Extreme Heat Preparedness

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, and I have specifically asked all Secretaries of State to identify particular channels of communication that might be used to target the most vulnerable groups, and it is not just the national health service. Train operating companies, for example, know who holds particular concession cards, and local authorities and the third sector are often able to communicate. We need to gently alert the whole population that we should look out for each other, and people in specific vulnerable groups must be able to get the advice and support they need, if and when they need it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

“(za) comes into effect only in accordance with section 26(2A) to (2D);”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 2 to clause 26, which would require parliamentary approval for bringing into force any provisions of this Act.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 26, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

“(za) requires Ministers of the Crown to set out a legal justification for altering the effect of the Northern Ireland Protocol in domestic law”

This is a paving amendment for NC8.

Amendment 31, page 1, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).

Amendment 32, page 1, line 14, leave out from “Protocol” to end of line 15.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 15, at end insert—

“(e) provides powers to Ministers of the Crown that may be exercised only after good faith negotiations with the EU (through the mechanisms provided for in the Northern Ireland Protocol) have been exhausted and only with the approval of both Houses of Parliament and, where relevant, the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

This amendment would give primacy to a negotiated outcome between the UK and the EU and reflect the consent required by both Houses of Parliament and, where relevant, the Northern Ireland Assembly for powers conferred by the Act to be exercised.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 25, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end insert—

“(A1) This section is subject to section (Limitation of general implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol: approval of Northern Ireland Assembly).”

This paving amendment is linked to NC7.

Clause 2 stand part.

Clause 3 stand part.

Amendment 6, in clause 15, page 8, line 47, at end insert—

“(1A) In this section “necessary” means the existence of a situation of grave and imminent peril that relates to one or more of the permitted purposes.”

This amendment defines the standard against which a Minister can exercise powers conferred by clause 15.

Amendment 14, page 8, line 47, at end insert—

“(1A) In this section “unpermitted consequence” means an outcome that would constitute a risk to or detrimental on—

(a) Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement including the North-South Ministerial Council, cooperation and action under the Council or consultation and agreements in all its formats, areas of cooperation and agreed implementation bodies;

(b) Strand Three of the Belfast Agreement, the British-Irish Council and cooperation, common policies or common actions on matters of mutual interest for relevant administrations including on issues, and in ways, referenced in that section of the Agreement;

(c) the single electricity market;

(d) Northern Ireland‘s access to the EU Single Market to the fullest extent permitted by the Protocol;

(e) continuing opportunities for institutions, economic operators and civic interests in Northern Ireland to access and participate in EU programmes and frameworks as permitted under and/or alongside the Protocol;

(f) Northern Ireland‘s access to trade deals between the EU and third countries to the fullest extent permitted by the Protocol;

(g) the productivity of businesses in Northern Ireland and the competitive marketability of goods produced there (through costs or complications associated with possible dual route regulatory compliances).”

This amendment provides that a Minister cannot exercise powers for the permitted purposes in Clause 15 in terms that could entail harmful impact on dimensions of the Good Friday Agreement and/or economic interests of Northern Ireland.

Amendment 27, page 8, line 47, at end insert—

“(1A) But subsection (1) is subject to section (Excluded provision: Parliamentary approval).”

This is a paving amendment for NC9.

Amendment 7, page 9, line 8, after “if” insert

“it does not cause one or more unpermitted consequence and if”.

Amendment 8, page 9, line 15, at end insert—

“(d) Article 18 (Democratic Consent in Northern Ireland)”.

This amendment adds Article 18 (Democratic Consent in Northern Ireland) of the Northern Ireland Protocol to the list of articles that a Minister of the Crown cannot exercise powers conferred by subsection (2) to provide cease to have effect in the United Kingdom to any extent.

Amendment 9, page 9, line 15, at end insert—

“(3A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) until and unless the Minister has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out the Minister of the Crown’s assessment of the necessity to exercise the power for, or in connection with, one or more of the permitted purposes and to state the one or more permitted purposes in question.”

This amendment places a reporting obligation on a Minister exercising powers conferred by section 15 to detail an assessment of why the regulations are necessary and to state the permitted purpose(s) relevant to that assessment.

Amendment 10, page 9, line 15, at end insert—

“(3A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) before full consultation on proposed changes with, in particular—

(a) the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission,

(b) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland,

(c) the Committee of representatives of the Human Rights Commission of Northern Ireland and Ireland, and

(d) persons whom the Minister considers appropriate as representatives of business, trade, economic interests and civic groups.”

Clause 15 stand part.

Amendment 40, in clause 16, page 9, line 19, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.

This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.

Clause 16 stand part.

New clause 1—Maintaining levels of environmental protection—

“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, before exercising the powers conferred by this Act, make a statement to the effect that in the Minister of the Crown’s view the exercise of the powers would not to any extent have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.

(2) The Minister of the Crown must seek the views of the Office for Environmental Protection before making a statement under this section.

(3) Any statement under this section must be published in such manner as the Minister of the Crown considers appropriate

(4) The Minister of the Crown must lay a copy of any statement under this section before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would ensure that the powers proposed to be conferred by this Bill could be exercised only if in the relevant Minister’s view this would not undermine existing levels of environmental protection.

New clause 2—Environmental principles—

“No regulations may be made under this Act unless—

(a) a policy statement on environmental principles has been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly under paragraph 7(6) of Schedule 2 to the Environment Act 2021, and

(b) paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the Environment Act 2021 is in force.”

This new clause would prevent the exercise of any powers proposed to be granted by the Bill until the Department’s policy statement on environmental principles has been finalised and Departments and Ministers are under a statutory duty to have due regard to it.

New clause 3—Meaning of “environmental protection”—

“In this Act “environmental protection” means any of the following—

(a) protection of the natural environment from the effects of human activity;

(b) protection of people from the effects of human activity on the environment;

(c) maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the natural environment;

(d) monitoring, assessing, considering, advising or reporting on anything in paragraphs (a) to (c).”

New clause 7—Limitation of general implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol: approval of Northern Ireland Assembly—

“Section 2 of this Act has no effect unless it has been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

This new clause would require the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly before this Act could be used to limit the general implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

New clause 8—Publication of legal advice—

“(1) The Prime Minister must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the legal advice considered by the Government in respect to this Act which it received before the day of the First Reading in the House of Commons of the Bill for this Act.

(2) The Attorney General must lay before each House of Parliament the assessment made by Her Majesty’s Government of the doctrine of necessity in relation to the operation of the Northern Ireland Protocol prior to the First Reading in the House of Commons of the Bill for this Act.

(3) The Lord Chancellor must lay before each House of Parliament a report on to what extent the Bill for this Act was in accordance with Lord Chancellor‘s constitutional role in relation to the constitutional principle of the rule of law.”

This new clause requires the publication of the legal justification for the Bill for this Act.

New clause 9—Excluded provision: Parliamentary approval—

“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not make regulations that either bring into force any provision of this Act that makes any provision of the Protocol (or any related provision of the Withdrawal Agreement) excluded provision, or that make any such provision excluded provision, unless all three conditions in this section are met.

(2) The first condition in this section is that a Minister of the Crown has laid a statement before both Houses of Parliament setting out reasons—

(a) why, if no safeguard measures under Article 16 of the Protocol have been taken by the United Kingdom, the Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate to exclude a provision or provisions at that time rather than to do so only after the United Kingdom has taken such safeguard measures; and

(b) why and how, in the view of the Minister of the Crown, making the regulations is consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom.

