Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)]

The Government are committed to meeting our obligations in a proportionate way, taking account of the Belfast-Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions—north-south and, of course, east-west. As I stated in previous answers, we have heard the concerns raised by people and businesses in Northern Ireland, and we are sensitive to the economic, societal and political realities of Northern Ireland. While we have made good progress in line with this pragmatic approach, we will be taking forward a series of further temporary operational steps, details of which, as I say, will be in the WMS that I will lay later today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman may well have voted for the deal as well. I will be very clear with him: my focus is on ensuring that we deliver exactly what the protocol said, which is to ensure that it does not disrupt the everyday lives of people in their communities in Northern Ireland. We have to make sure that is the case. That is what the protocol set out to achieve. We have also got to make sure that it respects all the peace and prosperity that has been found in Northern Ireland as a result of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, and that means respecting not just north-south relations, but east-west relations as well.

[Bill Esterson [V]]

Trade groups say that the trader support service is simply not good enough for the 12,000 traders who need its help. Businesses report that the scheme is providing confusing and conflicting advice. Why on earth is the Northern Ireland Secretary saying that disruption was not envisaged? The problems with the trader support service were known about well before the end of transition, including by the then Department for Exiting the European Union, which warned of problems with additional documentation as long ago as October 2019.

[Brandon Lewis]

At the end of the hon. Gentleman’s question, he was talking about a period of time before the transition period ended and before the trader support service was outlined and in place. What I would say is that the trader support service now has more than 34,000 registered users. On average, calls to the service are handled in six seconds and 98% of declarations are processed within 15 minutes. That sounds like a pretty good record of success to me.

If the hon. Gentleman has some examples that are different from that, I will very happily engage with him directly if he wants to let me know, but that is a track record of success that the people involved in the trader support service should be proud of. More businesses can engage with that service and benefit from it, for the benefit of those businesses and the people of Northern Ireland.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

This matters, not because I believe that the Government should be obliged to follow through on an arbitration procedure beyond the last moment at which the Government would be able to take unilateral action in the face of one of these very severe threats that we are discussing, but because there needs to be absolutely clarity that a breach of international law would be a matter of necessity, not a matter of preference, and that everything possible would be done to keep within international law, within the agreements we have negotiated, before we feel the need, if we ever do, to step outside it. I am afraid that the Government still need to provide me, and I am sure other Members of this House, with greater clarity on that very important point.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I thoroughly enjoyed the very thoughtful and well analysed speech from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). I hope his hon. Friends will listen very carefully to what he says, which is incredibly important.

There are things I did not expect to be doing today. The first is to be quoting the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who spoke of the untold damage to the UK’s reputation of implementing these clauses which will break international law as soon as they hit the statute book. Something else I did not expect to be doing today, or ever, is quoting Margaret Thatcher. In 1975—before your time, Dame Eleanor—she said:

“Britain does not renounce Treaties. Indeed, to do so would damage our own integrity as well as international relations.”

In 1982, Mrs Thatcher said of Britain’s role:

“It is in upholding international law and teaching the nations of the world how to live”.

That last bit did not always go down so well, but, Dame Eleanor, you take the point. Mrs Thatcher believed, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead believes, in the rule of law and in the importance of upholding international law at all cost.

That is without citing Lord Howard, Lord Hague or Lord Lamont, and I mention them along with the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), as former Members of this House, in three cases, who are held in high regard, or used to be held in high regard, by members of Conservative party. Then we move on to the Confederation of British Industry: Carolyn Fairbairn spoke of the damage to our reputation and integrity. The Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland made a plea to the Government for sensible implementation of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, but its pleas have fallen, so far, on deaf ears.

