Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman reminds us all of the importance of seeking to conclude these negotiations as quickly as possible. If they are concluded satisfactorily, we will request that the House returns in order to make sure that we can legislate effectively. We believe we can pass the necessary legislation before 31 December to give businesses legal certainty for the future.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
This is how the Prime Minister described his oven-ready deal last November:
“put it in Gas Mark 4, 20 minutes and Bob’s your uncle.”
The Minister is nodding. Clearly, the Government have delivered half of it—leaving the European Union—but we have now passed six of the Prime Minister’s deadlines for the other half, which is the agreement on our new relationship with the EU. In those same comments last November, the Prime Minister promised to end “dither and delay”. This week, we have heard of companies that have stopped exporting to the EU because of the uncertainty created by the Government’s handling of these negotiations. Has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made an assessment of how many jobs have been lost through their incompetence?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us that the Prime Minister not only secured a handsome election victory just over a year ago but did so on the basis of having secured a withdrawal agreement that passed this House, which meant that we left the European Union in January. Part of that withdrawal agreement was a protocol on Northern Ireland; some doubted that we would be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion, but we did. Others doubt that we will be able to have a satisfactory cause for celebration at the end of this year, when the transition period ends; I invite the hon. Gentleman to wait and see on that.
Paul Blomfield
I think we are all waiting to see.
Let me ask the Minister about a different part of the negotiations. When I have asked him previously, he has been unable to confirm that we will have access to the real-time information systems that we need to identify foreign criminals at our borders. We both understand why the Government’s position has prevented him from giving that confirmation. This morning, speaking on Radio 4 just over an hour ago, the Home Secretary was pressed on the issue and said:
“All the type of channels that we have used in the past we will continue to use going forward.”
Was she right? Anything less than an unequivocal endorsement will indicate that she was not.
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kemi Badenoch
I have not seen the report that the hon. Lady refers to, but I will look at it with interest, decide, from an equalities perspective, whether I agree with the conclusions that have been made, and then speak to the Secretary of State for Education about it.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
The Government are supporting childcare provision during the pandemic by funding the free childcare entitlement for two, three and four-year-olds with £3.6 billion in 2020-21. We are giving grants and loans to businesses and ensuring that childcare providers can access the coronavirus job retention scheme, where necessary.
Paul Blomfield [V]
The Prime Minister has urged everybody who can do so to work at home until April, and obviously many people have been doing that for the past eight months, but childcare responsibilities are still falling largely on women. As a result, recent data has shown that 67% of women with children—compared with just 16% of fathers—are likely to quit their job because they cannot balance childcare with work. The Minister talked about the action that the Government are taking, as did the Minister for Women and Equalities earlier, but it is clearly not working, so what more will the Government do to reset this imbalance?
Paul Scully
The Government have introduced 30 hours of free childcare for eligible working parents of three and four-year-olds. We have ensured that the childcare sector has been able to stay open to support parents to continue to work. We are investing £1 billion from 2021 to help to create more high-quality, wraparound and holiday childcare places, both before and after school, and we will continue to push the fact that childcare needs to be distributed equally between both parents.
Exiting the European Union (European Union)
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister is wrong and that all eyes are on us and not on the Prime Minister’s press conference. I congratulate her for her introduction of this most exciting of the statutory instruments we are looking at over the current period. We are broadly supportive of this instrument, as it largely clears up the statute book and serves to ensure that cross-references to EU law in domestic law or in other EU law, which continues as retained EU law, make sense after the completion day from the implementation or transition period.
The repeals relate mostly to references to the European Communities Act 1972, which has already been repealed by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, so it is further legislative tidying up and not the last that we can expect to see in the coming months. This continues the Government’s habit of amending primary legislation by statutory instrument, and in this case, certain provisions of the Interpretation Act 1978 will be directly amended by this instrument. It also amends parts of the 2018 Act.
