Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Jim Allister Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

New clause 1 is purely for probing purposes. It was tabled to get the Minister’s attention, and his time yesterday allowed me to do that. I know it will not go much further than this, but I am grateful to the Government for their discussions with me. I know the Minister has great consideration for the importance of place in the industrial strategy, and I know from our conversations that he understands why we are pushing the ceramics line hard in Stoke-on-Trent. All I will say is that as future Bills progress, we will aim to bring is provisions back in other formats and ways, because while this Bill may not be the most appropriate place for it, there will be other opportunities for it. I hope that when that time comes, the Government may feel able to support us.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I agree and endorse what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said. He makes logical and coherent points, and the Bill could be used as a vehicle for his suggestion. I therefore support his new clause 1 and new clause 4, which is of a similar ilk.

However, aspects of the Bill are democratically dangerous, because it gifts to Government unbridled capacity to make regulations, with virtually no oversight from this elected House, on matters which touch on not just the sanctity of our product production, but the sovereignty of this nation. This Bill, with little attempt at subtlety, enables a Government, if so minded—this one, I fear, might be—to sabotage Brexit in many ways. I stand to be corrected, but I do not think a single member of this Government voted for Brexit, which was the settled and declared will of the people greatest number of people who ever participated in a democratic vote in this nation. Yet in the Bill, we have the capacity, particularly through clause 2(7), to dynamically align all our regulations with those of the EU, without having recourse to this House, at the whim of the Executive. Whatever the subject matter, that surely is a most unhealthy situation.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The hon. and learned Member is making an important point, which is why I will support the Opposition amendments in this vein today. Does he agree that the reports from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords are important in bringing to light just how skeletal the Bill is, and is that not a reason why we should pay attention? We should not always leave it to the House of Lords to do our work for us. We should have those debates about the future on the Floor of this House, rather than having things done by ministerial diktat.

[Jim Allister]

I agree, absolutely. The House of Lords has done some very informative and useful work on the Bill. I only hope that it is not wasted on this Government, but that is my fear.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Has the hon. and learned Member had time to look at amendment 13, under which, if there was any backsliding by the Government, the matter would be brought back to this House for determination? I suspect that he, like me, would not accuse Ministers of being capable of abusing Henry VIII powers at the moment, but those in some future Government might. That is why we need amendment 13, particularly to ensure that retained EU legislation, a third of which the previous Government binned, canned, and got rid of, does not start creeping back over months and years, taking us back to where we began prior to 2016, and effectively taking the public for fools.

[Jim Allister]

I agree, absolutely. No Member of this House should glibly pass over clause 2(7), because it expressly and emphatically sets out that regulations, which can be made without recourse to this House, can provide that

“a product requirement is to be treated as met”

if it meets the relevant EU regulation. That is indisputably a bold platform for dynamically realigning this United Kingdom, in all its regulations, with the EU, so that we become rule takers. That is what I fundamentally object to in the Bill.

This House’s lack of scrutiny powers on these matters is made worse by the fact that we no longer have the European Scrutiny Committee. If we had that Committee, we would at least have that opportunity for scrutiny. That is why I welcome new clause 15, which would require the authorities of this House to explore and hopefully ultimately establish a Committee to scrutinise the regulations being made. Surely the minimum expectation of anyone democratically elected to this House is that we should have the capacity for oversight, challenge and scrutiny of laws being made in the name of those we represent, although made exclusively by the Executive, without the consent or processes of this House. That seems so fundamental to me that it would be a very sad commentary indeed on the intent behind the Bill if new clause 15 was not acceptable to the Government. If it is not, they are saying that they want unbridled, unchallenged, unchallengeable power to make whatever regulations they like, despite and in the face of this House.

[Mr Holden]

The Government have said throughout the passage of this legislation that it is not about the European Union, yet as the hon. and learned Member makes clear, it is only the European Union that we can align with through regulations made under it. Does that not fundamentally undermine the Government’s entire argument, and show why these amendments are so vital to protect this House?