(3) The second condition in this section is that the House of Commons has resolved, on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, to take note of the statement under subsection (2).

(4) The third condition in this section is that a motion for the House of Lords to take note of that statement has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and—

(a) the House of Lords has debated the motion, or

(b) the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the first Lords sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in paragraph (a).”

This new clause would, except where the government had already adopted safeguard measures under Article 16, require Ministers to make a statement to the House as to why they thought it appropriate and lawful to treat provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol or any related provision of the EU Withdrawal Agreement as excluded provisions; and to require a House of Commons vote, and a debate in the House of Lords, before those excluded provisions could be brought into force.

New clause 10—Condition prior to limitation of the Northern Ireland Protocol—

“(1) This section sets out the condition which must be satisfied before a provision of—

(a) the Northern Ireland Protocol, or

(b) any other part of the EU withdrawal agreement,

is excluded provision.

(2) The condition must be either—

(a) the agreement condition (see subsection (3)), or

(b) the Article 16 condition (see subsection (4)).

(3) The agreement condition is that the United Kingdom and the EU have agreed following negotiations that the provision is excluded provision.

(4) The Article 16 condition is that—

(a) the United Kingdom is unilaterally taking appropriate safeguard measures, in accordance with Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol,

(b) before taking those measures, the United Kingdom has followed the procedure set out in Annex 7 to the Protocol (which governs the taking of safeguard measures), and

(c) the safeguard measures being taken necessarily require that the provision is excluded provision.

(5) Where the condition is no longer satisfied, then the provision ceases to be excluded provision, and as a consequence any regulations made dealing with excluded provision lapse to the extent that they relate to provision which is no longer excluded provision.

(6) For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of this Act remain subject to section 7A(2) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, save where a provision of—

(a) the Northern Ireland Protocol, or

(b) any other part of the EU withdrawal agreement,

is excluded provision which has satisfied the requirements set out in this section.”

This new clause is intended to prevent Ministers from deviating from the international agreement that is the NI Protocol unless this has either been agreed to between the UK and the EU, or the UK have followed the procedure set out in Article 16 of the Protocol for unilaterally taking safeguard measures.

[Sir Robert Neill]

Amendments 1 and 2, the latter of which amends clause 26, relate to the commencement and operationalisation of the provisions in the Bill. I have drafted them in this way because of the nature of the Bill itself. We will come to amendment 2 on day three, but amendment 1 paves the way for it, so it may be convenient if I set out the thinking behind both amendments.

As was debated at some length on Second Reading—I will not repeat everything that was said—this is an unusual and rather exceptional Bill, and not necessarily in a good way. If fully brought into effect, the Bill would lead to the United Kingdom departing unilaterally from an international agreement and therefore breaking its obligations under both customary international law and the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which is a grave and profound step for any Government to take.

I recognise that there are circumstances in which that step can be taken, and the Government asserted on Second Reading that the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol gives rise, or potentially gives rise, to those circumstances. The essence of it, though, depends on applying a factual evidence base to a legal test. The legal test in this case is essentially the international customary law convention of necessity, which is now enshrined in article 25 of the articles on state responsibility, which were adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001 and are recognised by the UN General Assembly, by our Government and by the international community as an authoritative statement of the law. Article 25 sets out that necessity may be invoked if certain tests are met. The point of these amendments is to say that if the Government, or any Government, were to take that step, they should do so upon the most compelling grounds, so that the factual basis for their actions met the legal test. The reputational consequences, politically, internationally and legally, are very significant, so this should be done only when that is thoroughly tested and set before this House to be tested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Just a gentle reminder that quite a few hon. and right hon. Members are wishing to catch my eye. I cannot impose a time limit because we are in Committee stage, but Members may like to bear that in mind.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). We have become good friends since both serving together on the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and I hold him in the highest of respect.

On behalf of my colleagues, I pay tribute to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who is in his place, for the work that he has done in bringing the Bill to this stage, and for the work that he did during his tenure as Secretary of State. He developed a good understanding of the difficulties in Northern Ireland with the protocol and the other issues. I know that it is his desire to move Northern Ireland to the next stage of the peace process to move towards reconciliation, but he recognised that there was a need to deal with these fundamental issues before we could get to that point. I thank him for the work that he has done in that regard. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I extend our grateful appreciation.

I also welcome the new Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), to his place. I got to know him well when he was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office and we look forward to working with him in the weeks ahead on the issues that confront us at this time.

I want to respond to the points that have been made in relation to amendment 1 and related amendments, to deal with the question of necessity in particular and the immediacy of the risk that has given rise to the Government introducing this legislation. I understand the points that have been made cogently here. Therefore, it is important, representing one element of the political community in Northern Ireland, to outline why we believe the Bill is necessary. We counsel against impeding the ability of the Government to press forward with this legislation.

On the risk, I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). For us as Unionists, there is a risk to the Union in relation to how the protocol is being applied in Northern Ireland. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland have stated that the protocol subjugates article 6 of the Act of Union. That article confers on Northern Ireland citizens the right to trade freely within their own country. It states that there shall be no barrier to trade between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. No one could reasonably argue that the protocol does not put in place barriers to trade. It most certainly does and I hear that every day from my constituents, whether they are consumers or businesses, and the difficulties that they are facing in trading with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Those difficulties have led to political instability in Northern Ireland. They have had an economic impact in Northern Ireland and I would argue strongly that there is the potential for that to lead to societal problems. We on these Benches have worked hard to ensure that those problems have not arisen. When people have taken to the streets and engaged in violence, we have worked in local communities to prevent a repetition of that. That has been the case across the community. It does not mean, though, that there are not strong feelings, particularly within the Unionist community, about what this protocol means not only for trade, which is important, but for their identity and for their place in the Union. As we have seen over the years in Northern Ireland, when people feel that their identity is threatened, when they feel that their place in the United Kingdom is being undermined, that can lead to societal problems.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has rightly argued that, from his perspective, he is looking to see the immediacy of the risk, but I say to him that it is there, it is very real and I ask him to take on trust from my contacts within the Unionist community that it is bubbling beneath the surface and we have worked hard to try to ensure that that does not emerge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Farry]

I beg to move amendment 24, page 3, line 3, leave out subsections (1) to (3).

This amendment removes the designation of Article 5(1) to (4) and Annex 2 of the Northern Ireland Protocol relating to movement of goods and customs, as excluded provision.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Amendment 34, in clause 5, page 4, line 14, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.

This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.

Clause 5 stand part.

Amendment 35, in clause 6, page 4, line 29, leave out “they consider appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.

This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.

Clause 6 stand part.

Amendment 15, in clause 24, page 13, line 16, leave out from “to” to the end of line 22 and insert

“House of Commons draft affirmative procedure”.

This probing amendment would apply “House of Commons draft affirmative” procedure in place of regulations on tax or customs matters being subject to annulment.

Amendment 16, page 13, line 27, leave out from “procedure” to the end of line 32.

This probing amendment would prevent Henry VIII powers (amending Acts of Parliament by regulations) being made on tax or customs matters using the “made affirmative” procedure.

Amendment 17, page 13, line 34, leave out “draft affirmative procedure” and insert

“super-affirmative procedure (see section (Super-affirmative resolution procedure: general provisions))”.

