath, Thatcher

and major governments did when they

preceded this, that the Tories are

happy to throw Scotland's fishing

industry over the side. Isn't it the

time that he and his other Tory

sprats were also discarded?

Again, I

have noticed in questions from the

Scottish Nationalists ventures,

there have been more mentions of the

Scottish Tory leader, and more bad

puns, than any references to science

or economic. They will need to do

better than name-calling and joke

making if it is going to be taken

seriously as a defender of the

interests of Scottish fishermen.

Wolf-fish and minute is up and down

this country will be hanging their

heads in shame at this discussion so

far. Ted Heath in the 1970s said

fishermen were expendable. Margaret

Thatcher in the 80s signed up to the

original Common Fisheries Policy.

That consigned fishermen to decades

of mismanagement. John Major signed

up to be revised Common Fisheries

Policy, scrapping vessels and

destroying livelihoods. Given this

continued betrayal, will things be

any different post Brexit?

Absolutely, I have enormous respect

and affection for the honourable

gentleman, who I think is a great

campaigner. Respectfully, I must

point out, I don't doubt his

commitment at all, but the party

platform on which he stands would

keep imprisoned in the Common

Fisheries Policy, as opposed to the

opportunities outside, which we and

our friends in the Democratic

Unionist Party support.

I think I

make at five different Conservative

Scottish MPs that asked for the same

promise from the Secretary of State.

He has been so obsessed with this

#SNP line that he hasn't given the

guarantee. Is not the case that

Scotland could have devolved power

over immigration if they left the

European Union. Same Secretary of

State promised that we would

definitely leave the Common

Fisheries Policy on March 20 19.

That promise is worthless. Isn't

that the case that any promise he

makes to the people of Scotland in

future will be just as worthless as

those made in the past?

I think it

is the case that the promise that

the Scottish National Party have

made to keep us on the Common

Fisheries Policy and the European

union was come pensively rejected at

the ballot box. There is a simple

choice, that Scotland faces. Does it

remain within the European Union or

the Common Fisheries Policy under

the SNP, or liberated if this

Government has its way? On that

choice, so much hangs, including the

future of the SNP.

Again, just goes

to show that at any negotiating

table you want some of there that

will stand up for the issues that

matter to you, the Brexit or the

CFP, and if Scotland's fishing

community is expendable to the

government. At what stage did the

secretary of state know that

fisheries were going to be a

bargaining chip, and what did the

Government secure in return?

Both sides made it clear fishery

would have to be handled separately

from the other issues in this

implementation period and it was

always clear we would have to have

specific arrangements and one of the

things that is different about

fisheries is even before the

implementation period ends we will

operate independently outside the

constraints of the EU. It is also

the case that in having that

capacity in 2020, we are in a

position to secure the larger prize,

which the SNP rejects.

Right...

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We know Heath

said fishermen are expendable and

Thatcher got us into the CFP. A

quote from the head of the Danish

fishermen's association. He said,

Britain has never ever challenged

the quotas. We have in every

negotiations. It doesn't matter

whether we are in the CFP not, the

UK Government cannot be trusted.

Does he agree?

I enjoyed hearing the

same quotes in the honourable

gentleman's questions a few minutes

ago. Getting repeats from the SNP is

quite something. But in particular

the point in his question he

betrayed a misunderstanding of the

relative stability which underpins

the quotas.

I've suggested over the

years that only when all the fishing

waters of Europe are returned to

their own countries will the fish

industries be saved and the UK must

lead the way in that process. Will

the government publicly urged the

abolition of the CFP which has been

a disaster?

My admiration for the

honourable gentleman knows no bounds

and the CFP has been bad not the

Britain but for fishing across the

EU. My only hope is that he will

have an opportunity not just to see

our shared ambition be fulfilled but

I'm hoping he will be able to

persuade European colleagues to

reform their own governments in a

way which is genuinely liberating.