I cannot help but note that the accompanying explanatory memorandum is longer than the legislation itself, and I wonder if the Minister can tell the House whether that implies a certain nervousness in the Department about publishing yet further changes to the withdrawal Act, this close to the end of the transition period. Within the explanatory memorandum, there is much emphasis on the fact that none of these changes is substantive and that the Government are not trying to sneak something through under the radar—indeed, the Minister herself made that point. Is that perhaps a result of the rather chastening experience that the Government have had when they have tried to sneak things—such as, for example, the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—through under the radar?
We have concerns about legal certainty going forward and the fact that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 has already had to be amended on several occasions. We warned about that when the Act was debated, and it serves to demonstrate the massive task that faces practitioners and judges when working out what law will be in force from 1 January 2021. That points to some incompetence and poor planning from the Government. How many more times will they need to amend the Act that they pressed through the House? How many more times will businesses and lawyers have to make a plan, scrap it and start again?
Although in principle, the withdrawal Act sets a basic rule that existing EU law will be retained, it is clear from the many subsequent changes to that Act, the enactment of other Acts such as the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, and the huge number of statutory instruments that have been tabled, that recourse to a wide range of statutory materials will often be needed to work out exactly what the governing provisions are.
I am told that jigsaw puzzles have been popular during lockdown, but the Government are creating a particularly challenging legal jigsaw puzzle in which the picture on the front of the box is constantly changing. Nevertheless, the outcome is crucial, because it underpins UK law. Although legal practitioners face a daunting task, they will at least have the resources to check for amendments. Again, as is so often the way, those without support and financial resources are the most vulnerable, and that includes litigants in person, or members of the public who want to know which law governs a particular situation. In some areas, that is becoming a near-impossible task, with extremely expert lawyers and judges harbouring concerns about the state of legal affairs from 1 January and the uncertainties that they envisage will arise.
At the same time as creating those challenges for the legal system, the Government’s failure to negotiate effectively on behalf of the services sector in the current talks on our future relationship with the EU is creating other challenges. By not securing mutual recognition of qualifications and—specifically for the legal sector—certainty regarding accession to the Lugano convention, there are real questions about the ability of UK lawyers to continue working across Europe with certainty and a lack of confidence in their ability to continue in their business.
Of course, this is not just about lawyers, litigants in person, or interested citizens; this is about businesses and jobs that need legal advice to draw up contracts and ensure that they comply with the seemingly ever-changing law. That costs money, time and resources, and while the economy is under such pressure from the fallout of the pandemic, I urge the Government not to add to that.
Will the Minister tell the House when the Government will have finished amending the legal framework for our departure from the European Union and say how we are to work with our European partners moving forward? Clarity is essential, and the Government have a responsibility to provide it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and in his time in this House he has been a distinguished champion of the rights of the people of Northern Ireland. It is very important in the discussions that we have in the Joint Committee that we make sure that we implement the protocol on the future of Northern Ireland in a way that ensures that its people can continue to have unfettered access to the rest of the UK, and in particular that we can maintain the flow of goods that are so vital to the life of the Province. That is why I am confident that the Vice-President of the European Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, who is the co-chair of the Joint Committee, will work pragmatically, as he has in the past, to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have a secure future.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made his statement to the House on the negotiations on 19 October, his former boss, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), was left incredulous when he told her that without access to previously shared databases, the UK could act
“more effectively to safeguard our borders outside the European Union than we ever could inside.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 761.]
So can he explain precisely how without that access we will get the real-time information needed to pick up foreign criminals at the point of entry in ports and airports?
Michael Gove
One of the things that we will be able to do when we take back control is to have total discretion over who comes into this country. One of things that we will be able to do, for example, is to end the abuse of ID cards, which are easily forged, easily used by organised criminals, and utilised in order to gain access to this country. Once we are out of the transition period, we will take back control of our borders, a precondition of greater security for all.
Paul Blomfield
Frankly, we are at a stage of this process where empty reassurances and dodging questions just will not do. Earlier this week, the president of the Police Superintendents Association said that without this access, information sharing will be “less effective”, and highlighted his concern about the implications for policing and security. So let me try again. At the Home Affairs Committee on 4 November, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), was asked repeatedly by the Chair to state which real-time system will be available for Border Force to identify foreign criminals, without access to SIS II. Repeatedly, the Minister was unable to give an answer, so can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster simply answer that question?