As we heard earlier, the damage was done when the Northern Ireland Secretary told the House, as he did last week or the week before now—time passes so fast—that the Government intended to break international law, albeit in a “specific and limited way”. The Vienna convention is clear: it is not possible to use domestic law as an excuse for breaking international law. Article 5 of the withdrawal agreement makes it clear that it is not possible to do so, and Conservative Members all signed up to it at a general election and in here when they voted for it. They used to say that they revered those elders of their party—many of them would still say they do with Margaret Thatcher, of course—so how did it come to this?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making some incredibly powerful points. He is undoubtedly aware that today the world is celebrating the 75th anniversary of the United Nations. Does he find it curious that the UK Government have signed up to a statement that says:

“We will abide by international law… We will abide by the international agreements we have entered into and the commitments we have made”?

Is there not some stark hypocrisy going on there?

[Bill Esterson]

Hypocrisy, and nobody will believe it. No one will believe it because of their own words and, increasingly, their own actions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example.

What is this for—customs clearances, and because of a border in the Irish sea that the Government voted for? Have they raised it with the Joint Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) asked for the umpteenth time earlier? We would love to know in the wind-up. What of the dispute resolution system and the binding arbitration they have agreed to? Why is it no longer enough? Is this really about state aid, and the Damascene conversion of a Conservative party that last year only spent 0.38% of GDP on subsidies, while in Germany the figure was 1.38% and in Portugal as much as 1.69%? Tell us what this wonderful new world of support for our industries that the Government are proposing is, so we can scrutinise it.

The Government are not very good at scrutiny, are they? We found that out on the Trade Bill, and we continue to do so. They deny any opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, and it is the same here with these customs clearances and state aid. When it comes to state aid, we are now being told, although we cannot see the detail, that the Japanese deal will have a different state aid regime from the one they are proposing. Is it the one proposed by the Business Secretary or the one that the International Trade Secretary would prefer, with renegotiation of World Trade Organisation state aid rules? Tell us, so that we can scrutinise and make informed decisions before we vote on the provisions in this Bill.

I mention trade deals, and we know from numerous Members tonight and previously what the Speaker of the House of Representatives has said and what the former Vice-President and, I hope, future President, has said about the prospect for those trade deals, given this break of the Northern Ireland agreement and threat to the peace process. What is causing so much disquiet about what Conservative Members signed and voted for last year? Why are they ignoring the senior people in their party and Margaret Thatcher? Why the Damascene conversion to state aid? Broken promises, breaking the peace process and breaking the rule of law and international law—and they know it.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill, specifically part 5, subject to Government amendment 66. Part 5 proved controversial, even before we began proceedings this afternoon. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister arrived in the Chamber fully expecting that he would have to defend the Government against accusations of being in breach of their obligations under the withdrawal agreement, and he has not been disappointed.

What has been frequently overlooked in today’s debate is the fact that obligations under the withdrawal agreement move in two directions. There are obligations on both sides. Specifically, the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration impose obligations on both the European Union and the United Kingdom to use their best endeavours in good faith to negotiate expeditiously the free trade agreement that will constitute their future relationship.

The political declaration provides that that relationship must ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market. The sad fact is that negotiations have not proceeded expeditiously, and it is more than arguable that the European Union has not used its best endeavours nor acted in good faith. The EU, in fact, has refused to talk about anything other than its so-called red lines of fisheries, the level playing field and state aid. Time is rapidly passing, yet the EU refuses to talk about anything else. If, as a consequence of its intransigence and refusal to discuss things other than its red lines, we arrive at the point where the negotiations fail and there is no free trade agreement, there will be potentially severe, adverse consequences for the integrity of the United Kingdom’s internal market. Hardest hit will be Northern Ireland. To take one example, although the protocol says in terms that Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom, the protocol says that it is part of the EU’s customs territory, and potentially the consequences are that goods passing from Northern Ireland to Great Britain will be subject to what the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) described as bureaucratic and administrative borders.

That is despite the fact that article 6 of the protocol provides that nothing should prevent the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the UK’s internal market. Part 5 of the Bill therefore sets up a safeguard against such consequences, should there be no satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations on the future relationship.

