Holocaust Memorial Day 2021

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

The theme for this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is:

“Be the light in the darkness”.

It challenges this generation to shine a light whenever we encounter darkness, whether we encounter it internationally in Xinjiang or when we hear the chants of antisemitism in the street, community or workplace. In the fullness of time—[Inaudible.]—it is easy to assume that we would never see the horror of a country actively seeking to destroy and wipe out any trace of the Jewish community ever again. “Never again”, we were told, but each time we have conspiracy theories on the internet around Jews, we take a step back towards the hatred that brought the Nazis to power in the 1930s. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to tell the stories of those who survived the unimaginable cruelty and horror of the holocaust.

Today, I want to tell the House the story of one of the amazing individuals who showed courage and acted as a light in the darkness, and who I hope will be an example to this generation. It is the story of Manfred Goldberg and his teacher Herr Bacher. Manfred and his family were transported to the Riga ghetto. When they arrived, Manfred found that his primary school teacher Herr Bacher was also there. As Manfred’s father had escaped to England, Herr Bacher prepared Manfred for his bar mitzvah. Miraculously, a scroll was found. Manfred said:

“On the Saturday of which I speak a prayer service was held in a private room. I was not aware of any prayer services before that week, nor did I experience any subsequently during my three and a half years in various camps. My teacher had somehow organised the required quorum of ten men, and I read the portion he had so kindly taught me. Organising the quorum was a major achievement, as practically everyone had to do slave labour daily, seven days a week.”

For Herr Bacher to ensure Manfred had his bar mitzvah, even during all the chaos and upheaval in their lives, is a simple but hugely powerful form of resistance.

The story of Manfred is a story of resistance to the efforts of the Nazi party to eradicate Jewish presence, culture, and communities. People strove to celebrate their faith, observe their culture, continue to educate their children and form communities. Each of these acts was a way of claiming agency over the way they lived their lives in the face of the darkest of situations. The holocaust reshaped our understanding of global responsibility, the meaning of human rights and fundamentally altered our view of democracy. Holocaust Memorial Day gives us all an opportunity to remember our responsibility to work for a better and safer future for everyone, regardless of geography, race, religion, or sexuality.

I want to highlight the words of the Holocaust survivor, Dorit Oliver-Wolff, as she implores us to “put politics aside” and recognise the atrocities that are ongoing in Xinjiang. In her words, “this is a genocide” and:

“It is inhuman and it was equally inhuman”—

when—

“all my family was killed”.

Holocaust Memorial Day reminds us to do all we can to prevent human rights abuses such as the forced labour, the religious persecution and the forced sterilisation that the Uyghur population in China are being subjected to. It is imperative that we act as quickly—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I call, by video link, Dr Matthew Offord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]]

It is an honour to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I was privileged to join the online commemorative ceremony to mark Holocaust Memorial Day yesterday to honour those who were murdered for who they were and to stand against prejudice and hatred today.

Holocaust Memorial Day reminds us that there are fewer people around the world with direct lived experience of that hellish extermination. It is crucial to hear the deeply moving testimonies of the remaining survivors, because the message of suffering, pain, trauma and human cruelty must never ever be forgotten. Those testimonies remind us of the impact of the holocaust: the lives cut short, the families ripped apart, and the courage and bravery of those who survived who seek to ensure that their suffering informs a better future for every one of us. The theme of the Holocaust Memorial Day this year is “Be the light in the darkness”. It encourages everyone to reflect on the depths that humanity can sink to, but also the ways in which individuals and communities resisted that darkness to be the light before, during and after the genocide.

Holocaust Memorial Day is also a day for us to recognise and remember other atrocities that have taken place since that time, including in Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia and, most recently, the genocide of Yazidis by the evil that is known as ISIS. In the summer of 2014, as ISIS rampaged and rolled into Sinjar, the international community was still asleep and the Yazidis defenceless. ISIS perpetrated the unthinkable. Thousands of boys and men were slaughtered, while women and girls were enslaved and raped, with hundreds of thousands put on display, all because they believed in something different. Another genocide happened on our watch.

Thousands of Yazidis still languish in camps with the hope of returning home one day. Six years later, with ISIS defeated militarily and global recognition of ISIS’s atrocities accepted, efforts have failed to see Yazidis return in large numbers. Recognition of the genocide of Yazidis has not ended their pain and suffering. Thousands are still unable to return home and feel safer in the camps in which they live. They live in fear of ISIS resurging and constant Turkish airstrikes. What Yazidis want is accountability, justice and the reunification of families. Thousands of children and women are still missing, either enslaved or murdered.

Justice and peace go hand in hand, but bringing to justice those who committed these evil acts will dissuade future perpetrators while also breaking the cycle of violence by demonstrating that justice systems can work. The crisis for Yazidis is not over. Justice means more than perpetrators being tried for terrorism against the Iraqi state; it means, where possible, convicting ISIS members for crimes committed against Yazidis, for torture, kidnapping, enslavement, rape and murder. The crisis is not over if human rights of the Yazidis in Iraq are not respected in law and policy and by all members of society. Yazidis need more than remembrance—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Thank you. I call Dr Liam Fox.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

For many of us, as we contemplate the inhumanity, brutality and sheer scale of the holocaust, one uncomfortable question sits in our minds: how could ordinary people like ourselves collude with, acquiesce in, or support a regime that behaved in such a barbaric way and, perhaps even more uncomfortably, do the factors exist in our contemporary world that could allow it to happen again.

In national socialism, nationalism was the dominant partner in the marriage. National socialism regarded itself as a seismic political shift, which recognised a new and glorious image of humanity. Yet this world view was accompanied and counterbalanced by a systematic, ideological dehumanisation of other groups of people: those who oppose the regime, political activists, Gypsies, the disabled, homosexuals, Christians, religious objectors and, of course, the Jews.

Incrementally, but steadily over time, national socialist propaganda dripped poison into German society. The distortion and then the strangulation of democracy, the suppression of the press and the Church brought about this position inch by inch and step by step. Yet from Cambodia to Srebrenica to Syria, the horrors of extreme nationalism continue to ricochet through our recent history. Today’s attempts at ethnic cleansing, including China’s treatment of the Uyghurs, are part of this terrible continuum.