Michael Gove
Yes, of course; it is the case that Border Force will be in a stronger position to be able to detect a criminal—[Interruption.] Well, if the hon. Gentleman keeps asking the same question, I will give him the same answer, which is that Border Force will be able, through the deployment of safety and security declarations, to have a more effective means of monitoring organised criminals. The truth is that when we take back control of our borders, we enhance our ability to deal with criminality.
Draft Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I will see what I can do, Mr Hollobone, to reflect the importance of the Minister’s debut—at least until about 3.55 pm.
As the Minister outlined, the regulations largely carry over the processes that we have had in place as EU members and put them in a new, UK-only framework. They are obviously necessary. They also lay the legal foundation for our individual membership of the Agreement on Government Procurement with the World Trade Organisation.
The Government recognise in the expansive explanatory memorandum to which the Minister referred that the regulations are a work in progress. As the memorandum highlights, it is “likely” that sections of the instrument that we are being asked to approve today will need to be “revoked and replaced” within the next few months—and not for the first time. Irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations on our future relationship, we have known for four years that we will be leaving the EU, and the withdrawal agreement was agreed more than 12 months ago. However, with less than two months before the end of the transition period, we are being presented with regulations that are not fully fit for purpose. Nevertheless, they are necessary regulations that sensibly provide for us to broadly continue the existing procedures, with which we agree. We clearly need a new framework and a smooth transition in the interests of fairness, effectiveness and transparency. Although we do not oppose this statutory instrument, we have some questions on points of detail.
In line with the approach of keeping things much as they are, these regulations contain certain steady state amendments, such as removing references to the Official Journal of the European Union, which is to be replaced by a new UK e-notification service. Public bodies will be required to submit notices to that service in place of the EU publications office, so will the Minister confirm that the new e-notification service will be up and running by the end of the transition period, as the Government have previously promised? Will she also outline what guidance and support has been prepared to assist those who will be required to use it?
The instrument transfers to the Minister for the Cabinet Office the European Commission’s function to revalue the main financial thresholds. It also replaces cross-references to thresholds in the relevant EU directive with sterling values contained within the regulations themselves, and it provides for the Commission’s biannual review of the thresholds to be undertaken by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. That is all quite straightforward, but we would like assurance from the Minister that none of those provisions will impact on existing rights. For example, regulation 7(4) revokes regulation 90 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, albeit allowing for a year before it does so.
In part 5 of the instrument, regulation 25 removes any prohibition on awarding contracts on the grounds of nationality, and regulation 26 removes the international obligations the UK entered into when it was part of the EU. Will the Minister explain the rationale for regulation 25 and, in the context of regulation 26, outline how the Government will ensure that standards are strengthened and not diminished?
Government procurement is clearly under the spotlight at the moment—the issue was raised at Prime Minister’s questions today—and so this is a good time to reflect on our procedures. In recent months, the Government have delayed publication of awarded contracts long after the required timescales. They have heavily redacted the details of those contracts, needlessly avoided competitive tendering, and used commercial sensitivity as an excuse not to provide basic information to reasonable questions, such as: what are the names of Serco’s 29 contact-tracing subcontractors? Even allowing for the challenges of the pandemic, that is simply not good enough. The Government must meet the minimum levels of transparency and the highest standards that we expect to underpin procurement rules.
We understand that the Government are planning to publish a Green Paper on procurement, which might mean that some of these regulations will work differently in future. Can the Minister provide any further information on how the regulations might be affected, and will she assure us that there will be meaningful consultation with the local representatives responsible for so much of the nation’s procurement? When we sought views on the regulations, the Local Government Association told us:
“Councils need a simple and efficient public procurement regime which ensures the best value for public money and respects local decision-making. Shorter timescales, lighter-touch advertising requirements and award procedures, a speedier way of dealing with legal challenges, greater negotiation with suppliers, and a new focus on SMEs and voluntary community and social enterprises (VCSEs) would also be of benefit.”