The impact on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is deeply worrying. The right for the people of Great Britain and Ireland to trade freely was enshrined in article 6 of the Acts of Union 1800. Those provisions still apply to Northern Ireland—they are rights set up under a constitutional statute. If the right of the people of Northern Ireland to trade freely with the rest of the UK were to be changed without their consent, it would amount to a major breach of the core principle of the Belfast agreement.

Northern Ireland: Security Situation

Bill Esterson Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Monday 21st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

A number of the hon. Gentleman’s questions are of an operational nature and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on operational details, suffice it to say that the Government stand four-square behind the PSNI in the work it does.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The 300 extra officers announced have been welcomed, including by constituents of mine from Northern Ireland, but they are for Brexit planning. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said, the number of officers is still below the number recommended for the PSNI. In the Secretary of State’s conversations with the police and security services, how many more police officers do they say they want to deal with the ongoing security threat?

[Karen Bradley]

The PSNI and the security services do a fantastic job every single day in thwarting plots to disrupt life and to cause injury and harm to innocent civilians in the way we saw on Saturday night. As was said earlier, the terrorists need to get lucky only once; we must work relentlessly. The Government consider business cases for additional resources, as they do all such business cases, to determine what is appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad that we have the single transferable question, if not the single transferable vote! It is very good to hear from my right hon. Friend. The reason why the numbers do not tally is that a person can get a national insurance number for a very short-term visit, and people who are already here but without a national insurance number can apply for one, so the numbers are quite complex. HMRC has given greater information, and I will ensure that that continues to be the case.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Q5. The proposed changes to Sunday trading are causing great concern to many retailers, shop workers, their families, faith groups and all who want to keep Sunday special, yet before the election the Prime Minister said that he had no plans to change Sunday trading laws. When did he change his mind, or was it always his plan to scrap this great British compromise as soon as the election was safely out of the way?

[The Prime Minister]

I thought it was right to bring forward these proposals because they are genuinely new proposals—new in that we are devolving to local authorities the ability to make that decision. Secondly, and crucially—I am sure that Opposition Members will be interested in this—we will be introducing new protections not only for new workers on Sundays, but for all workers on Sundays. The House should look carefully at this idea not least because our constituents are able to shop online all day, every day, including on Sunday. All the evidence shows that these proposals will be welcomed by customers and will create more jobs. We have nothing to be scared of in moving into this new arrangement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I cannot fail to point out that the right hon. Gentleman did not meet Mrs Finucane when he was the Secretary of State. I wrote to her in June, and I had a meeting in November, which was the time that the family chose, and we had a very sensible discussion. He knows that this is not an easy issue to resolve, and I laid out very clearly in the written ministerial statement that a number of issues have to be considered. We are quite open-minded about this, and we are determined to try to find a resolution that is satisfactory to all sides.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of the likely effect of proposed changes to public expenditure in Northern Ireland on policing the threat to security from dissident groups.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

3. what discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the likely effect of proposed changes to public expenditure in Northern Ireland on policing the threat to security from dissident groups.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I meet the Justice Minister regularly to discuss the policing of the terrorist threat and related expenditure. I welcome the publication this morning of the Northern Ireland Executive’s draft budget, with its significant allocation to the Department of Justice. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government will ensure that adequate resources are available to meet the threat.

[Bill Esterson]

Does the Secretary of State understand the very real public concern, not just in Northern Ireland but elsewhere in the United Kingdom, about any cuts in front-line policing in Northern Ireland and the impact that they would have on security and public safety?

[Mr Paterson]

I am fully aware of the concern that the small number of terrorists presents. That is why the Government have made a fair settlement on the Executive, and I am very pleased today that they have agreed a draft budget with a substantial allocation to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. We have made it absolutely clear that, should the security position deteriorate, we will be open to further discussions with the Executive, as was agreed by the previous Government.