Exiting the EU and Transport — House of Commons, 2016-11-23
Topic: Transportation
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): My response is quite simple: if we do not continue to have an efficient ports system because of the effect of the port services regulation, nothing that the hon. Gentleman says will make any difference to the fact that our ports will be put not only at a severe disadvantage, but in a dangerous situation vis-à-vis the other continental ports. However, despite the fact that there was an attempt to get state aid rules imported into the regulation, the ports employers believe that "it is essential that legislation aimed at regulating less commercial ports on the continent does not cause unintended damage to the UK’s thriving commercial sector." On that basis, there is a matter of principle that affects our whole import and export business that goes through the ports The effect that the proposal will have is so obvious that I need not even attempt to explain it. It aims to regulate market access to port services, port charges and financial transparency. The ports employers say: "The text as a whole" —this is some time ago, but I will catch up in a moment with what they have said most recently— "even if heavily amended, cannot deliver on its states aims. Instead, it will create severe legal uncertainty, reduce investment and will ultimately be detrimental to the safety standards and working conditions which currently exist in EU ports. EU ports may have different ownership structures, but all require a high level of confidence in a stable legal and policy framework in the long term if they are to operate safely", which is for the benefit of the workers, "and contribute to the EU agenda for jobs and growth", which is vital to everyone, whether they are employers or workers in the ports. The UKMPG goes on to say: "The Port Services Regulation proposal does not provide such confidence and risks leaving a legacy of legal and practical difficulties across the EU." The UKMPG "supports a return to the previous EU ports policy approach based round application of the general provisions of the Treaty reinforced, where appropriate, by guidelines on state aids." We now have Brexit so, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) suggested in relation to the great repeal Bill, are we going to reach a point, as I think we must, where we transpose the legislation into UK law but then, through statutory instruments and our own decision within the framework of this Westminster jurisdiction, as a result of the decisions taken by the people of this country, including Government Members and Opposition Members—with the exception, I suspect, of SNP Members, but they will pay a price for this in their ports areas—[Interruption.] They may find this amusing, but there are people in the ports of Scotland who do not like the proposal and will resist it if they can. They will not be allowed to do so if the SNP can get away with it The bottom line is that this is an issue of great national interest. The European Scrutiny Committee has been following the matter for several years. We first recommended it for debate on the Floor of the House in July 2014—over two years ago. On 19 October, I wrote to the Minister: "We understand that it is intended that the European Parliament will adopt this text for a First Reading Agreement at its 12-15 December plenary and we presume that this will be followed shortly by Council agreement You will understand, therefore, that the Committee expects that the Government will finally, after a disgracefully long delay"— which I underlined several times— "schedule the floor debate on the proposal which it and its predecessor have recommended." In fact, there have been two debates, which have been aborted. One of them, I can assure the House, was so shambolic that the Chairman of the Committee had to suspend the sitting. I will not go into the details of that—they are all on the record.