For too long, Ministers have hidden behind EU procurement laws as a reason not to do more, while other countries have used the same procurement framework to improve economic and social outcomes. We could, for example, apply the principles of the Welsh Government’s code of practice for ethical employment, which promotes decent jobs and the living wage, and protects against exploitative practices at work.
The Opposition’s ambition for procurement is not limited to price. We want more public bodies to be able to use procurement to strengthen employment standards, improve supply chains, tackle carbon emissions and support other policy objectives—using public money to give the broadest gain for the taxpayer, as part of joined-up government. In addition to answering my specific questions, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us more about the Government’s plans to build on the regulations to achieve those broader objectives.
Leaving the EU
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to wind up for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Sir David. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for the way in which he opened up our discussion, and other hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.
The concerns raised in the petitions probably reflect the time at which they were launched, which was several months ago. The priority now is to look at the challenges that we face with just weeks to go before the deal that we need on our future relationship with the European Union has to be concluded.
On the issues raised in petition 300412, Labour pressed the Government, perhaps with some prescience, to give themselves some flexibility, when Parliament debated the withdrawal agreement Bill, and we tabled an amendment to that effect just in case unforeseen events might lead to the Government needing some wriggle room. I have to say that at that time we did not anticipate a global pandemic, but nevertheless we made that case. Our amendment was rejected, and the departure date was locked in law. The Government could have changed it before 1 July, but they did not, and neither did the European Union propose a delay.
We left the EU on 31 January, and we will leave the transition period on 31 December. We accept that completely, so I have to say that I share some of the exasperation of the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell)—if not for the same reason—at some of the contributions from Government Members and the allegations that they are making about the position of the Opposition. They should—we all should—have some humility and some honesty in looking back at the paralysis in Parliament over the last four years, and recognise that many of the delays were caused by the way in which the Conservative party was tearing itself apart on this issue and that some of those who delayed a deal being reached were those described, I think, by a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer as the Brexit extremists within his own party. Indeed, the Prime Minister was utilising the issue as he egged them on in his rise to power. But we are now into the final month of negotiations, and both the UK Government and the EU are clearly seeking a resolution within weeks to secure the deal that we need by 31 December.
The other two petitions raise real concerns, and they were clearly exacerbated by the Government’s handling of the report from Parliament’s Conservative-chaired Intelligence and Security Committee, the publication of which was deliberately and unnecessarily delayed by the Prime Minister until after the general election. It was damning in its conclusion that the Government
“had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes”.
As one of its members said when the report was published in July,
“The report reveals that no one in government knew if Russia interfered in or sought to influence the referendum, because they did not want to know.”
There are real issues that deserve consideration, but they cannot halt Brexit, as the petitioners seek, because we have, as a number of Members have acknowledged, already left the European Union. That is the result of the mandate that the Government received in last December’s election, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) mentioned, but it is only one half of the mandate. The other half is to deliver the deal that the Prime Minister promised the British people. That pledged an
“ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership”,
with
“no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors”.
It pledged a deal that would safeguard
“workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection”
and keep people safe with a
“broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership.”
That was not a proposal or a wish list, but an agreement—and one that was ready to sign off. In the Prime Minister’s words,
“We’ve got a deal that’s oven-ready. We’ve just got to put it in at gas mark four, give it 20 minutes and Bob’s your uncle.”
Originally, he said that it would be done by July, despite the pandemic, and then, forgetting his words, that it would be done by September. That came and went too, so he set a new ultimatum of mid-October, which he then dropped over the weekend after his conversation with the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen.
As a number of Members have said, businesses need clarity. The Government are providing confusion. The same incompetence that we have seen in the handling of the pandemic is now threatening jobs and the security of our country through the handling of these negotiations.