This probing amendment would replace draft affirmative procedure on tax and customs matters with super-affirmative procedure (see NC5).

Amendment 18, page 13, line 36, leave out subsections (7) to (9).

This amendment is a probing amendment removing the “made affirmative” procedure on tax or customs matters.

Clause 24 stand part.

New clause 4—UK-EU Joint Committee: reduction of sanitary and phytosanitary checks—

“A Minister of the Crown may not exercise any powers conferred by this Act until a Minister of the Crown has sought an agreement at the UK-EU Joint Committee on reducing sanitary and phytosanitary checks and laid a report setting out the details of those discussions before each House of Parliament and provided a copy of that report to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

New clause 5—Super-affirmative resolution procedure: tax or customs matters—

“(1) For the purposes of this Act the “super-affirmative resolution procedure” in relation to the making of regulations subject to the super-affirmative resolution procedure is as follows.

(2) The Treasury or HMRC must have regard to—

(a) any representations,

(b) any resolution of the House of Commons, and

(c) any recommendations of a committee of the House of Commons charged with reporting on the draft regulations, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft regulations.

(3) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Treasury or HMRC wish to make regulations in the terms of the draft, the Treasury or HMRC must lay before the House of Commons a statement—

(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (2)(a); and

(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.

(4) The Treasury or HMRC may after the laying of such a statement make regulations in the terms of the draft if the regulations are approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.

(5) However, a committee of the House of Commons charged with reporting on the draft regulations may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (3) and before the draft regulations are approved by that House under subsection (4), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft regulations.

(6) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of the House of Commons under subsection (5) in relation to draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft regulations in that House under subsection (4) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.

(7) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Treasury or HMRC wish to make regulations order consisting of a version of the draft regulations with material changes, the Treasury or HMRC must lay before the House of Commons—

(a) revised draft regulations; and

(b) a statement giving details of—

(i) any representations made under subsection (2)(a); and

(ii) the revisions proposed.

(8) The Treasury or HMRC may after laying revised draft regulations and a statement under subsection (7) make regulations in the terms of the revised draft regulations if the revised draft regulations are approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.

(9) However, a committee of the House charged with reporting on the revised draft regulations may, at any time after the revised draft regulations are laid under subsection (7) and before the revised draft regulations are approved by that House under subsection (8), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations.

(10) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of the House of Commons under subsection (9) in relation to revised draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations in that House under subsection (8) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.

(11) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (8) regulations are made in the terms of draft regulations if the regulations contain no material changes to the provisions of the draft regulations.

(12) In this section the “60-day period” means the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft regulations were laid before the House of Commons under section 24 of this Act.”

This new clause sets out the House of Commons super-affirmative procedure for tax and customs matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry); I agree with some of what he said, if not, perhaps, some of his conclusions. I think that, of all the contents of the Bill, the Government are on the strongest ground when it comes to the clauses we are now debating, and that the EU could have found a way of agreeing with the UK Government how to fix this problem. In the protocol, it was agreed that Northern Ireland was in the UK customs territory, and only goods that were at risk of going into the single market needed to be inspected as they crossed the Irish sea. We ended up with the EU seemingly interpreting everything as possibly being at risk of going into the single market, which produced a ridiculous level of tests that would never be acceptable to the Unionist community of Northern Ireland and are doing the economic damage and causing the tensions we have seen.

It should be obvious and acceptable to both sides that it has been agreed that Northern Ireland will have a foot in both camps: a foot in the EU single market and the EU customs zone, and a foot in the UK single market and the UK customs zone. The only way to make that work is to accept that there is a porous border, where there is no way of exercising the usual level of control that the EU would insist on at its other single market borders around Europe. The key questions for everyone to focus on are these: what goods are we really worried about? What goods have a real risk of crossing that border without being checked—without having the customs declarations and the duty paid, or the various other checks that are required? Finally, how do we put in place measures that can mitigate that risk, and make people on both sides of the border happy that nothing is crossing that border that poses a real threat to the integrity of either market?

To be fair, the UK Government have been extraordinarily generous, not just at the Irish border but at the Dover-Calais border, by not introducing the checks we could have introduced and which we would expect to see at a normal border, because we largely trust goods that are in free circulation in the EU, even if they are not absolutely consistent with UK regulations, either now or in future, or perhaps there is a theoretical customs issue, even though we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal, and there may be some duty payable because of rules of origin. We have been extraordinarily relaxed in accepting that those risks are much lower than the risks of trying to impose the burden of huge amounts of checks.

Until we get the EU into the mindset of accepting the same position in relation to goods circulating in Northern Ireland, there is no solution, because at some point there will have to be a border with checks and processes somewhere. We know it cannot be on the island of Ireland. We accepted that trying to make the EU put the border between the European mainland and the island of Ireland would be a horrible situation that the Republic of Ireland could never accept and effectively mean that it had left the single market by mistake, which the Irish Government would never entertain. It always looked to most people that there was the prospect of a compromise by doing something down the Irish sea, where goods spend several hours on a ship allowing for inspections and for declarations to be made, but that it had to be done sensitively and only on the things that were really at risk, otherwise we would end up with the problem we have now, where the Unionist community will not accept it and there is too big a dividing line between the UK mainland and Northern Ireland.

I support what the Government are trying to do and some kind of red and green channel is the right solution. I think the problem we have is that we have extraordinarily little detail about how it will work and how we satisfy the EU that the data we think we can collect and give it is sufficient to get it in a place where it will not have some horrible overreaction. We have not managed to reach an agreement. In fact, I understand it will not even look at our database and the data we could share to see if it is enough to get it there.

We have what looks like a theoretically attractive solution that is the right end position, but we have no idea how to make it work on the ground. We are going from a position where it looked like the EU was going to accept trusted trader exemptions, where everything must be checked and declared unless we have pre-agreed that certain traders are trusted and therefore we can exempt them from it, almost to a position where, if I read red and green right, everything is exempt unless either the trader self-declares that he will go into the single market, or we presumably do some risk-based inspection and spot something that should have been in the red channel in the green channel. It is a stretch to think we will get the EU happy with that without its having serious trust in our internal identification processes.

Then there is the difficult scenario of what happens when somebody changes their mind: goods go into Northern Ireland to be sold in a Northern Ireland store, and then they get low on stock in the Republic of Ireland and decide they want to move them into the Republic. The goods will not have been checked and they will not have done the customs declarations. What will the process be? Where do they go to get the goods checked so that they can legally move them across the border? Or do they just move them, nobody ever checks it, it is all fine and that is that? Again, I would be surprised if we get the EU happy about that. We are going from a position where goods are in free circulation on the island of Ireland, to a position where goods may not be in free circulation on the island of Ireland. How do we fix that?

I urge the Government, as the Bill progresses, to publish the processes for exactly how that will work, and how we can have an effective international border and make the red and green lanes work, so that we can show we are really trying to identify the goods most at risk of cheating or abusing the rules to try to get around them. If we can do that, there is scope to negotiate with the EU and get to the end point that we will inevitably have to get to. Unless the EU wants no border at all or a border on the island of Ireland, it will have to make the system work. That has been apparent for the couple of years since we knew this was coming, but we need to have in place trust between the EU and the UK Administrations, and we need to have the working arrangements and trust between the Irish and the UK authorities in Northern Ireland, so they can work together, trust each other to do joint inspections and share information on a real-time basis—all those common working practices that we have not managed to get to, due to the tensions on both sides, and where we need to get to.