The basic template of extreme nationalism, a deeply distorted sense of identity and self-worth combined with the exaggeration of perceived slights and the identification of a suitable scapegoat, is still in play. Across the world, many of these stereotypical ideas are being played out again with varying degrees of sophistication and brutality. The dehumanising of opponents, internally and externally, is a timeless theme in the book of extreme nationalism. It is the beast that stalks its prey of plurality, decency and civility. Decades separate us now from the holocaust, but human behaviour still holds flaws and dangers. We must confront dangerous ideologies whenever and wherever they take root. Today of all days, we remember that we have been warned.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

May I just gently remind those who are participating virtually to keep a close eye on the clock? I do not want to have to cut people off, but we have a large number of colleagues who want to contribute to this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am afraid—

[Lee Anderson]

As I sat in his kitchen, I noticed a picture of a young man in a British Army uniform. I asked him who it was and he said, “That’s me, aged 18, during world war two.” I asked him what he did during the war, and he told me that he was with the British Army and helped to liberate Bergen-Belsen. He told me that he could not believe the horrors that he saw, the smell, and what human beings could do to their fellow man. He said that he cried and he cried and he cried, and since that day he had never cried again, and he finished by saying, “I left all my tears at the gates of Belsen.” I will never forget those words.

Council Tax: Government’s Proposed Increase

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. There is a lot of pressure on time, as I am sure colleagues know, so we will now be taking the time limit down to three minutes. I understand that those participating virtually have already been informed of that, but I wanted to inform the Chamber.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

This is an outrage to Scotland. It is not acceptable.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat, and he knows that. [Interruption.] This is just showing off. He should resume his seat, otherwise I will name him and order him to leave. [Interruption.] Does he want to be named? Is that what is happening? [Interruption.] If that is what is happening, we can do it. [Interruption.] Okay—I will name him. I know what he is doing. [Interruption.] Oh, for goodness’ sake! Very childish.

Drew Hendry, Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, was named by the Deputy Speaker for disregarding the authority of the Chair (Standing Order No. 44).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 44),

That Drew Hendry be suspended from the service of the House.—(David T. C. Davies.)

Question agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker directed Drew Hendry to withdraw from the House, and the Member withdrew accordingly.

Main Question again proposed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House agrees with Lords amendments 8P, 8Q, 8R, 8S, 8T and 8U.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We will suspend for three minutes, in order to allow safe exit and entry.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Minister, I should tell right hon. and hon. Members that, as they will see, we have one hour for this debate and a fair number of speakers, so it is likely that I will have to put a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of about four minutes.

After Clause 10

Further exclusions from market access principles

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

They do not have a clue. They are going to get clobbered—they really will—and they do not get it. They just want to go on about devolution without regard to the effect that all this will have. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

The Bill itself defines aid with reference to EU law—it refers to article 107 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. This is something that we will be affected by, because that amendment is not sufficient to enable us to maintain our sovereignty on all the matters relating to state aid rules. I look to the Prime Minister, I look to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I look to the Government and the negotiators to get this right. This is the moment to do it. We are at a crucial moment. I trust the Prime Minister. I believe he will deliver. He said he will, and we will hold him to that promise.

It would go against UK national interest to accept EU demands of agreeing to legally binding commitments to mirror the EU state aid regime, given that EU state aid rules are created on the basis of objectives of common interest of EU member states, which no longer includes the UK, and are tested by the Commission on the basis of compatibility criteria that it has developed. They are non-binding guidelines, and therefore they can be changed at will. Under article 132 of the protocol and article 174 of the withdrawal agreement, provisions of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol referring to EU law or to EU law concepts or provisions are to be

“interpreted in conformity with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.”

That duty continues beyond the end of the transition period on 31 December and includes European case law handed down after the end of that period.

There is a real problem here. This is down to the negotiators as well as to those who are responsible for this Bill. We are faced with a very difficult situation, which impinges on our sovereignty and on our necessity to avoid, indeed to prevent, EU state aid rules from continuing to apply to the United Kingdom. This is a crucial moment in our economic, political and constitutional history. We must maintain the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. That is the message that I send to the Government and I trust that the Government and the Prime Minister will deliver it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

This is what is going to happen. This debate has to finish at 3.10. I want to bring in the Minister at 3.06 to wind up. A lot of hon. and right hon. Members have been sitting in the Chamber from the beginning of the debate. If others come in and intervene, it does take time from those who have been trying to participate and have put their names down to participate. Before I bring in the SNP spokesperson, I have to say that I will now have to reduce the time limit to three minutes and, with that, I still may not get everybody in, so if colleagues want to take fewer than three minutes, I am sure that it would be appreciated by others.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will do my utmost to whizz through what I can here.

We welcome the Lords amendments seeking to protect both the devolved settlements and the policy divergence across the nations of the UK, but we also know that the Prime Minister and his Tory Government simply detest devolution. All pretence otherwise has been swept away by this Bill, as it puts into action the casual contempt that they have.

The Prime Minister, as we know, believes that devolution is a disaster. Well, we think the same about him. Last night, however, in the Lords, Labour opened the door for the Tories, as they hollowed out devolution, withdrawing support for Lord Thomas’s amendments that challenged the UK Government’s clauses on direct spending in devolved areas. Equally disappointing was Labour’s abstention on the vote for the amendment of Baroness Llandaff to halt the brazen power grab on re-reserving state aid. This is not currently reserved. It is not listed in the reserved powers under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. It is a devolved power being grabbed back, along with the measures in this Bill in place to overrule decisions taken in Scotland.

I have been quoting absolutely committed Unionists in the other place throughout this debate, and I am grateful to be able to quote them again today. Lord Thomas said:

“The power to control state aid is not reserved. If it were, these amendments would be unnecessary…I ask why the UK Government would not work together with them, consult them before the Bill was produced and try to find a common solution…I fear it is an example of Westminster saying that it knows best, rather than working with the devolved Administrations.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1486.]

But once again, the Labour Front-Bench team took weak words from the Government as assurances and chose to abstain on that important measure.

Lord Stevenson’s amendment alters schedule 1 so that environmental standards and public health are exempt from market access principles. He warned the UK Government not to make

“the market access principles, which operate automatically, too narrow and too prescriptive. That would fatally undermine the opportunities for devolved Administrations to diverge”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1457.]

Baroness Bennett highlighted that much leadership on climate change has actually originated from the devolved Governments. Lord Hope explained that his amendments seek to ensure that the UK Government’s commitment to market access principles do not undermine the UK Government’s commitment on the common frameworks. On policy divergence, he warns:

“As the Bill stands, a measure that gives effect to an agreed decision to diverge can be ignored by traders bringing goods in from other areas. This undermines the opportunity to diverge, rendering it worthless and ineffective.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1446.]

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town provided this summary:

“When the case for Brexit was all about ‘taking back control’, we failed to understand that the Government meant taking control to themselves, even over issues that were fully devolved.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1447.]