[Jim Allister]

Absolutely. The Government tell us, “When we make trade deals, we may be able to ensure the requisite alignment,” but this Bill provides for alignment only with the EU, which rather lets the cat out of the bag. The Bill is not about facilitating international trade, so that we could, in the relevant circumstances, align with the United States, Japan or whoever we are making deals with, because it is exclusively and singularly focused on alignment with the EU. I suspect that is because the purpose of the Bill is to advance, at the speed of the Government’s choosing, and without the restraint of this House, down the road of dynamic alignment. To me, new clause 15 is very important.

Amendment 16 is key, because it will pull the teeth of clause 2(7) and protect us from the intended course of action. I strongly support amendment 16, because it would rein in powers that need to be reined in, and would remove the threat—indeed, the allegation—that the Bill is about realignment with the EU. A couple of weeks ago, we had the so-called reset with the EU, but the reset is as nothing compared with this Bill. This Bill is the legislative vehicle whereby Brexit can be sabotaged. That is why it is important to address the core issue in clause 2(7).

If the Bill were not about securing dynamic alignment with the EU, there would be Government support for amendment 25, which would make a reference to “foreign” law and not “EU” law. That amendment would put to bed the concerns of those of us who believe that the Bill is a subterfuge to secure realignment with the EU. However, I fear that the Government will not support that amendment.

The legislation is a Trojan Bill. It has a very clear direction of travel, which is to be secured by ignoring the question of what powers of scrutiny this House should have, and by affording to the Executive alone the right to realign dynamically with the EU at a pace and time, and on the content, that they alone approve of. The Bill needs these radical amendments, including the surgery that amendment 16 would do. At the very least, it requires the semblance of oversight that new clause 15 would provide.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It gives me huge pleasure to call our resident metrology expert, Adam Thompson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Thompson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—it was perfect. He is absolutely right, and I will leave the perfection to the mathematicians. To illustrate my point, I hear people in engineering asking for products to be made perfectly—for the angle of the corner of the table to be exactly 90° or the surface of the microscope to be infinitely smooth. To study metrology is to understand the concepts of imperfection and uncertainty and apply those to everything. If one zooms in close enough, the angle is never exactly right, and the surface is never perfectly smooth.

On Second Reading, I made reference to the optical mirrors used in the James Webb space telescope. They are incredibly smooth, yes, but to examine them at the atomic scale, one would find deviations from the nominal plane that mirror those in the Grand Canyon. Being an engineer involves accepting these deviations within the context of the work we undertake towards our goal of constant improvement—be that in the creation of, say, aerospace engines or, indeed, national legislation.

My expertise within surface metrology was in the development of X-ray computed tomography for measuring surfaces. Alongside my good friend Dr Andy Townsend at the University of Huddersfield, who made similar discoveries at the same point in history—a phenomenon that is common across science—I was among the first to be able to use X-rays to measure the interior surface of parts that were otherwise hidden to both the eye and the machine. X-ray computed tomography had never previously been good enough to measure surfaces, with the imaging resolutions achievable lagging significantly behind those required to separate measurements from noise. Previously, such measurements were not really needed, as to manufacture a surface, one generally had to access that surface with a machine tool, so one could similarly access it with a measurement tool.

However, with the birth of industrial additive manufacturing—often called 3D printing—we could suddenly make things with hidden internal geometries that did not need tool access and could not be measured. Without measurement, though, we cannot verify that the parts we make will function as we require them to. As such, new technology was required to allow us to create additively manufactured parts, be they novel, much lighter aeroplane parts or new joint replacements finely customised to suit the individual. Alongside our colleagues, Andy and I solved this problem by demonstrating that X-ray computed tomography had become good enough to measure those surfaces.

This Bill mirrors that “good enough” paradigm. Current legislation places us at risk of falling out of alignment with the rest of the world, which in turn risks our ability as the British to maintain our position at the forefront of international science. In its current, unamended form, the Bill grants the Secretary of State the necessary authority to keep pace with the guidance of relevant experts. The amendments proposed by the Opposition would only hinder our ability to stay aligned with the continuous advancement of progress.

[Jim Allister]

In lauding the Henry VIII powers in this Bill, as an elected Member of this House, is the hon. Gentleman at ease with the fact that the Bill could see criminal offences created without any scrutiny or input from this House? Is he at ease with the fact that the liberty of our constituents—which I think we would be interested in protecting—could be jeopardised by criminal offences created by the Executive alone?