Graham Stringer
In previous debates during this long discussion, my hon. Friend and I have disagreed. Today, I essentially agree with the approach that he has taken, but is he not being a little asymmetric? It is his job to attack the Government and criticise and analyse what they do, but does he not feel that one reason why there is not an agreement now is that the EU has withdrawn what it offered right at the beginning—a Canada-style agreement—and has also withdrawn the recognition of this country as a third country, which was previously on offer?
Paul Blomfield
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He is right that we have not always agreed on these issues over the last four years, but we are in roughly the same place now, in wanting to secure a deal by December—not just any deal but the deal that the Government have pledged. That deal was not described by the Prime Minister as something that might be achieved; he said it was there, ready to go and we just had to press the button. I will return to the specific question of Canada, because it is important.
Wera Hobhouse
Is it not also true that it is unfair to say that Brexit was not done in the last three years because of all the people who wanted to delay it, when it was the Tories and the Conservative Government who did not get the deal done? They dithered and argued among themselves, and even decapitated their own Prime Minister. Is it not true that the Conservative party was also to blame for Brexit not getting done for such a long time?
Paul Blomfield
Indeed, that is the point I was making a moment ago. The agony within the Conservative party, as it tore itself apart, was a significant delaying factor in getting the deal done.
As a number of Members have said, businesses require certainty. We welcomed the Minister back to her place at Cabinet Office questions last Thursday, and I am delighted to see her on the Front Bench today. I will ask her four specific questions, to which I would be grateful for a reply in her closing remarks.
First, can the Minister guarantee to the automotive sector that it will not face any tariffs from 1 January, in accordance with the Prime Minister’s promise, despite the apparent decision by the Government not to press to secure an agreement on rules of origin?
Secondly, can the Minister assure the financial and legal sectors, which are hugely important to our economy, that the Government’s deal will allow them to do business without new barriers, as the Prime Minister promised?
Thirdly, can the Minister guarantee that there will be no weakening of the arrangements that we have had within the European Union to keep the UK safe from serious international crime and terrorism, and, in particular, that we will retain access to systems such as the European criminal records information system, which shares data about prior convictions across EU countries?
Finally, returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), given that the Government have insisted that they want a Canada-style deal, which raises the question of why that is off the table, would the Minister confirm that the Government would be willing to accept the non-regression clause provisions within the EU-Canada deal on workers’ rights and environmental protections? Those are precisely the points that were ripped out of the withdrawal agreement after the December election. If the Government were prepared to accept those, it would be a gamechanger in the negotiations.
Those are straightforward questions because they are all based on promises made by the Prime Minister, so it should be relatively simple for the Minister to say yes to each one of them. If not—I hate to think it—the Government might not have been telling the truth.
The coronavirus pandemic, which is referenced in e-petition 300412, makes it even more important that the Government deliver the deal that the Prime Minister promised, to support jobs, the security of our country, business and people’s livelihoods. As we look to the future, rebuilding from the devastating impact of the virus, we cannot face the additional problems of a disruptive departure from the transition. Covid-19 has taken people’s bandwidth in the civil service, politics and the EU. Businesses have not been able to prepare in the way that they would otherwise have done, because their capacity has been stretched.
It was unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in his recent statement to the House, tried to point the finger of blame at businesses for not being prepared. They are not helped by the unanswered questions that remain. Businesses around the country have reasonable questions about trade not only in goods, but in services. The agricultural sector has questions about health, food safety, standards and checks. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) talked about the problems of the pharmaceutical sector. I have talked to many other sectors in my role. Businesses representing critical sectors of the economy simply cannot get a hearing from this Government.
The Government have maintained throughout the coronavirus crisis that they could deliver a deal in the timeframe they have allotted themselves. They will be judged by that promise. As it stands at the moment, they need to get a grip and deliver the deal: not any deal, but the deal they promised last December; the deal that we need for the country to move on.
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Government have said repeatedly, and I have heard the Minister say it many times, that they want a Canada-style deal. The Minister will know that Canada’s deal with the EU—the comprehensive economic and trade agreement—contains many commitments on a level playing field, with both parties signing up to an entire chapter on workers’ rights and two chapters on environmental standards. Could he try a straight answer to this question: will the Government be prepared to sign up to similar commitments in their deal with the EU?