Time and again, across all the nations of the UK, across all parties and none, and across all the affected industries, trade bodies, academia and the legal profession, this Tory Government have been told that the Bill grabs power from devolution and places it here in Westminster. The Bill allows UK Ministers to control spending in devolved areas of economic development, infrastructure, cultural activities, regional development, education, water, power, gas, telecoms, railways, health, housing and justice. The people of Scotland did not vote for the Tories to make these decisions at Westminster. Madam Deputy Speaker, you are far too young to remember the last time the people of Scotland did that, although your grandparents might just have—but only just!

This Bill was born bad to the bone, setting to break international law and break devolution. The Government have been forced to drop some of it, but it remains an aberration and continues its assault on devolution, Scottish public services and public life. The Scottish public, unlike this Government, are listening and watching. They will choose their own path to protect their Parliament and democracy in the near future.

--- Later in debate ---

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now come to consideration of the message from the House of Lords on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which is to be considered in accordance with the order of the House of 14 September.

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 48B and 48C. If any Lords amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Before I call the Minister, I should say that hon. and right hon. Members will be aware that we have one hour for this debate, which means that I will impose an immediate five-minute time limit. However, that may end up being four minutes, depending on how long the Front Benchers take. I just want people to be aware of that.

After Clause 1

COMMON FRAMEWORKS PROCESS

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I beg to move,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 1B, 1C and 1D.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 8B, 8C, 8D, 8F, 8G, 8H, 8J and 8K, but disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 8L, insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 13 and 56, and proposes amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendments 8L, 13 and 56.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 14 and 52 to 54 but does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 55.

That this House does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 44.

That this House does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 45, and proposes amendment (a) instead of the words left out by the Lords amendment.

That this House does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 47, and proposes amendment (a) to the Bill consequential upon the Lords amendment.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 48B and 48C.

That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 50B, but disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 50C.

That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 51B.

[Paul Scully]

I will try to be brief in going through the amendments—but with some detail, Madam Deputy Speaker—to make sure that others can speak.

I am glad that, since our last debate on the Bill on Monday, there have been a number of very positive developments. I am delighted that the peers in the other place and the Government have worked together constructively to agree on a number of areas. However, it is clear that there are still a number of outstanding issues, which I will address today. I will set out the Government’s rationale and I call on this House to support the Government’s proposals.

I want to start with some of the positive developments, notably on part 5 and Lords reasons 14B, 45B, 52A, 53A, 54A and 55A. The Government have been clear throughout that they were committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. We were also clear that as a responsible Government we could not allow the economic integrity of the UK’s internal market to inadvertently be compromised by the unintended consequences of the protocol. That is why, through clauses in the Bill, we sought limited and reasonable steps to create a legal safety net by taking powers in reserve, whereby Ministers could guarantee the integrity of the United Kingdom and ensure that the Government were always able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.

We sought those measures to guard against the possibility of not reaching agreement with the EU at the Joint Committee. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his EU counterpart have reached an agreement in principle, I am pleased to say that the clauses that provided for the safety net are no longer needed and the Government are removing them from the Bill: that is, clauses 44, 45 and 47.

I am pleased that the other place has now also agreed to clauses 42, 43 and 46 and consequential amendments, which are purely about protecting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK customs territory and internal market, delivering unfettered access in line with the Northern Ireland protocol and codifying in legislation existing practice in terms of the Foreign Secretary notifying the European Commission on state aid.

Alongside that, and in line with the agreement in principle, we have tabled a new clause that will require the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to set out guidance for public authorities on how the state aid provisions of the protocol will work in practice, as well as consequential amendments as a result of removing clauses 44, 45 and 47. Guidance must take account of any declarations made by the EU and the Joint Committee, which would include the proposed EU declaration that forms part of the package agreed in principle by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I call on the House to agree with the Government’s approach in this area.

I turn now to amendments 1B, 1C and 1D. Yesterday, noble Lords in the other place once again commended the importance of the Government’s continuing co-operation with the devolved Administrations on the common frameworks programme and reiterated their support for it. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord Hope for his considered intervention yesterday, and for all his thoughtful work on the Bill. However, while his new amendments would clarify the interaction between divergence agreed under common frameworks in the market access principles, they would still potentially undermine the certainty that the market access principles are designed to provide for business, because of the possibility of differing interpretations of what is permitted under an agreement. Moreover, as I set out on Monday, the amendments could create a broad exclusions regime. In itself, that denies businesses and consumers much needed clarity about the terms of trade within which they operate.

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the House that common frameworks are processes for negotiation and reaching agreement, and are not in themselves a policy outcome. Wholesale exclusions from the market access principles of agreement reached through the common frameworks process could therefore lead to the unacceptable risk of harmful trade barriers being erected across the UK. Such barriers could not be erected under the EU system unless justified and notified to the Commission, and they are undesirable in our own UK internal market. For those reasons, I respectfully suggest that the approach put forward in the amendments is not appropriate.

I have said previously that the Government are committed to completing the delivery of the common frameworks programme and protecting these areas of co-operation to the benefit of jobs, people and livelihoods. We welcome the support of hon. and right hon. Members here in achieving that. However, amendments 1B, 1C and 1D have considerable drawbacks and I therefore call on the House to disagree with them.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 8L. I remind the House that, in drafting the Bill, and clause 10 specifically, the Government designed an exclusions approach that achieves a careful balance. It sits within the fundamental framework of the market access principles, which protect the UK’s highly integrated internal market, but allows the Government to remove very targeted and specific policy areas from scope, so it can continue to operate for the particular conditions, where they are needed, under the bespoke constraints that are relevant to those circumstances. Let me repeat the point for emphasis: we agree that there is a need for an exclusions regime, but one that is carefully drafted and provides certainty for business.

I am therefore disappointed that the other place has again voted to upset that careful balance with an altered, but still fundamentally flawed, expansive list. It would render the protections and benefits of the internal market proposals under part 1 meaningless. This would allow unnecessary trade barriers and unjustifiable costs to businesses and consumers.

Amendment 8L captures all kinds of public policy objectives and only requires a new regulation to make a contribution to any of the aims in the list. That means that almost any regulation that the UK Government or the devolved Administrations propose in the future could be excluded from the scope of the market access principles. I therefore call on the House to disagree with amendments 8L, 13 and 56, and agree with the Government’s amendments in lieu.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I appreciate that the Minister was as brief as he could be, given that he took interventions, but I think we will have to start with a time limit of four minutes rather than five minutes.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I will try to be as brief as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to say to the Minister that we should note the progress made in the removal of the law-breaking clauses from part 5. What has essentially happened here is that the Joint Committee set up to deal with the outstanding issues on the Northern Ireland protocol has dealt with the issues on the Northern Ireland protocol. We are in a slightly through-the-looking-glass world here. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this week described Maroš Šefčovič, the Vice President of the Commission, and his team as displaying

“pragmatism, collaborative spirit and determination to get a deal done that would work for both sides.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 847.]