[Adam Thompson]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for his intervention, but I disagree with his assessment. This Bill is about providing the Secretary of State with the powers necessary to ensure that we remain at the forefront of science. Opposition Members have incorrectly claimed that the Bill hands over authority to foreign powers, or overly centralises it in the hands of the Secretary of State. This is not a matter of ceding control to external entities; rather, it is about maintaining the United Kingdom’s position at the forefront of scientific and regulatory innovation. It is about ensuring that the British scientists who follow in the footsteps of Newton, Franklin and Hawking can continue to lead the world in their fields.

These Opposition amendments appear to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding—or perhaps a complete lack of understanding—of what metrology and standards frameworks entail and why they are vital. I urge all Members to vote against them and support this Bill through its Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May I say what an interesting debate this has been? I have a huge amount of sympathy for the case that has been put for new clause 1, which was made in a very coherent way. I also have great sympathy for the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and her proposed new clause 15. I will explain how our amendments would address some of the issues she has spoken about. The Liberal Democrat amendments, and new clause 4 in particular, make a great deal of sense. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled a range of amendments that cover points made in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s amendments, which I will come to.

We should ask ourselves why this relatively small and technical Bill has attracted nearly 50 amendments on Report. It is because, as was said, it is a Trojan horse Bill. We tabled our amendments because the Bill does a lot more behind the scenes than appears on the surface. When, in 2016, the voters of Britain—on an 80% turnout—voted to leave the European Union, it created an opportunity for the country to tailor our regulatory regime to best fit British industry, and to set a global standard, so that it is easier to do business. The UK’s product regulation and metrology, as we heard from our resident metrologist, the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), once set the standard for the world, and indeed has the chance to do so again. When in government, the Conservatives started the work of capitalising on that opportunity. We see the Bill as a terrible step back and a Trojan horse, because it will tie us to EU red tape on which we have no say.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) spoke about his hopes for businesses in Harlow. Through this Trojan horse Bill, Labour will restrict Britain’s innovators with over-burdensome regulations, meaning that British industry will fall behind international competitors. As we heard the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), say when speaking to her amendments, it is a prime example of a skeleton Bill. There are two major areas of concern for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition: the use of sweeping Henry VIII powers; and the ability to dynamically align by the back door with the European Union. I will speak to the amendments we have tabled to address those concerns.

When the Bill started its passage, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place found that the powers in the Bill, particularly in clause 1, were excessive, and it recommended that they be removed. Many of our amendments address those elements of clause 1. In the other place, the Government watered down the Bill following those criticisms, but afterwards the Bill was still described as a skeleton Bill that shifted powers “to an unacceptable extent”. As recently as 21 February, the Committee in the other place said that the amendments made in the other place were

“limited changes that do not address the fundamental concern we have about the skeletal nature of this Bill…The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill. It remains the case that the Bill provides for almost all of the substance of the regulatory regimes for product safety and metrology to be provided for by Ministers in regulations.”

While we acknowledge that the current Secretary of State may act responsibly, we do not want to put things on the statute book that future Ministers might treat differently.

We all agree that strong, consistent product safety rules are needed, and we acknowledge the risks from online marketplaces and unsafe imports, but we do not think that the Bill is the right way to deal with that. We also think that Parliament must retain proper oversight, so amendments 9, 11 and 12 seek to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State in clause 1.

Clause 3 is of equal concern, because it grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to create new criminal offences, creating new complexities in our criminal justice system. It also allow Ministers to create civil sanctions for non-compliance with product and metrology regulations through secondary legislation, reducing parliamentary scrutiny of an issue that is incredibly important for our constituents’ freedoms. The clause also allows the Government to introduce new penalties, and even prison sentences; new powers of entry; and new fines on businesses, which will drive up the cost of doing business. Our amendments seek to change those elements. We believe that such serious offences should be subject to considerably more parliamentary scrutiny. That is why amendment 24 seeks to ensure that new criminal offences that could have consequences for the Ministry of Justice and the criminal justice system are not created through new product regulations under the Bill.

