Extract from Westminster Hall debate on Leaving
the European Union
Mrs (St Albans)
(Con):...I cannot hover around the idea of a backstop that
27 other countries may hold the key to. We are trying to get back
sovereignty; we must not dilute that sovereignty by giving 27 other
countries the whip hand over us. They have their own agendas. Each
country would have a veto. It may well be that Gibraltar, or our fishing, comes up on the
agenda. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and
Cheam: I do not think the EU will want to keep us in the backstop,
but I fear what they will exact to let us out...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
Extract from
Lords consideration of the Public Procurement (Amendment etc.)
(EU Exit) Regulations 2019
of Kentish Town
(Lab):...I thank the Minister for introducing the
regulations, and those who drafted them for their hard work.
Shall we get the good points out of the way first? I thought
there were three. The first is that any regulation-making powers
under the 1958 list will be by affirmative procedure—a tick for
that one. The second was the ban on convictions being carried
over as grounds for exclusion—tick. Thirdly, it looks as though
Gibraltar has been included, which I assume is with the agreement
of the Government of Gibraltar—tick...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
Extract from Lords
consideration of the Defence and Security Public Contracts
(Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl
Howe) (Con):...The Minister of State, Ministry of
Defence (Earl Howe) (Con):...The amending regulations provide a
legal right of market access for suppliers based in the UK
and Gibraltar which currently enjoy
rights under the EU defence and security directive. After exit
day, we will still allow bids from suppliers in the EU on the
same basis as we do now for suppliers currently outside the EU.
This reflects the UK’s new status as a third country outside the
EU...
(LD):...I note the references to Gibraltar, which is clearly of
significance to our Armed Forces. I have a wider question: how do
the Government envisage ensuring that the duty owed to economic
operators in Gibraltar can be met in the absence
of a deal? There is discussion of this in the Explanatory
Memorandum, but there is very little to say how it would be seen
in practice. As with the previous SI, what about state aid? Do
Her Majesty’s Government envisage giving subsidies to the defence
industry? Is that one of the expectations of Brexit? What are we
to understand by that aspect of the Explanatory Memorandum when
talking about state aid?
:...The noble
Baroness and the noble Lord, , asked about the effect of the
coming into force of these regulations on UK companies and what
the benefits to UK industry are likely to be. The main benefit
for both UK and Gibraltarian suppliers will be stability and
continuity of working regulations, which are well established,
understood and practiced. Importantly, UK and Gibraltarian
suppliers will continue to enjoy legal rights to participate in
UK defence and security procurements. Other non-UK economic
operators, save for those in Gibraltar, will not have these
rights under the amending regulations. I make it clear that that
is not to say that only UK or Gibraltarian suppliers can bid for
defence and security procurements. As noble Lords will know, the
UK has a long-standing practice of allowing overseas suppliers to
participate in defence and security procurements where there is
no need for restrictions on who can bid in some way—for example,
on national security grounds.
The noble Lord, Lord , asked whether UK
companies would be disadvantaged regarding their access to the EU
market. As a matter of EU law, EU member states will no longer be
legally obliged to open their defence and security procurements
to UK suppliers, as the EU defence and security directive will no
longer apply to the UK after exit day. However, it has to be said
that our UK suppliers are recognised as world class. They offer
extraordinary experience and expertise in defence. Individual EU
member states therefore may choose to give UK suppliers access to
their competitions to maximise the effectiveness of their
procurements in the same way as the UK does. There is a strong
case in terms not only of value for money but of other
considerations, such as interoperability and cutting-edge
capability.
Lord (Lab): I feel
that I have lost my place. Is the Minister saying that
non-derogated invitations to tender will be restricted to the UK
suppliers and Gibraltar, or will they be available to worldwide
competition, with certain exceptions?
: It will depend on
the procurement. If it is determined that the procurement rate
relates to an issue necessitating the protection of UK sovereign
capability, as in the case of the construction of warships, we
would restrict the tendering process to UK-based suppliers.
However, the generality of defence procurement is opened up to
the widest market possible, although, as was pointed out, we make
clear in certain procurements that we will not entertain bids
from certain countries. Each procurement has its operational
basis made clear at the outset...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