These are the same people the Prime Minister described in his Second Reading speech in September as being

“willing to go to extreme and unreasonable lengths”.—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 42.]

He also said that they had engaged in an “extraordinary threat” and refused to take the “revolver off the table”.

There are two conclusions we can draw from this sequence of events. The first is that Mr Šefčovič has changed his whole character, attitude and personality in three months; the other is the Prime Minister has a man who will make up any old nonsense for political advantage. I tend to the latter view.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 48, 49 and 50. If any Lords amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Having given careful consideration to Lords amendment 50, which refers to state aid and the Office for the Internal Market, Mr Speaker is satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 14 September. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendment is therefore deemed to be disagreed to and is not available for debate.

After Clause 1

Common frameworks process

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendments 2 to 7.

Lords amendments 8 to 19, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendment 20 to 29.

Lords amendments 30 to 34, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendments 35 to 41.

Lords amendment 42, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 43, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendments 44 to 57, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendments 58 to 60.

Lords amendment 61, and Government motion to disagree.

[Paul Scully]

This Bill has generated a lot of debate in both Houses, and rightly so. It is a Bill that is vital in providing certainty for businesses and for protecting the Union. It is a Bill that allows the continuing smooth functioning of our UK internal market at the end of the transition period. Our approach will give businesses regulatory clarity and certainty and ensure that the cost of doing business in the UK stays as low as possible, and it will do so without damaging and costly regulatory barriers emerging between the nations of the United Kingdom.

In the other place, the Government and peers had good discussions and debates on the principle behind the Bill, and they have come to very reasonable proposals in some areas. It is right that both Houses work constructively to scrutinise and improve legislation, and the Government are therefore accepting a number of Lords amendments. That is why the Government are disappointed that in some cases amendments put forward by the other place would do the opposite and generate more ambiguity and uncertainty. Other amendments put forward go further, in hampering the Government’s ability to protect the Union and our internal market, to level up the country and to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the end of the transition period. That is why today the Government are disagreeing with a series of amendments, to which I will now turn.

Regarding Lords amendments 1, 19 and 34, the other place and Her Majesty’s Opposition in this House have been clear about their strong support for common frameworks. I am pleased to hear that, because the UK Government are strongly committed to them as well. Joint work with the devolved Administrations to develop common frameworks is progressing well, and the first three frameworks are currently undergoing parliamentary scrutiny. The common frameworks programme represents successful joint working, ensuring that our shared objectives of making coherent policy, upholding high standards and supporting the distinct needs of each part of the UK can advance as one. They are evidence of our mutual respect for devolution.

I am pleased that work is well under way on the 33 frameworks that we expect to conclude jointly with the devolved Administrations. Thirty of those will be provisionally agreed by the end of 2020 and will then be scrutinised by Parliament and the devolved legislatures. A small number are likely to clear scrutiny by the end of the transition period, at which point they will become full frameworks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I have not heard those words, so I will not comment on them. There has been a lot of commentary, but what is important is the reality. Northern Irish businesses want the certainty offered by this Bill and the unfettered access to the GB market.

I emphasise that the Government has been reasonable, and will continue to be reasonable, in discussions on this Bill. We have made many positive changes to the Bill and they are on the table, but the Government need to balance this with the need to deliver a Bill that provides the certainty that businesses want and need to invest and create jobs, to maintain high standards and choice for consumers while keeping prices down, to ensure that the Government can continue to continue to level up the whole of the United Kingdom and strengthen our precious Union, and, ultimately, to preserve the UK internal market that has been an engine of growth and prosperity for centuries.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Colleagues will see that there are a large number of right hon. and hon. Members who want to contribute to this debate. If we have any chance of getting them in, I will have to start with an immediate five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, but that may well have to go down.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be opposite the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). This big Bill began its life with the Prime Minister, then the Secretary of State and now it is a pleasure to be opposite him. I must say that I have enormous respect for him, but I did feel that I was living in a parallel universe when I heard him this afternoon. This Bill has been absolutely savaged in the other place. It has been absolutely savaged not just on international law, but on devolution as well, not just by Opposition parties, not just by Cross-Benchers, not simply by the former Lord Chief Justice or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but by the heart of the Conservative party—by Lord Howard, Lord Hague, Lord Clarke, Lord Cormack, Lord Lamont, and Lord Barwell, the former chief of staff to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) laughs from a sedentary position. He may not consider him exactly Conservative, but he is a Conservative peer. Believe it or not, Madam Deputy Speaker, even the Duke of Wellington spoke out against this Bill. I gather that he has recently left the Conservative party—and who can blame him?—but nevertheless, he said this:

“In a single piece of proposed legislation, the Government have managed to antagonise almost everyone, including a multitude of counterparties and international public opinion.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1342.]

The Duke of Wellington is right, and given his family history around our relationship with Europe, he is in a position to know. That is why we saw the largest defeat in a generation on this Bill, including 44 Conservative peers, seven former Conservative Cabinet Ministers and many other former Ministers.

I make that point because I think we heard the beginnings of the grinding wheels of the climbdown in what the Minister was saying. After three months of posturing, undermining our reputation in the world, today, an hour before the debate begins, we perhaps see some preparations for the brakes being applied before we go over the cliff. I am not going to give the Government any credit for that, and I do not take their word for it either. The one thing that this whole sorry saga has shown the world beyond any doubt is that this Government’s word is not their bond—they cannot be trusted, because they are willing to rip up international agreements they made less than a year ago.

Leaseholders and Cladding

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have heard the testimony of Ritu Saha and others in his constituency. I understand the point that he makes. I hope that in answering him quickly, he will not in any way think that I am diminishing that point, because it has also been made by colleagues across the House. We will work at pace to ensure that leaseholders who through no fault of their own find themselves in this terrible situation are not subjected to unfair costs. Costs ought to fall in the first instance to the developers and owners—and their warranty providers—who built the properties. The Government have set aside funds in this financial year to support those buildings that require immediate remediation and where there is no other means of so doing. We will continue to keep the situation under review, but we will work with the sector to ensure that remediation is done by those where responsibility lies.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive answers.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order 4 June)

Planning and House Building

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend makes a good point—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are getting very upset about the clock, and I apologise, but do not worry, I will come in at well under four minutes anyway.