[Jim Allister]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is quite astounding that among the criminal offences that are anticipated being made by the Minister without parliamentary scrutiny are indictable offences, which could result in people losing their liberty for whatever period is specified in the offence? Is that not a retrograde departure from the standards of oversight that any citizen would expect Members elected to this House to exercise?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I agree. We all know the types of people being let of prison by this Government. It is a total scandal that suddenly a person can be imprisoned for perhaps inadvertently having products in stock that have not followed a dynamic alignment process that has not been very visible to Parliament. That is why I hope that the whole House will support amendment 24 in the Lobby.

Amendments 21, 22 and 23 seek clarification of the functions that may be conferred on a relevant authority, and the powers that may be granted to inspectors. The phrase “relevant authority” is used throughout the Bill, and it is not entirely clear what all such authorities might be.

In clause 13, we once again see Henry VIII powers being used, despite the concerns raised in the other place. Amendment 18 would therefore add to clause 13(6), and require that any regulations made under the legislation that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure all parliamentarians will want to support that amendment.

US-UK Trade Deal: Northern Ireland

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on the US-UK trade deal, with particular reference to the impact on Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I am grateful to be able to give a statement today, following that given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security on Thursday, to update the House on the agreement we have reached with the United States and specifically to address the important circumstances of Northern Ireland.

I can confirm that we have closely considered the impacts of this agreement on Northern Ireland. I have personally spoken to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister twice while negotiating this deal, the first time alongside the Prime Minister. I want all Northern Ireland colleagues to know that the importance of Northern Ireland in this deal, and all trade deals, is paramount to me personally, and I commit absolutely to working with any colleague from Northern Ireland on the implementation of agreements of this sort.

First, as Northern Ireland is part of the UK’s customs territory and internal market, Northern Ireland exporters can access the US market under this deal on the same preferential basis as the rest of the UK. Secondly, this deal does not affect how imports to Northern Ireland operate. US origin goods will be able to benefit from this deal where they are not at risk of entering the EU. As a result of the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland businesses importing eligible US goods under this deal can avoid any unnecessary duties with established schemes such as the UK internal market scheme. Thirdly, there is a comprehensive tariff reimbursement scheme. The difference between the UK and EU duty can be claimed back, so long as it can be demonstrated that the goods did not enter the EU single market. The customs duty waiver scheme also allows at-risk duties to be waived entirely regardless of the destination, subject to an overall limit. As we have said all along, we have continued to act in the best interests of all UK businesses, which very much include those in Northern Ireland.

More broadly, I can confirm that this agreement saves thousands of jobs, gives the UK an advantage over other countries in relation to trade with the US, and confirms a process of potentially securing a much wider trade agreement between our two countries. The UK-US trading relationship, which is already worth £315 billion, is important and growing. We have £1.2 trillion invested in each other’s economies, employing around 2.5 million people across both our countries. That is why this deal was so important. Throughout our negotiations, businesses have consistently praised our calm-headed, pragmatic approach to working with President Trump’s Administration and I thank them for their engagement, their support and their advocacy.

Turning to the detail of the agreement, in no industry was the potential impact of tariffs more acute than in our automotive sector. We have therefore negotiated a quota of 100,000 vehicles where tariffs will be reduced from 27.5% to 10%—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Mr Speaker, I would have been more than happy to make it a statement, and I was hoping to be able to do so.

We have negotiated a quota of 100,000 vehicles where tariffs will be reduced from 27.5% to 10%, and secured an agreement for associated car parts, recognising the vital role that this sector plays in our economy.

For steel and aluminium, this deal will remove the 25% additional tariffs that were put in place earlier this year, reducing US tariffs on core steel products to zero. This will provide a critical lift for the steel industry, which has been brought back from the brink of collapse, allowing UK steelmakers to continue exporting to the US. This follows our intervention last month to take control of British Steel and save thousands of jobs in Scunthorpe.

For pharmaceuticals and life sciences, this deal provides assurances that we will receive significantly preferential access in case of any new US tariffs, something that, so far, only the UK has secured. As the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector contributes £20 billion to the UK economy a year and employs around 50,000 people, this was a priority for us.

On aerospace, we agreed that UK aerospace exports, such as Rolls-Royce engines and plane parts, will have a specific guarantee of zero tariffs as a result of this deal. This will be a huge boost to the sector, which supports 450,000 jobs in the UK.