The question we have to ask is: does proceeding with the Bill help us to get towards negotiating a compromised, pragmatic end position or does it make that harder? Fundamentally, I suppose the Government’s answer will be, “We have tried to get the EU somewhere sensible on this matter for the past year or more and we have not managed it. So we will put in place these arrangements and the EU will have a choice: either come and work with us and get to the stage where you are happy with the processes that we have in place and the data we can share with you, or it is just tough—accept what we will offer you.” I sincerely hope, before we do this on a unilateral basis, that at least in this area, where it looks like a compromise should be achieved, we manage to put in place something that both sides are happy with.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Bill of Rights

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In a democracy, we command, rule and govern by consent. We are at risk of losing public confidence in our immigration controls if we cannot take the common-sense measures that they expect. We are also at risk of losing public confidence in human rights if we do not restore a healthy dose of common sense.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We now move on to the statement from the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency.

Adviser on Ministerial Interests

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Just a gentle reminder that we still have quite a lot of speakers to get in before the wind-ups start, so below 10 minutes is best—as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) did, after catching my eye.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I will give way in a second.

This is an advisory post, and if the adviser’s advice is not followed, they may decide they want to resign if they are fed up, but they should not feel constitutionally required to do so. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to bring his remarks to a close, but we will take one intervention.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, but the difference is that ultimately, Chris Whitty’s advice was based on policy. What we are talking about here is behaviour, and whether there are breaches of the ministerial code. That brings the whole area of ethics into much sharper focus.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

In short, yes I do.

The final point I want to make is that, while in many respects this is a very noble motion before the House and I will happily vote for it tonight, there must be a realisation in this place that with the current holder of the office of Prime Minister, politics has changed enormously, and we as Members of the House of Commons are going to have to get used to that. This is a Prime Minister who has defied all the norms of politics, who has now outlived Trump and may go even further.

I ask Members of this House to remember who the current Prime Minister is. I know I cannot refer to him by name, but on issues of racism he wrote:

“It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies”.

In 2018, he compared Muslim women to “bank robbers” and “letter boxes” and said he would ask a person with a niqab to remove it before speaking to him. He wrote that single mothers were to blame for producing a generation of,

“ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate children”.

In 2002 he said in a book:

“If gay marriage was OK…I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.”

The point is that this Government can have all the advisers on ethics they like, but I am fairly sure that if another one is appointed, they will have to resign again. The issue here is not necessarily the role of an adviser for ethics; the issue is that we have a Prime Minister who has no ethics.

We find ourselves in a remarkable situation where, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) just mentioned, a majority of people in this House do not have confidence in the Prime Minister. Remarkably, members of my party are told we cannot have a second referendum on independence, but for hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, the only opportunity they have to remove the Prime Minister is a second vote in a year’s time. That irony is lost on nobody.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

In order to give all the remaining speakers equal time, I need colleagues to stick to about seven minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Two ethics advisers gone, two months gone—and all the Paymaster General can offer us is a review. No one needs an ethics adviser more than the current Prime Minister. I studied maths, philosophy and economics at university and am therefore intrigued by how many times the Prime Minister is economical with the truth. Ethics is about right and wrong. It is about truth and falsehood. We heard in partygate about a Prime Minister who made the rules and broke the rules. He said that he did not understand the rules and that he did not know how they applied. We do not know whether he was guilty, innocent or drunk.

The situation is that we simply cannot trust the Prime Minister. That is the view of the great majority of MPs. Only 211 Tories voted with confidence in him, so more than two thirds of the nation’s MPs have no confidence in the current Prime Minister for what he has done.

Talking of ethics and philosophy, Kant’s categorical imperative—I know Members will be thinking of this—states

“act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can… will that it become a universal law.”

In other words, if you are going to have a party, everyone should party, and if they should not, you should not. It is not that complicated. According to Aristotle,

“We are what we repeatedly do.”

So what does that make the Prime Minister? At virtually every Prime Minister’s Question Time, he gets up and says that there are half a million more people in jobs than there were before the pandemic—although the Office for National Statistics says that there are 512,000 fewer people in jobs—because he inadvertently forgets to include the self-employed. Was that, in fact, an inadvertent mistake, or was it a piece of choreographed rhetoric to lead people up the garden path? There is a long list of things of this kind which undermine our democracy, this place, and politics in Britain.

Of course, ethics is about outcomes as well. People say, “Haven’t we done well on covid?”, but 170,000 people are dead thanks to the policies here, which led to the highest death rate in Europe. People say that the economy is all right, although ours was the worst recovery in the G7, and about 8 million people are hungry and in food insecurity. There is not really any accountability, other than the democratic process. We have just seen the Government provoke an unnecessary rail strike by demanding cuts in wages and jobs. There are alternatives to this. Germany, for instance, is saying that it will give everyone a public transport ticket for a month for €9 to boost the economy and jobs, rather than picking fights.

We have parliamentary privilege here, which means that there are limitations on what the courts can do when we breach the rules. The dampening and watering down of the rules here is therefore problematic, as is, of course, the attack on the judiciary itself. The all-party parliamentary group for democracy and the constitution published a report commissioned by the Rowntree Foundation and prepared by the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research. We found that there had been a sustained attack on the courts by Ministers through the media. That is undermining and chilling even the Supreme Court, which has reversed seven of its decisions in the last two years. This was, of course, getting back at the judges, because they had made various decisions about giving us the right to vote on the Brexit deal. They made the Prime Minister return when he tried to abandon democracy.

What we are seeing is the weakening of internal laws governing the behaviour of politicians here, and, at the same time, an attack on the courts themselves. Meanwhile, there is an attack on international law. The withdrawal from the Northern Ireland protocol undermines our reputation abroad: it means that people such as the Americans do not want to have trade agreements with us. There is an attack on our democratic values and rights, such as the right to peaceful protest. There is an attack on human rights, as we are seeing in Rwanda, and an attempt to pick a fight with the European Court of Human Rights itself, a forerunner to withdrawal from the European convention on human rights—which, of course, was set up by Winston Churchill.

In the round, what we are seeing is a Prime Minister corroding and eroding the rules that govern our behaviour and our ethics, alongside an attempt to disengage from controls that may be applied and to which all countries and all people elsewhere are subject. So we cannot be trusted. “Values” of this sort feed into the hands of people such as Putin, who hate the democracy, human rights and rule of law that we are now undermining.

Lord Geidt has said that the Prime Minister has made a mockery of the ministerial code. He has said that we have broken international laws in the form of World Trade Organisation rules. We urgently need a replacement. No doubt some people will suggest that Lord Ashcroft might be the person whom we need. After all, he revealed David Cameron’s relationship with a pig, did he not, and indeed revealed the current Prime Minister’s relationship with the lover whom he offered a £100,000 job. [Laughter.] People may find these things funny, but they are of course true.

We do need to uphold higher standards here, and, in particular, the Prime Minister should and does not. It is imperative that we get a replacement, and it is imperative that in the interim, at least, we introduce some sort of system. That is what this motion aims to do, and I fully support it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister, Fleur Anderson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I think that what the Minister is trying to say is that what has gone wrong is either the process of appointing the last two advisers, or indeed the last two advisers—both of which seem to me to be dishonourable things to say, if I may say so—rather than the fact that both have resigned because of the behaviour, as they have admitted, of a Minister and the Prime Minister.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I do not think the hon. Lady was implying that something dishonourable had been said. If she was, I would want her to withdraw that.