My third and final point is indeed about national parks. The local authority that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) is bisected by a national park. If a housing needs assessment is made on the basis of the local authority area but it then has to be heavily disproportionately implemented in the area outside the national park, that causes two sets of problems. First, inside the park, in areas such as Petersfield and Liss, housing will become more and more unaffordable over time. Also, just outside the national park, in places such as Alton and Four Marks, there will be a great deal of pressure and it will be difficult to keep up in terms of service provision. If two different parts of an area have very different constraints, a separate housing needs assessment should be made for each one. The Minister is a good Minister and a good man, and I take it very much at face value that this is a consultation. I encourage him and the Government to think again about some of these important matters.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We seemed to be having a bit of a problem with the clock. I will keep my eye on the four minutes, so if hon. Members would like to look at me, I will gesticulate appropriately when it gets towards the end of their time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. As colleagues can see, a large number of right hon. and hon. Members still wish to speak, so after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.

Town and Country Planning

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now come to the three motions on town and country planning, which will be debated together.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 632), dated 23 June 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 June 2020, be revoked.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this we shall discuss the following motions:

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 755), dated 20 July 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 July 2020, be annulled.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 756), dated 20 July 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 July 2020, be annulled.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for finding the time for this debate in response to the prayer motions that Her Majesty’s official Opposition have laid against these regulations.

I will start by telling Members a story, one that is real and with which some across the Chamber will be familiar. It does not have a happy ending, and given the Secretary of State’s radical extension of permitted development, it is about to get a whole lot worse for many people in many of communities up and down this nation.

Over the weekend, the Minister may have read an article in The Observer about permitted development. It began by talking about the experience of a woman, Katya, who lives in a block of flats created under the existing permitted development regulations. All Katya wants, like many of us, is a place to call home, to bring up a young family and to feel secure, space for her children to play safely, somewhere to shelter during this pandemic and to be able to travel to work from, and some communal green space. Yet Katya is one of thousands of residents who are crammed into former offices and industrial units that were not built for human habitation. Some have no or few windows, some are as small as 10 square metres—the average car parking space is 11 square metres—and many are on the outskirts of towns, with few amenities such as shops and schools.

Katya is not alone. Up to 60,000 units have been built under the previous extension to permitted development, many of which are unfit for human habitation. I am certain that neither the Housing Minister nor the Secretary of State would like to find themselves or their families in them.

This debate is about three further ways in which the Government want to create poor-quality housing by bypassing the local community, local democracy and local control: by adding new units on top of flats; by allowing developers to demolish and rebuild empty buildings; and by allowing people to add multiple floors to their homes in a village, town and city near you.

Let me take Members on a visual journey up north to Leeds, where Abbey, a young professional, bought her leasehold flat only to discover that it had been cladded with flammable material. She is one of many thousands affected. She cannot sell it. It is zero-rated for a mortgage and she has to pay thousands in waking watch and insurance fees. There are also massive problems, with which the Minister and the Secretary of State are very familiar, with the EWS1—external wall survey—forms.

What is the Government’s solution? Instead of building back better, safer, healthier and greener for Katya and communities up and down our nation, the Secretary of State will go down in history not only for his unlawful planning direction in Tower Hamlets, with the Westferry affair, but as Bob the bad builder, coming to wreck a village, town and city near you.

Instead of having a relentless focus on making people like Abbey safe in a cladded building, he has rammed through a negative statutory instrument to lob an extra two storeys on blocks of flats, overnight giving some freeholders and overseas investors a multi-million pound windfall of up to £42 billion.

At the same time, this very SI has added an additional cost for leaseholders who may want to buy the freehold. No need for donors to attend the Carlton Club dinner circuit anymore and exchange chummy texts—just sneak the windfall through Parliament via an undebated instrument. What does that instrument deliver a year? Just 800 flats per year; that is 8,000 over a decade.

To make matters worse, because permitted development bypasses the planning system, we could have a ludicrous situation where high-rise buildings extended by two floors do not go through gateway 1 of the draft building safety Bill. Have the Government learned nothing just three years on from Grenfell? Oversight, regulation and rules protect lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

A number of colleagues want to get in on this debate. I will start by having two speeches with a limit of five limits and then reduce the limit to four minutes in an attempt to get as many people in as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We are now moving to a four-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that the 300,000 dwellings per year target is indeed delivered, and that, as part of that, some innovation in the planning system, with the right controls, is needed? Does he also agree that we would not be in such a challenging situation if it was not for the failure of the Mayor of London to deliver housing in the centre of London, and our businesses are paying a terrible price for the failure to make London a proper live-work city?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We need interventions to be short. Lots of Members want to speak, and they will not be able to do so if there are lots of interventions, and long ones.

[Robert Halfon]

I go back to my previous argument: we need quality housing. We need a lighter planning regime, because I want affordable houses for my constituents, but I want them in the right place. I therefore welcome what the Secretary of State said to me in our meeting yesterday: the introduction of a prior approvals process for these new rights, and local planning authorities and the community will now have a say over any new redevelopment, with the ability to object to plans. Local authorities can also now consider the external appearance of the building, the development’s impact on transport and neighbouring premises, as well as the provision of adequate natural light.

I understand—I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation of this—that a time-limited PDR allowing for the conversion of warehouses and buildings on industrial estates lapses today and that the Government will not be renewing this right. It was noted by the shadow Minister that the rights introduced today are so limited that this is just to deliver around 800 homes per year.

On the basis that the Secretary of State is putting an end to rabbit-hutch housing and creating a level playing field by prohibiting unwanted through-the-backdoor developments, I will support the Government. However, as I have said previously to my right hon. Friend the Minister, I ask that the Government hold to account those councils that are socially cleansing their boroughs by moving people to strange areas without any links to their families and friends. If councils must make out-of-area placements, they should contribute financially to the receiving councils’ associated costs, so that Harlow does not bear the brunt financially.

Extended PDRs have caused irreparable damage to Harlow’s landscape, social cohesion and reputation. There are unintended consequences to the drain on our local resources, which is why I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s moves. I note that we will be able to repair some of the damage because of our £25 million bid for the Government towns fund, and I very much welcome the £1 million of accelerated funding for Harlow, announced last week, to regenerate our town centre and make sure that what has gone wrong in the past can never happen again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate, secured by my Front-Bench colleagues.