Michael Gove
Absolutely—we are totally committed to ensuring that there can be reassurance on workers’ rights and environmental protection. In a previous life, I was the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and as a result of our endeavours in the Environment Bill, the creation of the Office for Environmental Protection will mean that the UK is a world leader in upholding environmental standards. We will be upholding them to a higher level than the European Union does. What we cannot accept, however, is the European Union seeking to tie the United Kingdom to its laws and its jurisdiction. We are an independent country. The people voted in a referendum and a general election for us to reclaim our sovereignty. It is a pity that the Labour party thinks that the British people, when they have the freedom to choose, will choose lower standards. That is a lack of faith in this country and a lack of faith in democracy.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I thank him for his courtesy in rejecting an intervention and giving me and the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme a few moments at the end of this debate.
This debate is focused on part 6 and I believe that the commitments that we are making demonstrate the seriousness of the Government’s intent to deliver on the promises of the Vote Leave campaign. We will match what happened with the EU structural funds in each home nation through the new UK shared prosperity fund, and we will continue to co-operate across the UK to overcome coronavirus together. Coronavirus has demonstrated the true value of the Union, with the devolved Governments working together with Westminster to help people and businesses through the pandemic. The Bill will facilitate more of that joint working to the benefit of everyone across the UK.
We have heard a lot today and yesterday about power grabs. If there is a power grab, it is from Brussels, because having won our independence referendum, we are quite rightly restoring the powers that used to reside in this place. The UK’s internal market is centuries old and has never needed to be recognised in statute in this way before. However, that is necessary now to provide legal certainty to businesses and consumers across all four home nations as we exit the internal market of the EU.
This Bill and these clauses are needed to protect jobs and prosperity across the United Kingdom and to prevent new burdens and new barriers restricting the historical unfettered right to trade. In fact, it is SNP Members who are trying to grab more and new powers for the Scottish Government through these amendments. At the time of the Scotland Act 1998, which created the Scottish Parliament, it was never envisaged that the devolved Assemblies would be endowed with the powers that they now seek. All the talk we have heard of the Sewel convention and the rest of it is, therefore, anachronistic, because the convention was after the fact of our being in the internal market. We are restoring the situation that existed prior to the EU. These powers were never promised to Scotland at the time, and we have heard many arguments about that this evening. I understand why they seek these powers—they know they are a necessary part of independence—but I remind them that the Scottish people have already had their say on that. Indeed, I think that this is once again an attempt by the SNP, regrettably, to disrupt the Bills that seek to legislate in the national interest and make this debate about independence, which is a pity.
To wrap up, I will quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), who spoke earlier: when did devolution become about stopping this place from acting in the best interests of the whole UK? This is the right place. Westminster has Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish representation in it. This is the right forum for these discussions and these issues. I commend these clauses to the House and urge hon. Members to reject the Opposition amendments this evening.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I rise both to reflect on today’s debate and speak to amendments 14, 15 and 16, which are tabled in my name and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends. In doing so, I hope to strike a similar tone to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), because our amendments, quite contrary to some of the things suggested about them, are intended to strengthen the Bill. That is because we want a successful internal market for all four nations of the UK when we leave the transition on 31 December, just as we want the Prime Minister to deliver the oven-ready deal with the EU that he promised the British people in December, with the promise of tariff-free and barrier-free trade.
For those who have suggested otherwise, we are a party of the Union; we simply think that the best way of protecting the Union is by respecting the devolution settlement. That is what our amendments seek to do, by correcting two fundamental flaws in the Bill as drafted: the way that it gives the Government powers to dish out financial assistance in whatever way they like, with no policy framework to provide accountability; and the way that it gives powers to the centre at the expense of the devolved Administrations, while marginalising local authorities and local communities in England, too.