To secure this deal, we have made agreements with the US on beef, ethanol and economic security. On beef, we have agreed a new quota of 13,000 metric tonnes, and have reduced the UK tariff on existing US imports coming through a World Trade Organisation quota limited to 1,000 metric tonnes. Crucially, I can confirm this will comply with sanitary and phytosanitary standards, in accordance with the commitments that we have always made.

The increase in the quota of 13,000 tonnes compares with the 110,000 tonnes in the Australia deal negotiated by the last Conservative Government. Even more importantly, the deal is reciprocal, meaning our UK beef farmers will have unprecedented market access to the US. Our farmers will be able to export their high-quality beef through an exclusive UK quota to a market of over 300 million people, providing unparalleled access to the world’s largest consumer market.

On ethanol, we already import a significant amount of ethanol from the US and have agreed a duty-free quota capped at 1.4 billion litres. We are working closely with our domestic sector to understand its concerns and any potential impacts to businesses, including what more Government can do to support the sector.

Finally, the UK and US will strengthen our co-operation on economic security and work together to combat duty evasion. We will continue to use investment screening measures already in place, and we will work together to protect our existing supply chains from any third-country investment that concerns either one of us. This Government will take a consistent, long-term and pragmatic approach to managing the UK’s relationships with third countries, rooted in our UK and global interests.

As we have made clear, the aspiration on both sides is that this is just the beginning, with the US agreeing to deepen transatlantic trade and investment further, and to progress discussions towards a transformative UK-US technology partnership. This deal has seen jobs saved and jobs won, but it is by no means job done. The siren voices of the extremes can claim to be the voice of working people all they want, but we know that on matters of action on wages, security and opportunity, it is this Government who will make the difference.

The deal comes on the back of our India trade deal earlier last week and on the promises that many Governments have made to secure trade agreements with the US. Although many people have talked about those deals, it is this Government that have got them across the line for every bit of the UK, including Northern Ireland.

[Jim Allister]

For all his verbosity, the Secretary of State came nowhere close to addressing the issues that arise from the fact that this Government and this House do not control the trade laws of a part of this United Kingdom—namely, Northern Ireland. Under the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland was placed under the EU’s customs code, so it is therefore its tariffs, not the UK’s tariffs, that govern the imports to Northern Ireland. With the EU having no trade deal with the US or India, the resulting tariffs on imports under this deal will be higher when the goods come to Northern Ireland than when they come to GB. For manufacturing and consumers, that creates huge disadvantage and fundamentally contradicts the equal citizenship that is supposed to denote a United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State referred to the convoluted and tardy system of possible recoupment of tariffs, but the onus there is on those applying to prove that anything they produce will never go into the EU. It is no answer to Northern Ireland’s subjection to foreign trade laws, which we do not make and cannot change. The Secretary of State would not contemplate that for his own constituents, but he expects us to sup it up in Northern Ireland.

I will ask the Secretary of State about three specific issues. Under the deal, will it not be easier for US manufacturers to buy tariff-free steel from Great Britain than for manufacturers in Northern Ireland to buy the same steel from their own country to bring it into their own country? That steel will be subject to EU tariffs. How can that ever be compatible with Northern Ireland supposedly being part of the EU’s internal market? In terms of beef and the tariff-free trade within the quota that has been set, how can—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member must be coming to an end. Just because the Secretary of State has taken advantage of the Chamber, I certainly do not expect every other Member to do so—Front Benchers, yes, but the hon. and learned Member will know that he is limited to two minutes.

[Jim Allister]

Where there is a set quota for imports of beef, how can Northern Ireland participate in that if the UK cannot offer a reduced tariff rate in Northern Ireland? Does that mean that our beef-exporting farmers in Northern Ireland will be excluded? Surely all these trade deals expose the folly of surrendering part of our territory to foreign customs control.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for bringing this urgent question and for putting his community’s concerns on the record; I understand how strongly he will feel about them. There is much that I could say and criticise about the previous Conservative Government’s approach to a lot of things, but the approach that they took with the Windsor agreement to balance the obvious, practical problems and realities of Brexit—of leaving the single market when Ireland is in the EU and the customs union—alongside our commitments under the Good Friday agreement to observe what we have all signed up to and want to support is fundamentally better than when they threatened to break all kinds of international laws and agreements with key partners. It was the better way to find a way through them.