As others have laid out, the regulations have been subject to widespread criticism. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns that they would result in a lighter touch prior approval process and that the changes could lead to the construction of low-quality housing. In fact, there has been report after report, piece after piece of evidence, in that regard. Even the Government’s own research, published in July, shows that permitted development rights lead to lower quality development and worrying impacts on space and overcrowding. It noted that only 22.1% of dwelling units created in this way would meet the nationally prescribed space standards, compared with 73.4% of units created through full planning permission. Furthermore, in January, the Local Government Association found that thousands of affordable homes had been lost through permitted development rights. It called for permitted development rules to be scrapped and for local communities to have a vital say on new developments in their area.

It is obvious that the consequence of removing the requirement for planning permission results in the removal of the requirement for affordable housing at the worst possible time—all in the name of the Government’s planning reforms, which have already been aptly described as a developers’ charter. Many are concerned about the watering down of what some perceive to be already limited requirements for developers to build affordable housing, known as section 106 requirements. The housing and homelessness charity Shelter points out that the majority of social homes being built now are being built under those requirements and warns that we desperately need to build more social homes, not to put the already pitiful trickle at risk.

What the Government call red tape is what housing experts recognise as important protections against unsafe and low-quality housing. Will the Minister explain why he has seen fit to pursue measures, such as the regulations before us today, that are likely to result in poorer quality housing and a reduction in affordable housing?

It is no surprise that the planning reforms were announced just weeks after the controversy surrounding the Westferry Printworks development in my constituency, which many saw as further evidence that the Government are more interested in serving billionaires than the interests of local people. Tax haven-using Northern & Shell’s ongoing clash with Tower Hamlets council has shown that the system is not fit for purpose and that we need more transparency and accountability in planning processes, not the deregulation that the measures today represent.

Although approval for the Westferry Printworks development has been withdrawn, I understand the case remains live and is to be decided soon. Will the Minister commit to publishing viability assessments in future relevant cases where affordable housing and site values are contested? Will he commit to do so for the Westferry Printworks development before the case is decided by another Minister, and confirm that he will not simply let companies do their own viability assessments, untested?

Local people really need assurances. Many people in Poplar and Limehouse cannot understand why luxury development after luxury development continues to pop up, given the local housing crisis and the fact that the borough is so overcrowded and densely populated. It is utterly incomprehensible that, at this juncture in time, the Government are further empowering developers at the expense of local people.

When will the Government ensure that developers make their buildings safe, given that there are still 300 high-rise residential and publicly owned buildings with unsafe cladding, including in my borough, and not offload costs unfairly on to residents and leaseholders? Perhaps the Minister can explain how on earth recent history has led to the decision that further deregulation of the housing sector is needed, along with less scrutiny of developers. I would also like the Minister to explain to me how these regulations will impact on the BAME community in particular.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I need to ask the hon. Lady to bring her remarks to a close now, I am afraid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I rise to oppose these three SIs. The planning system exists specifically to address and balance often conflicting demands: public versus private; local community versus national requirements; environment versus the economy; and financial capital versus human need. Every planning application is judged against clear policies and clear demands, and every planning decision considers quality as well as quantity. It is a transparent and accountable process that enables community involvement. Permitted development rights were introduced to reduce bureaucracy in specific, clearly understood circumstances, but these SIs put a coach and horses through the normal system of judging and determining a proposed development.

I had 30 years of involvement in the town planning system before being elected to this place, and these instruments give me a terrible sense of déjà vu. In 2013, the Government introduced an extension of permitted development rights; then, as now, there was cross-party and cross-sector opposition. Why? Because extending PDR created, and will create, new slums of substandard housing, over which local planning authorities have little or no control and there is little or no opportunity for community input.

Now the Government have come back for more, ignoring the conclusions of their Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. Although they have conceded, after a lot of pressure, on minimum light and space standards, there are still major concerns about issues such as neighbour impact, access, parking, play and amenity space, and of course the proposals remove section 106 contributions from larger developments to the community on things such as affordable housing, traffic and transport improvements. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, I also share the concerns of my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), and of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) about the implications for leaseholders.

Where is the evidence that these SIs will deliver more homes? There are 318,000 homes granted planning permission between 2011 and 2018 that remain unbuilt. The Government say that these measures will provide affordable housing for younger people, but there is no evidence that suggests they will. In my west London constituency, even a substandard rabbit hutch would still be affordable only to a young person working on a City of London salary who has a chunky deposit from the bank of mum and dad. As usual, families on UK average and below-average incomes remain invisible to Ministers.

There is, of course, inconsistency between the high-falutin’ intentions in the White Paper about sustainability and quality, and what will actually happen when these SIs are implemented. Speculators and owners will be able to use these regulations to avoid all the normal conditions that are to be expected when someone goes through the normal application process, which are there to address the principles of planning that I listed at the start of my speech, and of course they will avoid community engagement.

If the Government think that we are worried unnecessarily about these issues around standards and that it will all be all right, why do this in the first place, when we have a perfectly adequate planning system? We will see yet more homes that are bad for those living in them now, bad for their neighbours, and bad for those living in them in the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Rachel Hopkins—I need you to sit down at 6.27 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank Members from across the House for all the powerful contributions made today. I am sorry that I cannot acknowledge them all, but I am limited in time. Although we recognise the Government’s last-minute concession on space, resulting from our motion, and the work of campaigners from across the country in the housing and planning sector, the fact remains that this is a developer’s charter. It will enrich them, freeholders and overseas investors to the tune of billions. As has been said eloquently by Members from right across the House, it will create vandalism in our streets, communities, villages and high streets; lobbing two storeys on semi-detached houses and on flats—flats cladded with flammable materials—is nonsense. It is not building back better, building back safer—it is nonsense. As for affordable housing, 6,400 social houses last year—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Colleagues will see that many Members want to speak in the debate. We simply will not be able to get through everyone unless speeches are brief. My advice would be for Members to limit their remarks to five or six minutes, but if they do not, I will have to impose a time limit. I would rather not do that, but I am keen that we get as many people in as possible. I call Drew Hendry.

[Drew Hendry]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although I will try to be as quick as I can, this Bill fundamentally affects Scotland, and therefore I have a lot to say about it. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who chairs the Justice Committee. It is always a pleasure to listen to him, to the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and to the Minister, who is an affable and normally very helpful chap. I have great sympathy for him as he tries bravely but barely conceals his embarrassment at having to drag this shabby Bill through the House.