[Karin Smyth]

I withdraw it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise me on how I can correct the record on the question from the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who raised the matter of rural fuel duty relief and incorrectly advised that it was not available in Devon. In my North Devon constituency, which I on this side of the House clearly know quite well, fuel retailers in the EX35 postcode of Lynton have had access to the duty relief for some time. How might we address that situation?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. The Chair is not responsible for points made by right hon. and hon. Members, but she has put her concerns on the record, so I suggest we leave it at that.

[Ed Davey]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for raising that point and—not directly, I think—pointing out that vast parts of Devon do not have rural fuel duty relief.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think this is becoming a continuation of Prime Minister’s questions, so we will leave it at that.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, in Prime Minister’s questions the Prime Minister said that the Leader of the Opposition was a supporter of people traffickers. I think that should be taken out of the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. Frankly, the level of noise during PMQs meant that it was not possible for the Chair to hear everything, but I understand that the Prime Minister did say, as she says, that the Opposition were on the side of people traffickers. That seems to me—and, I have to say, to the Speaker—to fall well short of the good temper and moderation that should characterise our debates. I say to the Prime Minister and to all Members here that we need to refer to each other in this place in more respectful terms, and I am sure that that spirit will be adopted in the statement to come.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Speaking as Chair of the International Trade Committee, it was to the dismay of the Committee that we found out that the Government were to trigger the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process on the Australia-UK free trade agreement before the scrutiny was finished. This is in the light of assurances in a letter to the Speaker of the House, assurances from a Department for International Trade Minister at the Dispatch Box on the Floor of the House on 17 November 2021, and assurances to the Committee itself that scrutiny would be allowed to happen before CRAG was triggered. This has not happened. What is happening is that the UK is opening and rolling out the red carpet to Australian exporters to the UK while Australia is not ratifying. We in the Committee feel that there should be a vote, at the very least, to delay CRAG. Can you advise us, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how best we can achieve that end?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It did not relate directly to PMQs, so it should actually have been taken later. However, Ministers should obviously stick to commitments that they have made, and I am sure that he will find a number of ways to further the points that he has made.

Debate on the Address

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. It is good to see the hon. Lady back and on such good form.

As right hon. and hon. Members will know, we have a lot of speakers for this debate, so it would helpful if colleagues could confine their remarks to about 10 minutes.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford]

What my hon. Friend read out speaks for itself. She has demonstrated, as have many others, through the cases they mentioned, that the problem starts at the top. The workers who organised the parties would not have done so if they thought that their bosses would be upset, would come down on them and say, “You are breaking the rules. Stop it.” We now know that on at least six occasions, the Prime Minister was present at these parties, so this problem comes right from the top.

The Prime Minister’s defence has been different on many occasions. He started by saying that no rules were broken. He then said that there was a party, but that he was not present—but then he was. Then he said, “I wasn’t warned that it wasn’t a work do.” I did not see anything about a work do in the rules, but perhaps I missed that. The person who writes the rules cannot misunderstand them so fundamentally.

Setting that aside, if the Prime Minister’s defence is, “I didn’t understand the rules; I needed them explained to me” and “I was misled at the outset about there having been a party, because people told me that there wasn’t one,” who misled him? What has happened to them? Are they still in their posts? Have they moved on? Have they signed non-disclosure agreements? Where are those people who misled the Prime Minister, which led him to him inadvertently misleading the House? We cannot have this both ways: either the Prime Minister knowingly came to this House and lied, or other people lied to him, which led to him misleading the House. Either way, we need to identify those people.

The worst crime of all, however, is failing to feel the pain that our constituents felt throughout lockdown. No one who felt the agony and understood the pain that people were going through, as in the example that my hon. Friend read out, could have attended the events that happened in No. 10 Downing Street and other places. The question for Tory MPs today is this: do you stand by the people who felt that pain and vote today for—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The hon. Gentleman knows that he must not use the word “you”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I remind colleagues that we have advised that they should stick to five-minute speeches in order to be fair to others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I must reiterate that it is important to think of others in this debate and try to stick to five minutes. It is possible, and I know that every Member present is capable of it. If you could all do that, everyone will get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. We are told that we must rely on the integrity of the Government if the rule of law, the principle that no one is above the law and, even more importantly, people’s respect for the political system are to be upheld in this country. Well, we shall see.

Conservative Members have complained that the Opposition are engaging in politics, and of course there is a political dimension. My email inbox has been deluged with complaints about this matter, and I am sure I am not alone. I am sure many Conservative Members, if they dared admit it, could say the same. The Prime Minister has to accept that this is not just a Westminster row that nobody outside SW1 is concerned about.

The public—Tory voters, Labour voters and those who have never voted at all—have had to endure untold misery during the Prime Minister’s premiership. No fewer than 190,000 people have died from covid, and more than 1 million people have long covid. Because of the rules, as we have heard, so many people were unable to be with their loved ones as they were dying. These are the people the Prime Minister is scorning. These are the people to whom the Prime Minister thinks he can get away with making a manifestly ingenuine and mealy mouthed apology. It did not have to be that way.

The background of this issue is that living standards are plummeting, the NHS is in crisis and the spring statement rubbed salt into the wounds, making tens of millions of people worse off. I do not believe the public are in a mood to forgive and forget. The Prime Minister and his acolytes like to say he was at the party for only nine minutes. Many people would have liked to have been with their loved ones for nine minutes when they were dying.

The country wants the Prime Minister gone and these Benches want the Prime Minister gone. He broke the law. The question for Conservative members is very clear: are you just going to do nothing, today and in the future, while Boris Johnson sacrifices you to save himself, as he has done throughout his life and career?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Two quick reminders: we do not use the word “you” when speaking through the Chair; and colleagues should not refer to other hon. Members by name.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

The motion refers to the Prime Minister’s comments in this place on 1 and 8 December 2021, but these are simply specimens. It could have referred to many other occasions when the Prime Minister may have inveigled this House by using the fact that no one could challenge his veracity because of the protection afforded to him by parliamentary etiquette.

The Prime Minister has form. First, there were the early warning signs way back in 2019 and earlier, such as when he refused the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) to apologise for his dreadful Spectator article arguing that people affected by the Hillsborough disaster were wallowing in their “victim status”.

Secondly, what about the Prime Minister’s absurd claim in this place on 29 January 2020 that the Conservatives have grown the economy by 73%, a claim that relies on data stretching back to 1997? Thirdly, he made a false assertion on 4 March 2020 that his Government have provided free hospital parking for all, a comment that still stands uncorrected on the parliamentary record.

Fourthly, he said on 11 March 2020, “We are cutting”—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I remind hon. Members of what Mr Speaker said at the beginning of the debate:

“While it is perfectly in order for hon. Members to question the veracity of the Prime Minister’s responses to the House cited in the motion, it is not in order to challenge more generally the truthfulness of the Prime Minister or any other hon. or right hon. Member.”

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will adjust his speech accordingly.

[Peter Dowd]

In September 2020, the Prime Minister stated in relation to covid guidance:

“There is nothing more frustrating for the vast majority who do comply…than the sight of a few brazenly defying the rules, so these rules will be enforced by tighter penalties.”—[Official Report, 22 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 798.]

Those were his words. On 16 December 2020, he said:

“This Christmas it’s vital that everyone exercises the greatest possible personal responsibility.”