I absolutely accept and understand that this issue is difficult and complicated, but I can tell the hon. and learned Member that that is not just the perspective of the UK Government, in terms of working with our colleagues and ensuring that these issues are reflected in the agreements, but what we hear from the other side in these agreements. When we explain what we need to see happen around agreements such as this, we see that the US is absolutely committed to peace, to the Good Friday agreement and to the sound working of the Windsor agreement.

The hon. and learned Member has raised a number of specific questions, and I will ensure that we deal with them. We will meet with him and a delegation of MPs and ensure that we are in correspondence with him, as we have promised to be with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. This approach is complicated, but it is far better than the one we briefly glimpsed in that difficult period when the Conservative Government did not have the Windsor agreement in place. Fundamentally, there is a difference between goods entering Northern Ireland and therefore entering the UK and goods entering Northern Ireland if there is a risk of them entering the single market more widely. This is a sound system to deal with that, and I accept that we must make it work.

This is not our system, but we recognise what the previous Government were trying to do. Whether the hon. and learned Member wants it or not, I offer him an absolute, unequivocal agreement that we will work with him on any concerns he or his community have to ensure that we get this right to the maximum degree possible.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Jim Allister Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Forgive me for bringing the Commons back to the purpose of Parliament. Its historic purpose is to make laws for our constituents and to hold the Executive to account. That is the fundamental that has been loosened by this Bill. Although it is entirely skeletal in form, the Bill’s effect is very far-reaching indeed.

It is quite obvious that the Bill has a clear purpose, which is to align Great Britain with the EU single market on goods. If it were not so, we would not have clause 2(7). The standard that is set in that clause is the EU standard. If the Bill was just about creating the opportunity to make regulations because of a regulatory gap, it would not be tethered to the EU provisions on goods. It would be open ended, and we would be free to make the choice that best suited us. However, the giveaway clause in the Bill is clause 2(7). That lets the cat out of the bag, as indeed did the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) when she quite clearly indicated that that was the direction of travel that she sought. Therefore, that is the purpose.

When we look at clause 1(2), we again have the open affirmation of the desire to make the compliance with “relevant EU law”, so it is abundantly clear that this is a creation to realign us with EU law. The intent is to create this vehicle for realignment without voters noticing. Of course that means realignment with laws that we do not make and that we cannot change because they are made by a foreign Parliament. The ambition in this Bill in respect of clause 2(7) is to disenfranchise—as has happened already in Northern Ireland by our subjugation to the EU single market and all its rules—the people of the United Kingdom, so that, in their entirety, they are at the Government’s whim and can be subjected to laws they do not make and cannot change. That then inextricably ties us to the European Court of Justice. It is the ECJ that mediates and deliberates on those laws that this Bill wishes to tie us to. Therefore, it is an attempt to tie us not just to the EU single market, but to the court that rules the EU’s single market.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On the point the hon. and learned Gentleman is making about enfranchisement and the fact that he wishes this Parliament to be in control of the powers that it has, does he agree that it would be sensible for the UK Government to ensure that, where powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, for example, they seek consent from Scottish Ministers rather than just legislating? The Bill, as currently drafted, allows Ministers here to legislate in areas of devolved competency, much as he is making the case that the EU court would be allowed to do.

[Jim Allister]

One critical thing about the Bill is that, under the Sewel convention, it does not extend to secondary legislation. It does not extend to statutory instruments. The Bill drives a coach and horses through the Sewel convention as far as devolution is concerned, because it heaps all the powers into statutory instruments. One might expect such a bold move to realign the United Kingdom with EU law to be an up-front piece of legislation. I do not think that that is too much to ask—that it should be plain and clear for all to see. Instead, it is to be conveyed in these statutory instruments. And statutory instruments, as we know, are those that, in the main, pass through unnoticed. We have all been to Delegated Legislation Committees. We know that they are farcical in that the Minister comes in with a brief, which is simply rigidly read, and Members nod the motion through. It is a farcical way to make legislation of any sort.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Much of this debate has been about whether this Bill leads us to dynamic alignment. The Government’s position is that it does not and that this is all a mirage and a fantasy. If that is the case, does the hon. and learned Member agree that a simple amendment to this Bill to make that clear would go a long way to reassuring Members.