Before I get to my party’s amendments and our reasoned amendment, let me report on the Bill so far. This Bill sets out to break international law. It sets out to break devolution. It sets in train the biggest power-grab since the Scottish Parliament was reconvened and a race to the bottom on health protections and environmental standards. The flood of amendments simply proves that the Bill lacks credibility. It is reckless, and it is absolutely typical of this Tory Government and their entire process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Just another reminder: I am conscious that many of the initial contributors are speaking to amendments, so it is important that we are flexible, but I say again that if we want to get in the many Members who want to contribute to the debate, it is important that at this stage, Members are as brief as they can be while getting their important points in.

[Sir William Cash]

There has been a heated and, in many respects, misconceived debate about the question of our compliance with international law. I had something of an exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) on Second Reading. I made the point that UK law has, in the past, breached international treaties. That stands, because it is important for us to recognise that that has been the case.

Indeed, it is often forgotten that the EU guidelines of 29 April 2017, which my right hon. Friend’s Government allowed to happen, unilaterally imposed on us requirements contravening article 50 of the Lisbon treaty and insisted that we should obey the basis of the EU’s idea of the conduct of negotiations. As Clausewitz said, diplomacy is war by other means; I believe the gloves are about to have to come off.

The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration recognise the autonomy of the EU and the UK, but whereas the UK is a sovereign state, the EU is merely an international organisation. UK sovereignty is expressly recognised by the EU as of its own kind—sui generis. The EU manifestly contradicted that by insisting on European Court jurisdiction, thus subverting the constitutional status of Northern Ireland itself. It was even reported that that was the price we would have to pay. The EU continually denied our sovereignty during the negotiations with a wanton disregard of our unique, unwritten constitution and sovereignty, which it is bound to understand because we have been in a relationship within the same legal order for the last 40 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

I must not take up too much time. I wish to develop my argument quickly.

We have to recognise what we are dealing with here. The EU withdrawal agreement was pretty unsatisfactory and one-sided because the previous Parliament stopped the Government putting a strong British case and getting the support of this Parliament in the way the British people wanted. The Prime Minister wisely went to Europe and did his best to amend the withdrawal agreement but it was quite clear from the agreed text that a lot was outstanding and rested to be resolved in the negotiations to be designed around the future relationship, because we used to say that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and that the withdrawal terms had to run alongside the future relationship.

The EU won that one thanks to the dreadful last Parliament undermining our position all the time. This Prime Minister is trying to remedy that and the only reason I was able to vote for the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—much of it was an agreement that I knew had lots of problems with it—was that we put in clause 38, a clear assertion of British sovereignty against the possibility that the EU did not mean what it said in its promises to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and did not offer that free trade agreement, which was going to be at the core of the new relationship. We therefore needed that protection, so I am pleased that the Government put it in.

That made me able to vote for the measure to progress it to the next stage, but I was always clear that the EU then needed to get rid of all its posturing and accept what it had said and signed up to—that the core of our new relationship was going to be a free trade agreement. We were going to be a third country, we were not going to be under its laws and we were not going to be in its single market and customs union, but it has systematically blocked that free trade agreement. The UK has tabled a perfectly good one based on the agreements the EU has offered to other countries that it did not have such a close relationship with, but it has not been prepared to accept it. Well, why does it not table its own? Why does it not show us what it meant when it signed up to having a free trade agreement at the core of our relationship? If it will not, we will leave without a deal and that will be a perfectly good result for the British people, as I said before the referendum and have always said subsequently.

Of course, it would be better if we could resolve those matters through that free trade agreement. As colleagues will know, many of the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol fall away if we have that free trade agreement, and we are only in this position because the EU is blocking it.

Why is the EU blocking the agreement? It says that it wants to grab our fish. I have news for it: they are not on offer. They are going to be returned to the British people, I trust. I am always being told by Ministers that they are strong on that. The EU wishes to control our law making and decide what state aid is in the United Kingdom. No, it will not. We voted to decide that within the framework of the World Trade Organisation and the international rules that govern state aid—rules, incidentally, that the EU regularly breaks. It has often been found guilty of breaking international state aid rules and has been fined quite substantially as a result.

I support the Government’s amendments, and I support this piece of legislation. We need every bit of pressure we can to try to get the free trade agreement and the third-country relationship with the EU that we were promised by it and by the Government in the general election. We can then take the massive opportunities of Brexit. It is crucial that new clause 1 is not agreed to, because it would send a clear message to the European Union that this Parliament still wants to give in.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We have not done too badly, all things considered. However, after the next speaker, I will introduce a four-minute time limit, so that we can get in as many people as possible. I call Stephen Farry.

[Stephen Farry]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Regardless of that, I will try to honour what you just said about the length of speeches. I primarily want to speak to amendment 16, in my name and those of others, regarding the removal of the most offensive and dangerous clause in the Bill—clause 45—and I will touch on some other amendments.

At the outset, I want to be extremely clear: the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and most businesses in Northern Ireland do not want to see this Government breaking or threatening to break international law, period, and they certainly do not want to see it happening on their behalf. Let us get that straight. The Government are not doing this for the good of the people of Northern Ireland.

The breaking of international law undermines the Good Friday agreement, which is lodged with the UN and is part of international law. In particular, breaking the withdrawal agreement and undermining the protocol does not help our businesses one bit. Instead, it places them in a much more uncertain legal situation for doing business. That is not in their interests, because businesses need to operate in a long-term, sustainable legal framework, especially if they are trading internationally. It risks Northern Ireland being turned into some sort of rogue state.

Whatever happens today, it is important that this House ensures that nothing goes forward in the Bill that either threatens or breaches international law, because it is a very dangerous route to go down. The opportunity exists this evening in new clause 1 and my amendment 16. Any efforts to soften that or put hurdles in place to make the prospect of breaking the law more difficult or push it further down the line defeats the purpose, because the threat is still on the table. That is no way for this country to do business internationally, and it sends a worrying message around the world.

Some of the spin in relation to the Bill is extremely disingenuous. In another debate, we heard references to George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and doublethink, but the Government are taking that to a new level with some of the arguments used today and previously. In particular, we are told that this is about a safety net for Northern Ireland. I have already made the point that this is anything but that. This is about removing the safety net for Northern Ireland by undermining the Good Friday agreement.

The Minister talked about the businesses of Northern Ireland being supportive of the Bill. That is news to me, and I would certainly be keen to hear who those businesses are. He talked about people who are opposing the Bill wilfully misrepresenting the Good Friday agreement. I was there as part of the negotiations on the Good Friday agreement. I saw John Major, Bertie Ahern and others negotiating the agreement. I saw the role of the United States and the European Union. They understand what is at stake here and what the Government are potentially doing. It is extremely arrogant to suggest that people are wilfully misrepresenting the agreement when we are trying to defend it.