That was on the same day that London went into tier 3 restrictions. Two days later, there was a party at No. 10 Downing Street. The Prime Minister promised the House that he would publish all his personal exchanges with Sir James Dyson in relation to covid-19 contracts, but those have never appeared.

This list goes on. Those at Downing Street tell us that he “follows the ministerial code” and principles to the letter. The Prime Minister then told the House that it is “common sense” for people to wear a mask “in confined spaces”, but, surprisingly, he was photographed later the same day at Wembley stadium without a mask on. He stated in relation to covid that

“all guidance was followed completely in No.10.”—[Official Report, 1 December 2021; Vol. 704, c. 909.]

Was it? He then said at Prime Minister’s Question Time:

“I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no covid rules were broken.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 372.]

As hon. Members have said, either the Prime Minister was not being candid or his staff were not. So who was not? Possibly, it was both. He said he was “furious” to see the clip of his own staff discussing No. 10 parties, as though somehow he did not live there—he did! On 15 December 2021, at a Downing Street press conference, he said:

“I follow the rules. Everybody across politics should follow the rules.”

Indeed, they should, but the Prime Minister did not. And so it goes on.

What we are trying to do today is set in train a process whereby this House really does need to look into the concerns of so many Members and, more importantly, of the many constituents who have written to each of us about their concerns. They deserve answers. They are not that interested in parliamentary protocols often; they just want answers to their deeply held concerns and questions. This House, and surely Members opposite, cannot allow allegations of the Prime Minister’s insouciant and nonchalant attitude—allegedly—towards the truth to go unchallenged. We need to send a message to the country that when all the police inquires have been completed, this House will through its own processes, the very ones that have protected the Prime Minister from blunt assertions on the Floor of this Chamber, and consider those allegations thoroughly and openly. Finally, let me say that the mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa approach from the Prime Minister does not wash with my constituents.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

A few people have said today that this has been a curious debate, and indeed it has been. It has been variously sombre, angry, reflective and even at times quasi-religious. Most of all, it has been necessary. When a sitting Prime Minister has been served with a fine for breaking a law that he himself set, particularly when that same Prime Minister had come to this House and said that no law had been broken, it could not possibly be ignored by this place. This House could have chosen to do a number of things in response to what it has been presented with. It could have done what the Government hoped: another apology could have been made and it could have hoped everybody would move on. But Conservative Members know there is real anger out there and that was never going to be enough for our constituents. At the other end of the scale, they could have replaced the Prime Minister and ended this with him having taken full responsibility and gone off into the embers and ether; that would be the end of it, he would go down with this incident and then we could fully move on. But that is going to be a matter for Conservative Members, and I have seen no indication that they are prepared to do that just now. We have instead chosen, as inevitably we will this evening, as it now looks as though this motion will be passed overwhelmingly, to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee. Although I personally find that a bit meh, it will do as a reasonable start in order that we deal with some of the issues around all of this.

I do not think the House will ever fully move on from this matter until we fully appreciate the sheer significance of what has happened and its profound impact on our constituents. Our constituents are genuinely upset and sincerely believe that the Prime Minister has lied—in fact, YouGov has just published an opinion poll that shows that 78% of the public think he has. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) was absolutely right in his speech to reach for the L-word. After 20 years of sitting on the green Benches in this House, I still find it shocking to hear the L-word in this place, but no other word is appropriate. No other word could be used in the context of what the Prime Minister has said and done. Our constituents would be bewildered if we were not using the word that they now most commonly associate with his behaviour. We will never move on before the Government accept that.

I made my maiden speech on the same day as the Prime Minister back in 2001—in fact, I spoke after him. I remember his speech quite clearly: he compared himself to little Simba putting his paw into the huge footprint left by Michael Heseltine’s Mufasa. I should perhaps leave that reference there, because after the Pinocchio incident I do not want to mention the title of the feature film that features Simba.

Conservative Members know what the Prime Minister is like: they have known him for 20 years—for as long as I have. I found him a curious, dishevelling, odd type of character, but they must have known him better than me and they went and elected him as their Prime Minister. They knew what they were doing. This is no ordinary Prime Minister; this is somebody who profoundly believes that the law is for someone else and not for him. No other Prime Minister in history would have thought for a minute that they could possibly survive having been given a fine for breaking a law that they themselves set.

The main question is: did the Prime Minister mislead the House? I think the answer to that, on both sides of the House, is yes, he did mislead the House. The next question, therefore, is whether it was inadvertent: did he mean to mislead the House? Let us look at the evidence for that. First, he said there was no rule breaking. Then he claimed he was not aware of any parties. Then he said he was outraged by the parties he was not aware of. Then he said he was aware of “events” but believed they were not against the rules. Then he admitted he was at these events but did not know what they were. He was then fined for attending these events that he variously did not know anything about, was outraged over and did not realise were illegal. Then he apologised, a lot—again and again—but the time for that apology has passed.

I am not going to be reticent about the elections. The police have just put out a statement saying that no more fines will be issued and there will be no more comment until after the council elections, so they are now definitely in the mix. The elections are a feature of all this because of that police statement. I say to my Conservative colleagues: “You are going to get absolutely hammered in May.” The public are outraged. My local authority in Perthshire is Conservative, and we have one message on our leaflet: “As you obeyed the rules, the Tories partied. Kick them out.” I suspect that will go on most leaflets in subsequent elections until the Prime Minister is replaced or removed—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that he needs to stick to what is in the motion.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would never dare move away from the motion before the House, and I find even the suggestion that I would quite shocking!

Let me conclude. This is a pivotal moment. Conservative Members can decide to resolve this issue and move on, for their own good as well as for themselves. Surely they are not going to go down with somebody who is now so full of the contempt of everybody across this nation. This motion will not be the end of it, but it could be the beginning of the end. I believe that this will truly end only when the Prime Minister goes, but that is all up to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

I had intended, as I am sure had many other hon. Members, to be in the Chamber this afternoon for the scheduled debate on childhood cancer, particularly because of a very moving story of some constituents of mine and the long, hard road they have been on with a child with very serious cancer.

I emailed the family last night to tell them that that debate would not now take place and this one would instead. I do not know them personally; I did not know their politics or whether they would be annoyed that such an important attempt to discuss cancer research and care was to be disrupted by this attempt at accountability.

Bella’s dad replied to me saying that he hoped the PM,

“can take some ownership for his actions. For context, in the same period the parties took place we were held to a strict one-parent bedside rule, and were only allowed to swap every 5 nights.”

That meant that for six weeks that family, as they managed a child with very serious cancer and a baby at home, saw each other for only five minutes every five days as they swapped over at the bedside. That reminded me of all the things that people across our countries and regions were going through.

There have been many very powerful and effective speeches from Members from across the House. I particularly welcome those from the Conservative Benches that show that this is not a partisan issue. I do not want to repeat all the points about the timeline, leadership, the distorting and degrading effect of dodging accountability, and this Prime Minister’s unfitness to lead at any time, but particularly in these turbulent times. However, I want to put on record the views of the many people from across South Belfast, and indeed Northern Ireland, who have expressed to me their revulsion at and rejection of the mendaciousness and lack of integrity displayed over the past couple of years by the Prime Minister, and by the praetorian guard of MPs and Ministers who debase themselves and their constituents every time they repeat the wild excuses put before them.