Looking at the faces on the Scottish

Tories opposite, never before has

done up like a keeper been more

appropriate. The UK Government

betrays Scottish fishing communities

once again. Could the Secretary of

State explain to the bewildered

constituents of my constituency will

why he's signed them up as a

disastrous -- why he signed them up

to something he described as

disastrous on worse conditions than

they currently experience now? Can

he explain why he has done that?

Listening once again to another

Scottish National Party 's spokesman

denying the reality of their

adherence to the Common fisheries

policy, and also attempting to cover

it up with a weak pun I felt what I

was witnessing was yet another

audition for someone to appear on

Alex Salmond's arty .com talk show,

a combination of bad taste and poor

humour exhibited by so many on those

benches.

Order. Statement, the

leader of the house. Andrea Letson.

-- Andrea Letson.

I should like to

make a very short statement

regarding business for tomorrow. The

business for tomorrow will now be

consideration of a business of the

house motion followed by proceedings

on the Northern Ireland regional

rates and energy Bill. The house

will then be asked to consider a

further business of the house motion

before moving on to proceedings on

the Northern Ireland assembly

members pay bill. Thursday's

business will remain as previously

announced, a general debate on the

economy and I will make my usual

statement announcing further

business on Thursday.

I concur.

I am grateful to the

shadow leader. That is probably the

shortest statement and response in

recent history of the house. Order,

statement, the Minister for small

business consumers and corporate

responsibility. Andrew Griffiths!

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I

am pleased to announce two

honourable members and Right

Honourable members the government

has today published a consultation

on corporate governance and

insolvency. Copies of the

consultation have been placed in the

libraries of the house. The UK is

recognised as having a leading

international reputation for

corporate governance. It gives us an

international competitive advantage

and is an important factor in making

the UK the best place in the world

in which to invest and do business.

The government is determined to

ensure our corporate governance

regime remains the envy of the

world. Large corporate failures

happen rarely but when they do their

affect on stakeholders, such as

employees and smaller suppliers, can

be very damaging. In those

situations, it is important to

ensure those in charge of the

company acted properly and fully

discharge their responsibilities.

The government is determined to

ensure our corporate governance

framework clarifies those

responsibilities, protect the

economy and enhances public

confidence while continuing to

foster conditions for business to

thrive. Last year we announced a

number of reforms to strengthen the

corporate governance framework in

relation to executive pay, the voice

of employees and wider stakeholders

in the boardroom and corporate

governance in large, privately held

businesses. These are now being

delivered and all of them will

contribute to more robust and well

founded decision-making in our large

companies. We are determined Mr

Speaker to learn the lesson from

corporate failures such as Karelian

and we believe we can do more to

strengthen the corporate governance

framework as it implies -- applies

in corporations. We want to reduce

the risk of companies failing. And

to strengthen the responsibilities

of directors of firms when they are

in or approaching insolvency. The

consultation will focus on green

measures. Number one, considerable

public concern arises when owners of

a distressed business, including

within a group of companies, sell on

that business without proper regard

for its future prospects or the

interests of its creditors or

employees. We propose to require

directors, including directors of

holding companies in respect of

sales of subsidiaries, to have a

greater regard to any future

consequences of the sale of an

insolvent or near insolvent company

for which they are responsible. In

doing so we will ensure we do not

put barriers in the way of credible

business rescue efforts. We don't

want to make it impossible to rescue

businesses in distress. Secondly,

considerable public concern has been

raised where a company in financial

difficulty has been rescued by new

investment only to find when it

subsequently fails that the new

investors have set up a series of

complex financial schemes to protect

their investment or minimise their

losses at the expense of other

creditors. We will give insolvency

practitioners the additional

necessary powers to claw back for

the benefit of creditors money which

has been siphoned off through

complex financing arrangements.