The principle of consent is embedded within the withdrawal agreement. The European Union is very clear and keen that that is the case. We can talk about other consent issues all we want, and if we are doing so, we go back to the very first principle: that Brexit itself was imposed upon the people of Northern Ireland against their will. That is when the issue of consent and pulling away from a carefully balanced set of arrangements began.

Some of the amendments tabled today seek to disapply the Human Rights Act in relation to clause 45. I remind the Government that the Good Friday agreement contains reference to the importance of the European convention on human rights, and the Human Rights Act puts that into domestic effect. The Government are talking about protecting the Good Friday agreement, in their terms, while at the self-same time putting in a clause that undermines it clearly and unambiguously. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission, two institutions named in the Good Friday agreement, have expressed deep concern at the amendments that have been tabled by the Government.

Breaching international law will be a dead end for the Government, and I am not sure what they are seeking to achieve by it. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) talked about those on the Opposition Benches undermining the negotiations. The Government are doing that all by themselves at present. This is not a tenable or sustainable direction of travel. Until the Government withdraw the threat of breaking international law, they are not going to get a proper future relationship agreement, or a free trade deal with the United States. It is no longer just an issue of the Democrats and such people as Speaker Pelosi or Vice-President Biden. We now have Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s special envoy, echoing those self-same comments. This is now a bipartisan issue in the United States. Whenever the Government have been out-Trumped, that is a very clear message of the danger of the route that they are going down.

In relation to us in Northern Ireland, we have to get the best route possible in terms of the protocol. The protocol is the direct outworking of the UK Government’s decisions around Brexit, so the protocol arises from what the UK has decided to do. It is imposing, essentially, binary choices on a society in Northern Ireland that works only through sharing and interdependence. We do not want any borders, but we have to try to work to mitigate the impact of the protocol. The way we do that is through building the trust and confidence of the European Union, so that we can ask for waivers and other forms of mitigations, not through unilaterally seeking to breach the terms of the protocol.

A very clear example is around the issue of export declarations and other export procedures. As part of the withdrawal agreement, the Government have already recognised that that is the prerogative of the European Union under its customs code; however, waiving that would not really threaten the integrity of the EU’s single market or customs union, unlike some other potential aspects. That may well be a fairly easy thing for the EU to give, but we are not going to achieve that if the Government cannot establish that confidence to work in good faith with the European Union and their partners going forward.

I will make two more points. The first is on new clause 7 from my DUP colleagues in Northern Ireland. As Members may have noticed, the Alliance party does not always follow the DUP on Brexit—indeed, we take radically different positions, including on this Bill—but there is common ground in a number of areas, in terms of trying to ensure that we have unfettered access from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. I recommend that the House approve that amendment if it goes to a vote. I do not think that it does any damage to the protocol or the withdrawal agreement, but it tests on a periodic basis the commitments that the Government are making and that are reflected in the withdrawal agreement itself. I have probably gone on for slightly too long, so I will end on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Devolution has allowed us in Scotland to carve out a path that is different to that of the rest of the UK wherever necessary for the past 20 years. To understand exactly how this Bill attacks devolution, we need to read only clause 46, which states:

“A Minister of the Crown may…provide financial assistance to any person for…infrastructure”.

Subsection (2) goes on to say that infrastructure includes: health, education, transport, court and prison facilities, housing, water, electricity and the provision of heat. The Bill will allow UK Ministers to dictate and spend money wherever they like and in whatever devolved area they want, as long as it can be justified as they deem it to “directly or indirectly” benefit any area of the UK. We already know that the reality of that is Tory Governments funnelling millions into marginal Tory seats, as opposed to the areas that need it. I wondered why they had specifically included things such as heat and electricity and water, and then I remembered that the only reason why we are able to have publicly owned fresh water in Scotland is that the Scottish Parliament has made it so.

The Bill will explicitly give any Minister of the Crown permission to run riot with the very assets of Scotland that our Scottish Parliament has protected, and nowhere in the Bill—nowhere—does it state that permission must be obtained from the devolved Governments to do so. I have watched this Parliament hand over £40 million for ferries to a company that did not own any ferries. Are we really supposed to expect and rely on this Government to spend money on our behalf? Let us be clear: this would not be some benevolent donation to Scotland from Westminster, because clause 47 says that financial assistance may be subject to conditions, including repayment. We will be expected to pay back money that we never even spent. That is like being asked to take out a car loan even though you cannae drive.

To those who say that we are represented here and that we can change things, I say this: we have tried and we are outvoted at every turn. This gets to the crux of why independence is the only option left for Scotland. Let me give some context: Scotland has 59 MPs and the city of London 73 MPs. This is a Union that England dominates. The only reason why there is not an English Parliament is that the people in Westminster view this place as the English Parliament. We cannot afford to be naive. The only way to protect our Parliament is to become independent.

We regularly hear the Tories brag about how we have the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, but I have a new thing for them to brag about: the UK is in the Guinness book of records as the country from which most countries have gained independence. Since 1939, 62 countries have gained independence from Westminster and not a single one has asked to come back. Only one country decided to stay and look where we are. In 2014, the idea of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister was a warning. Now, it is a reality.

The Bill provides a framework to allow Westminster to bypass the Scottish Parliament in the hope that we do not notice it, but we are noticing it. It took us 300 years to get our Scottish Parliament and 20 years for this place to put a bulldozer right through it—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I thank the hon. Lady.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

I rise to oppose new clause 1. The Bill seeks to preserve and protect the internal market of our precious United Kingdom, having taken back control from the EU. Our membership of the EU predates much of the devolution journey on which our Union has been, and as we break free from Europe, we must put in place the protection that is essential to preserving the marketplace in our own internal market and, in turn, protect our Union.

This Parliament was elected to deliver on the will of the British people. The people of Darlington want to see Brexit done. I know, too, that they want us to have a great free trade deal with our European neighbours. They know that trade benefits us all.

The Bill serves to protect our internal trade, and also makes provision for a situation in which the withdrawal agreement’s provisions prevent our internal trade. I welcome the Government’s intention to seek parliamentary approval for the “notwithstanding” clauses. It is right that our European neighbours should negotiate with us in good faith as we seek to protect our internal market, and it is right that Parliament has the opportunity to debate and vote on such measures. It is my hope and wish that negotiations progress and a deal is secured, such that we do not have to invoke these measures. I regret the coverage that these provisions have attracted generating the unfortunate view that the House is intent on breaking the law.