As hon. Members have pointed out, politics does not work without trust, integrity and confidence in good faith, and we have heard outlined the corrosive effect of this saga on politics. There is also the impact that the Prime Minister has had on relationships in Northern Ireland and Anglo-Irish relations, as we scramble to manage the carnival of reaction that has followed the Prime Minister’s decisions and pronouncements on Northern Ireland, and the gap between those decisions and those pronouncements. By promising one thing and doing another day after day, and by threatening every few days to pull the pin on article 16, he has regressed the region I represent by many, many years, and he has been untruthful to us and about us. Whatever people’s views on the politics and the constitutional issues of the past five years—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are talking about the Prime Minister’s conduct with regard to the motion before us, rather than going into much wider issues.

[Claire Hanna]

I am trying to give a sketch of the impact of the Prime Minister’s character on the politics of the region I represent.

As Members know, this is not just about the parties, although one of the few things I have in common with Boris Johnson is that we share a birthday, so I know exactly where I was—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady needs to refer to the Prime Minister or the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, not Boris Johnson. We do not refer to each other by name—apart from me; I am allowed to do that.

[Claire Hanna]

I know where I was on 19 June, and it was not at the 40th birthday party I had intended to have with family and friends. Like other people, I was following the rules, as I think most people in this House did.

This is an inflection point. Hon. Members have an opportunity to put down a marker about the long-term and increasingly irreparable damage that is happening to the public conversation, trust in democracy, and relationships within these islands. I hope that we will all be able to put down that marker today.

Appointment of Lord Lebedev

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I have the feeling it will be a very long time before the Labour party is in a position to do that from the Government Benches.

The broader point is that the privacy rights of individuals need to be protected. The information shared to facilitate the vetting process is and must be handled carefully. It would be unwelcome for this House to set a precedent that such information is released, because, as I have said, to do so could deter individuals from putting themselves forward for such positions. I urge the House to reflect on whether the motion before us accords with the principle of restraint that Parliament has characteristically applied to the use of its powers. The passing of the motion would risk compromising the ability of an independent body to perform its role and, constitutionally, would impede the role of the Prime Minister in advising the sovereign on appointments. The process is necessarily confidential and the Government think it is unwise for the House to call for such information.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Brendan O’Hara.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Obviously this debate is very well subscribed. I would prefer not to put a time limit on, and if colleagues could speak for around six minutes, we might get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is talking about party political donations. When Unite, for example, donates £1 million to the Labour party and Labour Members of Parliament, or when many other trade unions make donations, what influence does that buy those trade unions? Do they write the manifesto, for example?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Sorry, I think there is a bit of confusion: I thought the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) was taking an intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

I absolutely do. We need to shine the light of accountability on what has been going on. That is what the motion calls for. It calls for the evidence to be published—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. It is important that references are not made to Members of the House of Lords who are outside the scope of this motion; I say that just so that Mr Cunningham is clear.

[Clive Efford]

I am grateful for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was concerned; I was worried. I will finish off, before you criticise me for going on too long.

The motion calls for the evidence to be published—simple as that. That is why there has been a collapse in the number of Tory Back Benchers in the Chamber, and why the Government are not voting against the motion—because their Back Benchers will not vote against it; it is a perfectly reasonable motion, calling for accountability from a Prime Minister who has behaved disgracefully and could have compromised the security of this country. That is what the motion is about. It is a disgrace that the Conservatives are not voting for it and not holding the Prime Minister to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the dangers, apparently, of this Conservative Government, but I am terrified by the fact that, at the last general election, the then Leader of the Opposition was someone who had been friends with the IRA not long after the Brighton bombing and laid wreaths for Black September. Those are the scandalous things that are dangers—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has to be very careful if he has not notified somebody when he intends to make allegations about them, and he should know that.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that the Labour party has changed, but certainly people in the country have, and I would say to him that I hope the Whip on the Treasury Bench is paying due attention, because he did read out some of the points on page 4 of the Conservative party brief.

The Government claim that Lord Lebedev was nominated in recognition of his contribution to the UK and his charitable ventures. If that is the case, let us see the formal information concerning the appointment of Lord Lebedev. If there is nothing untoward, there is no reason not to publish the advice.

The urgency of this request cannot be overstated. As we debate here in this Chamber, Vladimir Putin is wreaking destruction on the people of Ukraine. His forces are murdering people in their thousands, and displacing millions more. We speak with one voice in this House of Commons and this British Parliament when it comes to the disgraceful actions of Putin in Ukraine.

For over a decade, however, Putin’s money has been allowed to flood into our democracy. Nearly £2 million of Kremlin cash has found its way either to the Tory party or into constituency association coffers since this Prime Minister took office. That should be a profound mark of shame for Conservative Members. In that context, Labour Members are requesting this vital information. We, and the people we represent, need to know whether the Prime Minister puts the national security of this country ahead of personal relationships. This is about a basic prerequisite for the job.

I have no doubt that most Conservative colleagues will abstain from voting, and therefore this humble address will pass. I hope, and sincerely expect, that the Government will follow the letter of the humble address, and release the information forthwith. However, I urge colleagues to think carefully about the message that their actions send out of this place, and I urge them to do more than abstain and to vote with Labour Members. Let us send a strong message that Putin’s cronies will not be tolerated in British democracy, and that we in this House uphold the highest standards of integrity and transparency. Release the Security Service’s advice to the Prime Minister, so that we all know what he was told and the actions that followed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

The real insult the hon. Gentleman should be thinking about is the insult to the dead people killed on the streets of Britain when the leader he supported asked the Kremlin to check whether it was their poison that had killed them or not. Does he not reflect on the fact that Britain was the first country in the world to provide military training and defensive weapons in support of the Ukrainian people, or that it was his party, under Ed Miliband, that did everything possible to stop our support for the Syrian opposition at that time? [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. First of all, the hon. Gentleman knows that he should not refer to another Member by name; he needs to refer to their constituency. Secondly, it is important that we stick to the motion in front of us. There is a bit of a tendency to wander off into different subjects that are perhaps leading us slightly astray from the matter in hand, which is the process we are discussing with regard to peerages and so on. It was said at the beginning that we should try to keep our language moderate and calm. I think we need to return to that and I am sure Mr Tarry will now do so.

[Sam Tarry]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was merely thinking about the wanderings of the defence procurement Minister, which ended up at Russian arms fairs.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, the irony is that if people had listened to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who for years and years has been calling for sanctions and actions against Russia, then perhaps those guys on the Government Benches would not have been—[Interruption.] I was just trying to answer the question. If only they had listened to the advice of Labour Members who were saying how dangerous it was that relationships with the Russians and our Government were far too cosy.

The Prime Minister’s continual failure to act makes a mockery of our democracy, and highlights the cesspool of cronyism and corruption at the heart of this Government. I am saying that this is a moment to reflect. The unwillingness to share that information and to shine a light of truth—a light of truth—into what many people across the country are wondering, led me to reflect on something I once read. Professor Richard Sakwa said in his seminal book “Russian Politics and Society”:

“Under late communism, nepotism and patron client relations undermined the political criteria of elite recruitment in the nomenklatura system. The political elite began to degenerate into a social class, perhaps one of the most economically useless in history…the Party fostered a class that grew at its expense and began to transform itself into a traditional oligarchy.”