Clause 46 sets out the powers being given to Ministers for the disbursement of funds in an extraordinary range of areas—economic development; sports and cultural activities, projects, events and infrastructure; education and training activities and infrastructure; capital investment in water, electricity, gas, telecommunications, sewerage, railways, roads, transport, health, prisons, courts and housing. These are massive potential spending powers, yet we have no details of how they will be exercised, allowing Ministers to award financial assistance in any way, and to anyone, they like.
These powers go further than replacing EU structural funds, but the need to replace them was the starting point for this part of the Bill. EU structural funds were of huge importance to many parts of the UK, acting as a redistributive mechanism and taking from the rich and giving to the poor, based on the principle of levelling up—long before the Government had ever stumbled across the idea, and forgetting the role of their predecessors in making sure that so many parts of our country were left behind. Structural funds led to real social and economic development, improving opportunities in areas that were previously held back. Crucially, the priorities were set locally: money was drawn down for use within the agreed criteria of the funds, which were primarily focused on need, but set by those engaged in developing the programmes at a local level.
Dame Rosie, you and I both saw the benefits of structural funds in South Yorkshire after our coal and steel industries were decimated by Margaret Thatcher. Objective 1 funding over seven years helped to grow our economy by over 8%, from the advanced manufacturing park to community skills projects, supporting business growth and creating new jobs. Crucially, all those projects were conceived, planned and delivered locally.
How EU structural funding is to be replaced has been an important issue since we took the decision to leave the European Union. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), in the smaller part of his contribution earlier, identified the problem here. Colleagues on both sides of the House have been pressing the Government for answers on how the funds will be disbursed. The response was: “We’re going to have a shared prosperity fund”, but to this day there has been no detail on how it will work. The Government promised a consultation as early as 2017, in the Conservative party manifesto. They proclaimed that they would “consult widely” so that the fund would be
“targeted where it is needed most.”
Nothing happened. Under pressure, there were some engagement events to “seek views”, but they stopped in the middle of last year. There has not been a single engagement event or consultation event since this Prime Minister took office.
The Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto says of leaving the EU that
“we can take back control of the money that was being channelled via its Structural Funds.”
But who do they mean by “we”? Ministers, without reference to anyone? It is no surprise that Members have talked about this being an open door to pork barrel politics. Funding for skills training, bus stations, sports events and theatres, directed to meet the political needs of the Conservative party. More contracts, perhaps, to party donors and friends—or perhaps the latest project from Dominic Cummings and his team of what he describes as “weirdos and misfits”.
Amendment 14 should reassure Members on both sides of the House, because it simply proposes what the Government promised: a clear policy framework for the distribution of funds. We are talking about very large sums of money. The UK would have received £13 billion over the next seven years from structural funds. The Government have pledged to match that, but how it is spent matters to everyone in this House and those we represent. Parliament must agree it. Amendment 14 would empower us to do that, and we should do so after comprehensive engagement with the devolved Administrations, local authorities, elected Mayors and those who speak for our communities.
There are other fears about the impact of the Bill on the devolution settlement—fears that amendments 15 and 16 seek to address. As others have explained, the Bill allows for money currently spent in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland through the devolved Administrations to be directed from the centre. Given how this Government operate, there are real fears that existing funds to those Administrations could be top-sliced and redirected for spending in those nations by UK Ministers. The powers handed to Ministers through part 6 of the Bill could be used to serve their political agenda and to undermine the devolved Administrations.
Paul Blomfield
I am happy to take that point, because I would have imagined that the consultation that the Government promised but have failed to deliver would have at its heart real engagement with the devolved Administration, but also with local authorities across the nations of the UK and with our elected Mayors. I would have imagined that all those critical stakeholders would shape the framework, which we as a Parliament could then agree.
Amendments 15 and 16 would provide transparency and protect the decision-making powers of the Senedd, Holyrood and Stormont by making clear that, in relation to all the areas of spending set out in clause 46, funding is allocated to the devolved Administrations, and that all financial assistance related to devolved matters is delivered through the devolved Administrations. That would prevent the Bill from creating a back door through which Ministers could undermine devolution—a power grab in which spending decisions previously made in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast would be made in London, and that would also marginalise local authorities.