Third, concerns have been raised

including by a number of Honourable

members about the difficulties

raised when a company has been

dissolved but is then found to have

outstanding debts or allegations of

director misconduct. Often these

devolved companies will reappear. If

UNIX like in a slightly different

form with a slightly differently and

start operating again. At present,

the insolvency service doesn't have

the powers necessary to investigate

these cases. We are determined they

will. These measures will complement

those published yesterday by the

Department for Work and Pensions in

a White Paper entitled Protecting

Defined Benefit Pension Schemes,

which puts forward stronger powers

for the pensions regulator to

prevent and punish those

deliberately endangering a pension

scheme. Corporate failures like

Carillion have raised concerns about

other aspects of corporate

governance framework. I don't wish

to anticipate the current

investigations leading up to the

failure of Carillion but I intend to

use this consultation to seek views

on a number of areas where it may be

that we can do more to strengthen

the rules within which UK companies

operate. These are areas including

whether steps should be taken to

improve governance, accountability

and internal controls within complex

company group structures, whether

there are further opportunities to

strengthen the role of shareholders

in stewarding the companies in which

they have investments, and third

whilst the payment of dividends

should remain for the directors to

decide, having regard to their

obligations and guidance, whether

legal and technical framework within

which these decisions are made could

be improved and made more

transparent and fair. Whether

decommissioning and use of

professional advice by directors is

done so without proper awareness of

director's duties. And how the

supply chain and other creditors can

be better protected in the event of

major insolvency whilst preserving

interests of shareholders. The

reforms we are proposing will help

prevent corporate failure,

strengthen the UK's business

environment, contributing to the

success of our industrial strategy

and cement our reputation as one of

the best places to work, invest, and

do business. Mr Speaker, I commend

the statement to the house.

Order.

Can I gently point out that members

who were not present for the

statement can't come into the

chamber and expect to be called to

ask a question. That is not on,

sorry.

I thank the Minister for his

statement and for making it so on

time, as he was. There are to make

substantive proposals on claw back

and disqualification of directors.

That is revision already in

insolvency law for claw back of

assets for example assets sold at

undervalue. There is also provision

in company law for disqualification

of directors due to incompetence or

recklessness. There are proposals

set out by the Minister on claw back

are extremely unclear so can the

minister explain how these

provisions added to existing rights

rather than repeat them? Second,

there are a number of much vague

promises, what do these mean given

the insolvency law powers? How will

these new powers stop reckless

behaviour? The consideration of

legal and technical framework within

which decisions are made on payment

of dividends and how it could be

improved and made more transparent,

what does this mean? How can they

been made more transparent and how

would that protect against the greed

and excessive payments of dividends,

as we saw with Carillion?

Strengthening the role and

responsibility of shareholders in

stewarding the companies in which

they have investment. What does this

even mean? Frankly, it is

meaningless platitude. Third, the

government appears to be consulting

rather than acting. Does the

government agree it is time for

action not consultation? They are

consulting on the Taylor review

which in itself was a consultation.

What good are these consultations to

people currently working in

companies providing public services

at risk of collapse? Fourth, the

government isn't known for being

proactive. Rather, it is always

mopping up after the event. None of

these problems are new. Companies

going insolvent and leaving pension

deficit or asset stripping are not

novel, look at the case of BHS.

These are problems the government

should have already anticipated and

I ask the Minister why it's taken

the government until now to begin to

act and only make tentative steps?

Fifth, we must have a bolder and

more imaginative approach to

corporate governance. Large

companies are not the toys of

directors and shareholders, they

don't exist merely to make a small

group of people extremely wealthy.

They are the product of the hard

work and effort of their workforce

and suppliers. They provide services

which the public use. Is at the

heart of shareholder decisions so

how do today's Triposo safeguard the

long-term interests of companies for

the workforce and for the public

good? Six, has the government made

any assessment of the viability of

inter-server and any companies with

public sector contracts? What steps

is the government taking to ensure

these companies don't collapse? Will

the government Institute Project

bank accounts? Mandate and enforce

payment of public sector contract is

within 30 days and set up a new

model which allows the government to

step in when construction companies

collapse has met all of which Labour

has called on the government to do.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, how would any of

these proposals meaningfully have

helped the workers, pensioners and

suppliers of Carillion? The amount

paid in dividends at ten two was the

same as the pensions deficit over

the same period. Has the government

done any assessment of what more the

workers, pensioners and suppliers

would have received under these new

plans. If not, why not?