That is a description of the collapsing Soviet Union, yet it could be used to describe the regime of the Conservative party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The United Kingdom has long been a defender of freedom, democracy and human rights, and our country has proudly stood firm against crime and corruption at every opportunity. It is, therefore, frankly astonishing that, at a time when Vladimir Putin is committing war crimes in Europe, a UK Government Minister has been dragged to the Dispatch Box to defend his own Prime Minister’s murky and deep links to Russian oligarchs.

It tells us all we need to know about this Government that, in his previous role as Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister chose to party with the family of an ex-KGB agent, just weeks after the attempted assassination of British citizens by Russian state agents on our own soil.

It is utterly outrageous that the Prime Minister would nominate to the House of Lords someone who has promoted some of the very worst conspiracy theories in defence of the Putin regime. We are used to the Prime Minister putting his own interests before the interests of the British people, but on this occasion he has gone further by putting his personal friendship with the son and business partner of an ex-KGB agent before the safety and security of the British people. He has put his friendship with Lebedev ahead of his primary duty to the British public: to keep our country and our people safe and secure.

That is why Labour is today calling for the Government to publish the full security guidance on Mr Lebedev’s peerage, by which we mean the version before it might have been mysteriously airbrushed or sanitised, so that the British public can really understand the severity of the Prime Minister’s miscalculations and misjudgments. This is in the national interest, and it must happen immediately.

We also know that the Prime Minister flew to Italy to attend a party hosted by the Lebedevs just two days after attending a high-level NATO summit focusing on Russia in the wake of the Salisbury poisonings, without any officials present and without his security detail. We know that he met the former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev at that party. We need to know what was discussed at that party and why the Prime Minister thought it was a priority to go to that party to meet influential members of the Russian elite at that time.

This blasé attitude to national security is not just a one-off; it is part of a pattern of behaviour that dates back several years. There are countless examples of the Government playing fast and loose with our national security. Just look at the Conservative party’s ongoing reliance on donations from individuals with close links to the Kremlin. The most concerning is the £2 million of donations from Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of Putin’s former deputy Finance Minister. She moved in Conservative inner circles, even playing tennis with the Prime Minister. We may never quite know just how much influence that money bought for Putin’s allies.

In connection to this, I am deeply concerned by the Conservative party’s use of lawfare to bat away the questions I have asked about potential national security threats that predate the issues we are discussing today. In February 2019, I wrote to the then chair of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), asking him to investigate donations by Ehud “Udi” Sheleg, who had been reported in the media as having strong connections to Russia and as probably not being able to afford the £1.8 million of donations that may or may not be connected to his being appointed treasurer of the Conservative party—I would not wish to speculate.

The reply I received from the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that Mr Sheleg should not need to reveal the source of his wealth. It also threatened me with libel action, with the right hon. Gentleman, who is now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, using the same tactics that Russian oligarchs have been using to silence criticism and block investigations.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I need to make sure that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the matter in hand, which is Lord Lebedev and the appointment process.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What I am trying to do is set out clearly the worrying pattern of behaviour, but I take your feedback and I will move on.

That brings us to the issue of the Russia report, the delay in publishing it and the failure to implement the vast majority of its recommendations until after Vladimir Putin clearly felt he could invade Ukraine with impunity. This is part of the challenge we face in standing up to the bullying and intimidation from authoritarian rulers around the world. The delays in implementing that report’s recommendations are deeply troubling. Why was this action delayed? We have repeatedly asked that in this House. Perhaps it was because on this Government’s watch we have seen the City of London become a laundromat for the dirty money of kleptocrats and because the Conservative party has been all too reliant on those highly questionable donations we are discussing today. We have also seen serious issues associated with the underfunding of our armed forces, which has left us with Putin being able to go on the march from Georgia to Crimea and authoritarian regimes having grown in confidence over the past decade because of the weakness of western leaders, because of the conflict of interests that undermines their authority. We are exposing that conflict of interests in this debate. It is time for us to shore up our national defences. That needs to be done through legislation such as the Bill that became the National Security and Investment Act 2021. Disappointingly, we have not seen a clear enough position on that, with the Government watering down definitions of critical national infrastructure in that Bill, which makes it harder for the Secretary of State to call in investments suspected of being a danger to our national security. Our legislation on foreign takeovers and investment is far weaker than the equivalent legislation of our allies in all the other Five Eyes countries.

Let me end my saying this: national security is the first duty of any Government, but Conservative Ministers have been putting roubles before resilience, and investment before integrity. We need to see what was in this security advice and we need to know on which date the Prime Minister received the security services’ concerns with regard to Lord Lebedev’s appointment. We also need to know why that was watered down. Appointments to the House of Lords should be on the basis of loyal public service to our country, not friendship with the Prime Minister. Yet the Prime Minister continues to dismiss vital advice time and again, even when Britain's national security is at stake, to serve his own personal interests. I therefore encourage Conservative Members to join us today in standing up for Britain’s national security.

Legal Aid

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is nodding, and I am pleased that he does support that, even if some of his colleagues do not. We will then introduce a statutory instrument so that the proposals enter into force in October.

The hon. Gentleman talked about cuts to legal aid. I remind him that a previous Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, had plans to cut almost £200 million a year from the legal aid budget in 2009, as was made clear by the noble lord Lord Carter, who said,

“we had to break the hold of the criminal practitioners and force them to restructure so we could get more control over the costs of provision”.

In relation to our criminal legal aid proposals, we are ensuring that we have a sustainable system that supports practitioners but, above all, supports victims, witnesses and the society that we want to build after the pandemic.

I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that there will be 2 million more people with access to civil legal aid, which he mentioned, and 3.5 million more people with access to criminal legal aid in the magistrates courts. I thank him for his pretty fulsome support for the criminal legal aid proposals. I urge him to reflect on and recall the Labour party’s proposition before the 2010 election. I hope that he will be clear that it is totally unwarranted for the CBA to now proceed with strike action.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Robert Neill.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

This is a very welcome announcement and I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking on board Sir Christopher Bellamy’s recommendations. I join him in thanking Sir Christopher for his report and all those in the legal profession who have kept the system going under real difficulty. In appreciating the real difficulty that the profession has been undergoing in these times, does he agree that it is important, in order to get this right, to have the earliest possible increase and to take on board the words of the chair of the Bar Council, who says:

“We will work with the Ministry of Justice to make sure the funds are delivered swiftly, effectively, and fairly.”?

Can we meet the Bar Council and the profession in that spirit of co-operation and get this implemented at the earliest lawful opportunity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be the shop steward for what I think is totally unwarranted industrial action, which was balloted for before we had announced our proposals. I hope the Criminal Bar Association will take the more constructive tone we have heard from the other practitioner groups, because if he commended my right hon. and learned Friend my predecessor for appointing Sir Christopher, he surely must welcome the Government’s acceptance of the proposals he has made virtually in full.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.

Ukraine

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is completely right in what he says about the need for us to guarantee the independence of our energy—that is why it is so vital that we are building our wind power and other renewables so fast—but he is also right in his analysis of what is happening. What Putin basically wants is to go back to the Yalta system of spheres of influence. It is not just Ukraine that he has his eye on. Therefore, this moment now matters for the whole geometry and security architecture of Europe, and we must stand firm.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Short, concise questions please, because I will be finishing this statement at 20 past 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we will do what we can to provide economic support in the event of a disaster, but the most important thing we can do now is to try to prevent that disaster from occurring by unifying the west in the way I have been describing this afternoon.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I am sorry not everybody could get in, but we have to move on to the next business.