[Jim Allister]

Absolutely. If the Government are not—as many of us suspect—following a deliberate approach of circumventing debate in this House on key realignment issues, and is seeking rather to channel it through statutory instruments, then call our bluff, change this Bill in that regard. But this idea of skeleton legislation, which sets up the powers that have been taken from Parliament and given to the Executive, is something which, historically, this party of Government have railed against.

Indeed, within a week of Second Reading in the other place, the Attorney General gave the Bingham lecture. He said:

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values…but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty. In my view, the new Government offers an opportunity for a reset in the way that Government thinks about these issues. This means, in particular, a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards.”

That was the Attorney General. Where did that go to?

[Sir John Hayes]

I am interested in the Attorney General’s view, and we should take it seriously. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that primary legislation in this place metamorphosises in its passage through scrutiny? I have been involved in many Bills, as shadow Minister, Minister and Back Bencher, and that is precisely what happens. Ministers listen to argument, and as Bills return to the House, they reflect that argument both from here and in the Lords. Secondary legislation does not go through that process. That is why it is so important that the Bills we pass here do not contain the kind of permissive powers that facilitate so much secondary legislation.

[Jim Allister]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right. If one wanted to realign the United Kingdom with the EU, the easiest passage would be by statutory instruments. That is why that is the chosen mechanism here.

I have one final point. This Parliament traditionally and properly makes the law on criminal offences. We set the tariffs. Sometimes we say what the minimum penalty for a criminal offence is, but we always say what the maximum penalty is. We say what the content is of the criminal offence—what are the actus reus and the mens rea. But amazingly under clauses 3(9) and 3(11) and clauses 6(9) and 6(11) of the Bill we are going to make criminal offences by statutory instrument. Surely we have lost the run of ourselves if we think it is appropriate to make criminal offences in that essentially uncontrolled manner. It deprives this House, and therefore those we represent, of the very careful scrutiny that should always go into making something a crime. That is but another of the fundamental flaws of this undeserving Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Dr Prinsley, I am told that your speech is just a few minutes long, so I hope you will honour that.

Royal Mail Takeover

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the biggest assets in the Royal Mail is the workforce itself. That is widely understood not just on the Labour Benches but by the EP Group. As I said, commitments have been made between the trade unions and the EP Group on job security. I hope that goes some way to dealing with her concerns.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

When I visited the two depots in my constituency last week—I join Members in thanking our posties—I noticed how run down and aged the van fleets are. Will there be an upgrade of Royal Mail fleets as part of this deal? Given the Minister has said that the Government’s golden share does not extend, maybe understandably, to operational matters, is the takeaway today that there can be no assurance for my rural constituents that their service will be maintained at the level that they expect?

[Justin Madders]

I can assure the hon. and learned Member that there is nothing in the deal that affects the universal service obligation, and it is our understanding and commitment to continue to ensure that there is a universal service obligation moving forward. There are commitments in the agreement to deliver more investment. On the van network, I know that Royal Mail has purchased a number of vans in recent times, conveniently from the Stellantis plant in my constituency. Hopefully, that will be replicated throughout the country, because it is an ageing fleet. As the company has ambitious targets to meet net zero, I think it wants to improve the make-up of the stock.

Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 General Committees

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Of itself, of course, there is nothing controversial about the type of USB charger that one might use, but there is something very controversial in Northern Ireland, quite appropriately, about the source of this legislation. Here we are in this Parliament of the United Kingdom and all it can do is to nod through someone else’s laws.