A little bit

like a machine gun, those questions

came thick and fast and I thank the

honourable lady for them. I am

somewhat surprised, Mr Speaker. Went

two went into insolvency, the

honourable lady at a party demanded

we learn the lessons from the

Carillion failure. We, today, just a

few weeks later, have come forward

with proposals to prevent something

similar from happening and she

criticises us for failure. The

collie, her frontbencher who shadows

me, criticised us for yet another

consultation in their press freeze

and then says Labour has launched

our own consultation into corporate

review.

Mr Speaker, the measures here will

make a massive difference to the

prospects and the way companies are

regulated to ensure a more robust

and accountable regime in the

boardroom. Yesterday, the Department

for Work and Pensions brought

through a White Paper that

introduces a huge number of extra

regulations and gives powers to the

pension regulator to impose punitive

fines, several faience, criminal

sanctions, director

disqualification. She says, what

have we been doing over the period

of time we have been in office? Of

course, we have brought through pay

ratio reporting, a new register of

companies, we enforce shareholder

opposition, strengthening the voice

of the employees and representatives

in the boardroom. She talks about

Interserve. It would be

inappropriate to give a case-by-case

probity on businesses, because it

could impact on their share price,

and I'm sure somebody of her would

understand that. She talks about

Project bank accounts. She will be

well aware that, in January, the

consultation the Government have

launched in relation to Project bank

accounts closed, and we will be

coming forward with our proposals in

relation to that consultation in the

coming weeks. She talks about

payment within the public sector. I

can inform her that the special

manager in relation to PwC has

already agreed that for companies

that are providing services for

Carillion, there will be paid in 30

days. It is a requirement for all

contractors that accept government

contracts to pay their supply chain

within 30 days. We will be coming

forward with further proposals about

how we can improve that and make it

robust. She talks about the

disqualification. Of course,

directors can be disqualified for up

to 15 years. That prevents them from

acting as a director, taking part

directly or indirectly, anyone

contravening it is altercation is

committing a criminal offence. These

are real, punitive powers. She talks

about dividends. Of course, there is

nothing wrong, Mr Speaker, in

healthy companies paying dividends.

In fact, many of our pension schemes

rely on the profits that are paid

from dividends. She talks about

dividends as if they are a dirty

word. Actually, they are something

and a healthy business to be

applauded. Mr Speaker, the house can

be reassured that this is just the

next step in a robust, detailed, for

some review of our corporate

government regime, to make sure that

we protect the taxpayer, we protect

pensioners and we protect the

workers in all of those companies

that do such a good job. Thank you.

What is his ambition for when his

excellent proposals will actually be

implemented?

As the honourable

gentleman will know, we have not

hang about in relation to

improvements within the corporate

governance structure. We will

shortly be laying a further CFP,

which will enhance even further the

measures we have brought in. The

consultation will take place within

the normal rules of a consultation

and we hope to bring forward the

proposals as a matter of urgency.

Can I thank the Minister for

advanced sight of his statement. In

terms of engagement, will the

Government consider proposals to

force chief executives and company

directors to engage directly with

small-business owners or groups

affected individuals? In the recent

instances of the global

restructuring group and Royal Bank

of Scotland branch closures, there

has been a refusal on the part of

directors to meet those. Affected As

my honourable friend from Glasgow

North pointed out, a lot of the

problems which this consultation

seeks to address could have been

avoided simply through engagement

with those in charge. With costs

preventing individuals from pursuing

legal options after being affected

by insolvency, will the government

back a strategy look of ways of

ensuring that legal recourse is

available to those that will already

be in financial difficulties as a

result of insolvency? In terms of

contracts and pensions protections,

small businesses should not be the

ones to suffer when a failed large

company goes bust, and it should not

only be high-profile cases where the

Government steps in to protect

pensions. What measures will this

strategy take to ensure that small

and medium-sized enterprises are

protected when contract or payments

are halted due to large companies

collapsing, and that any protection

for creditors is mirrored by

protection for workers and pension

holders? Finally, these proposals

are aimed at improving the range of

options available following a

company becoming insolvent. However,

a proactive approach can help

prevent this happening in the first

place. Would he agree that one way

to ensure this would be for

organisations to take profit warning

seriously, and not continue to hand

out contracts to firms that issue

them?