We debated on Monday, and next Monday we will debate again, those parts of the Bill that have dominated the headlines and shocked people around the world, but today’s debate has demonstrated that there are other deeply concerning aspects of this Bill. We heard about some yesterday, and they were echoed in the issues raised today. They are concerns about where power lies and how we make the decisions affecting our communities. Labour’s amendments seek to ensure that we hear local voices, spend money where it is needed and protect the Union. I commend them to the House.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
First of all, I thank you, Dame Rosie, for presiding over us in Committee this afternoon and I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on the Opposition Front Bench for his calm tone at the end of what has been a fiery debate. Indeed, in that vein, I also thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who brought us to a mature tone after much back and forth. At this early point in my response, I thank him for his points about flooding funding and his coal tip, which I will take away and ensure are looked into the spirit in which he asked this afternoon.
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
We were looking at five sites, and yesterday the Department for Transport confirmed that a site at Ashford has been secured. These sites are there to facilitate traffic management and the flow of goods out of the country. When it comes to the appropriate checks on goods coming into the country, at Calais the French authorities will be seeking to check export declarations.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Continuing on the theme of lorries, the Government’s border operating model sets out the obstacles to trade from 1 January, but it promises jam tomorrow on support for businesses. For example, it warns:
“HGV drivers without the correct documentation risk being stopped from boarding services”—
or being—
“fined, or sent back to the UK”
on arrival in the EU. It also highlights the risk of long queues on the roads to UK ports. The Government’s solution, the smart freight service technology, is only in development and there has been no consultation on its use in Kent. The Minister often talks about providing certainty, which is important, so can he confirm to business that the smart freight service technology will be ready in time for companies to test it and train their workers on it so that it can be operational on 1 January?
Michael Gove
That is a very good point. The smart freight technology of which the hon. Gentleman speaks does need to be tested before it goes live, but it is important to stress that it is just one piece of the range of measures we are putting in place to ensure the free flow of trade. Businesses have the information now, as a result of the border operating model, to make sure that they have all the details they need and are in compliance with the rules governing trade.
Paul Blomfield
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman dodged giving a direct answer yet again. Ambiguity and confused messaging are becoming a trademark of this Government, and his answer certainly will not reassure the Road Haulage Association, which has said that this technology will not be much use unless it has the opportunity to test it and train its people before January.
Let me raise another issue. The NHS Confederation and others in the Brexit Health Alliance have warned of potential disruption to the supply of healthcare products. The border operating model says:
“For imports of medicines, regulatory licensing information will need to be included as part of new customs declarations”.
But it goes on to say:
“The requirements for regulatory licensing information are subject to negotiations”.
Recognising that we are in the middle of a global pandemic that has already put enormous pressure on existing medical supply chains, will the right hon. Gentleman say when the details of those requirements will be ready?
Michael Gove
The details of almost all requirements are, on a no-regrets basis, available, but of course the hon. Gentleman is right, in that we seek a negotiated outcome that will mean that are neither tariffs nor quotas and indeed that there can be a degree of confidence on the part of all businesses about exactly what they need. He talks about ambiguity and uncertainty. We had a vivid example of that in the Chamber yesterday when the Scottish National party, on its Opposition day, requested an extension to our transition period. The Government voted against it, but the Labour party was conspicuous by its absence. I am afraid that allegations of ambiguity sit ill with the Labour party’s decision to be ambiguous on the biggest question this country faces.
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning on this issue, which is, of course, incredibly important, and has been particularly so during lockdown. Overall, we have massively increased our funding for mental health care to £12.5 billion, but we are also, as he knows, now publishing our national strategy for disabled people, which will cover all types of disability, including physical and mental health.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I can tell the House that we have already taken steps to support local authorities—through another £3.2 billion to support them, a £600 million contribution to fight infection—and we are incredibly proud of what our social care workers do. What this Government have done, in sharp contrast to the previous Government, is not only introduce a national living wage, but increase it by the biggest ever amount.