The decision that in Northern Ireland a person must have the EU-style USB charger flows from a decision by parliamentarians in a foreign power. It was the parliamentarians of 27 other countries who decided that this would be the common charger to be used. And, of course, it was the protocol now called the Windsor framework—which did not change one word of the protocol—that decreed that Northern Ireland, in 300 areas of law, of which this is one, would not be subject to the laws made in this place, or in its devolved Assembly.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Would the hon. and learned Member just remind us how Northern Ireland voted in the Brexit referendum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

The Brexit referendum was a national vote, and it asked a simple question: “Do you want the United Kingdom to leave the EU?” It did not ask the question, “Do you want GB to leave, and leave Northern Ireland behind?” That is what we got, in that this United Kingdom surrendered control over those 300 areas of law to that foreign Parliament. The hon. Member may be comfortable with the fact that my constituents are disenfranchised in the making of the laws that govern them. I wonder whether he would he be so comfortable with that fact if it was his constituents who were disenfranchised in the making of laws, in those 300 areas, that govern them—I suspect not.

All I ask is that my constituents have the same rights —the same enfranchising rights—as everyone else’s constituents in Great Britain. Is that too much to ask? And yet, in the making of this regulation, this Parliament is answering that question: it is too much to ask, because Northern Ireland, we are told, must be subject to foreign colonial rule. That is what it is. When we say to an area, “You will be governed by laws, not that you make, or that your Parliament makes, but that a foreign Parliament makes,” that is the very essence of colonial rule, and that is what we are subjected to.

The degree to which the Government—of course, this was done under the previous Government—have abandoned sovereignty over Northern Ireland is illustrated by the explanatory document that accompanies these regulations. It says that there will be limited impact, but that the Government did not conduct an impact assessment. Why not? Well, paragraph 9.1 of the explanatory document tells us:

“A full Impact Assessment has not been prepared…because measures resulting from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are out of scope of assessment.”

So laws that will affect my constituents are “out of scope” of assessment by this Parliament, and this Government, because the right to make those laws was given away to the European Parliament.

This is not about whether, in itself, the type of USB is controversial or not. It is about the constitutional point that Northern Ireland has been disenfranchised—robbed of the right to have its laws made in its own country, and robbed of the right, now, to even have an impact assessment, because those 300 areas of law are beyond the scope of assessment. That is why, for this proposal, there is only an EU impact assessment—no UK impact assessment. That, in a way, says it all.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

The hon. and learned Member is making a powerful and coherent argument. I think what he is saying is that this may or may not be a good law, but that he would have liked its impact to have been assessed properly and the people of Northern Ireland to have had a say on it—the say that he has in the Committee today. Does he think, overall, that this is a good law, albeit one that, constitutionally, he would have preferred to have been passed a different way?

[Jim Allister]

I said that what type of USB is used is not particularly controversial. But how it is made and imposed could not be more controversial, because it is imposed through the avenue of disenfranchising the people of Northern Ireland and saying, “You will have no say over whether it is a good or bad law. It is someone else’s law, and it will be imposed upon you.” That is the mischief that I am addressing. In that mischief lies the reason why this Parliament should not be a nodding dog to someone else’s regulation.

The Minister tells us that the Government will probably bring the same requirements into GB. That is well and good, but it should have been the Government—not a foreign jurisdiction—that were bringing the prescription for the type of USBs into the whole of the United Kingdom. They should not have surrendered control over that to a foreign power.

Post Office Horizon: Redress

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

People are aware that it is fairly challenging to have a situation in which justice is devolved across the United Kingdom. At times that has very much affected the debate in this House. I believe that what the hon. Gentleman says is the case, but I will write to him about the Northern Irish situation to give him the information that he needs.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement and look forward to things proceeding to the necessary conclusion. Redress is about righting wrongs, but there was more than one wrongdoer—there was also Fujitsu. Last week, the Prime Minister told us that firms that had fallen short in relation to Grenfell would be removed from Government contracts. Bearing in mind Fujitsu’s actions and that there was at least one suicide, will it be treated in the same way? Will there be redress against its unlawful actions as well?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I agree with the hon. Member. That is a crucial and important question. I welcome Fujitsu acknowledging its moral responsibility in relation to these matters. I understand that it is participating fully with the Sir Wyn Williams inquiry. We will need that inquiry to conclude. We should not pre-empt that in any way and take any decisions before that process has been gone through properly, given that we all support it. Accountability will flow from the inquiry. It will be an important step and it will affect many, many organisations that have been part of this story. Fujitsu will clearly be one of them.