I thank the honourable

gentleman for those detailed and

very, very important questions. He

asks a number of questions,

particularly in relation to small

businesses. As the Small Business

Minister, I take those questions

extremely seriously. What we see is

not just large corporate collapses

that affect small businesses. We saw

that in the case of Carillion,

thousands of small businesses in the

supply chain. Actually, the collapse

of small business affecting other

small businesses. I think we will

all have seen in our own

constituencies cases of small

businesses who lose money because of

a Phoenix business, we have seen

them before, they change their name,

they go into liquidation, we see

them reappearing again, the same

people, selling the same products,

fleecing people, time and time

again. The abilities we are giving

the solvency services, investigating

companies that have already been

dissolved, will go a long way to

sending a very, very clear message

to directors that think they can get

away with it in that way and fleece

small businesses, that the

insolvency service will come and get

them. He talks about pensions. I

think it is very, very important

that directors very clearly

understand, through this white paper

and through this consultation, and

through the DWP White Paper, that

there are consequences if you fleece

your pension fund. That those are

not only finds, those are not only

penalties, but you will spend time

in prison if you have been found to

be fleecing your pension fund in a

way that is unacceptable. Finally,

he talks about the need for us to

ensure ethical business in relation

to the way small businesses are

treated. We saw in the spring

statement just last week the

Chancellor, a clear recognition,

clear understanding, that small

businesses are being fleeced,

particularly in relation to late

payments. The Chancellor said that

he would consult on how we could end

the scourge of late payments. If we

could do that, not only would we see

£14 billion taken from the pockets

of big businesses and put into the

pockets of small business, but we

could also see that when

insolvencies do happen, like

Carillion, it is not 128 days of

payments that are in the bank

accounts that go bust, it is only

30.

Can I welcome this announcement?

As a former business owner myself, I

have seen the impact on small

businesses and large companies

become insolvent. Does the Minister

agree with me that we need to

protect small businesses and those

in the supply chain?

I agree with

the honourable gentleman. That is

why we are specifically consulting

in this document about what more we

can do to protect small businesses.

We have seen lots these failures

were clever directors, with clever

advisers, clever lawyers, cleverest

tax accountants, put in place a

regime that allows them to walk away

scot-free, while hard-working

businessmen and women in our

constituencies pay the price. This

consultation looks at how we can put

an end to that and be on the side of

the small guy.

Will the Minister

consider extending the consultation

to other non-governmental contract,

just so it is a new way of doing

business? Secondly, what will he do

to protect apprentices from court in

that subcontracting chain, losing

the apprenticeship with an SME, the

lifeblood of the economy?

Two

important questions. As a customer,

the Government has a role to play.

We give billions of pounds of

contracts, and we have the power in

our own hands to ensure that it is

treated properly. We will be coming

forward in the very near future with

a clearer set of principles and

clearer set of tools in which we

will ensure that the supply chain is

treated properly, paid fairly and

those 30-day terms is what we expect

of our suppliers. In relation to

apprentices, I agree with her that,

unfortunately, in the case of

business collapse, and we accept

that businesses will always go bust,

it is a case of the realities of the

way that they work...

There were

enough in the 90s!

The way in which

the business environment works. The

employees are at the heart of this

consultation and the heart of the

decisions that we make.

Can I

congratulate the Minister on the

statement and also on launching the

much-needed consultation. As a

member of the select committee that

is requiring the route inquiring

into the collapse of -- that is

inquiring into the collapse of

Carillion, the company did not even

give the insolvency service the