United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Alan Brown Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

We want to work with the Welsh Senedd. We want to work with the Welsh people. We want to work particularly to ensure that Welsh businesses have certainty, and English, Scottish and Northern Irish businesses as well. That is why we need to work at pace to ensure that we have an internal market that works for all come 1 January.

Let me turn to amendments 48B and 48C. It is right, as we leave the transition period, that the UK Government have the right tools to make sure the whole country can benefit from investment, which strengthens the communities, economies and connectivity within and between all parts of the UK. I emphasise once again that this power is in addition to the devolved Administrations’ existing power. It does not take away responsibilities from the devolved Administrations; rather, the power will enable the UK Government to deliver investment more dynamically and in collaboration with the devolved Administrations and other partners.

The Government will work with the devolved Administrations to ensure we can complement their existing and continuing powers, used to support citizens in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We will also work collaboratively with other crucial partners, including local authorities and wider public and private sector organisations.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

If the desire is to work collaboratively, why on earth are the Government rejecting these amendments, which simply ask for consent from the devolved Administrations? That would be collaboration.

[Paul Scully]

I have talked about the fact that we have spoken with the Scottish Government and continue to do so and we are very open to that. What has been frustrating, in terms of collaboration, is that although we have collaborated on common frameworks, the Scottish Government have pulled away from discussions about the internal market, and that started to cause this detachment. But we do want to hold out our hand to make sure we can continue to collaborate in the future to complement, as I said, the existing powers.

I want to touch briefly on the UK shared prosperity fund. This power means that the UK Government can make good on our commitment to the UKSPF. The UK Government intend to work with the devolved Administrations and with local communities to ensure that this power is used to best effect and that the UK shared prosperity fund supports citizens across the UK. Indeed, we have confirmed that the devolved Administrations will be represented on the UK SPF governance structures. The Government will set out further details of the objectives and administration of the shared prosperity fund in the UK-wide investment framework, which will be published in the spring. We will continue to engage the devolved Administrations as we develop the investment framework in advance of its publication.

--- Later in debate ---

How does the Minister intend to safeguard UK sovereignty in that particular case now that he has accepted that the Lords amendments to have those clauses removed are appropriate? From Northern Ireland’s point of view, while we have some of the agreements through the Joint Committee and some of the protocol has been blunted, nevertheless there are still significant intrusions in Northern Ireland. We have to see how, in practice, some of the agreements that were announced yesterday will be applied, but the Minister has to deal with the issue that the EU still has a substantial foot in the door through the Northern Ireland protocol. Indeed, he has opened that door wider by accepting the Lords amendments.

[Alan Brown]

We all know the Prime Minister does not believe in devolution, and neither does the Leader of the House, who made more derogatory comments about it this morning. In fact, over the years, the Prime Minister’s comments are nothing less than anti-Scottish. I accept that the Government do believe in an abstract of the Union, but more important to them is Westminster sovereignty and the fact that we in the devolved nations should do what we are told and be grateful. It is quite clear that there is a huge resentment that the people of Scotland and the people of Wales vote for Governments who are non-Tory.

If this Government have any scintilla of respect for the Union and for devolution, they would accept these regional amendments that have come back from the House of Lords. Instead, what we have heard from the Minister is platitudes about collaboration and working with the Government, but in actual fact the Government will not allow the devolved Administrations to have consent. They will ignore the legislative consent motion votes in other Parliaments, so, actually, that is Westminster imposing its will on the devolved nations yet again.

Amendment 48 seeks to ensure that any Westminster spend in devolved areas is undertaken with the consent of the devolved Governments. What is there to argue about that? If we are talking collaboration, the Government should just accept this simple, reasonable amendment. The Scottish Tories always tell us that they want both Governments of Scotland to work together—as they call it. We were promised the best of both worlds in 2014. Well, this simple amendment would make a statement about the fact that the Tory Government are willing to work in collaboration with the devolved Administrations and show them the respect that they deserve.

If the Scottish and Welsh Tory MPs vote to strike out the amendment, they should hang their heads in shame, and it would show that it is all bluff and bluster when it comes to respecting devolution. In fact, doing so is confirmation of the Lords assessment that devolution is simply an inconvenience to the Tories and they are ignoring the advice from Lord Dunlop not to use their own votes to overturn these Lords amendments. It is absolutely disgraceful that we still do not know what the shared prosperity fund will look like. Again, the word “shared” seems a bit of a misnomer, given the attitude of the Tory Government. Why are we moving into a consultation phase after all these years? It is a disgrace that they have mucked about and mucked about, and nobody knows what will replace these vital European funds—funds that have helped many regions in Scotland to make up for a lack of spending from Westminster over the years.

If the Government do not agree to the formalisation of common frameworks, once again, that shows there is no real intent to work collaboratively with the devolved Administrations. What is wrong with formalising common frameworks? The Minister saying that it will cause uncertainty beggars belief. It does the opposite of cause uncertainty—it provides a clear way forward for us to work together. It seems to me that, yet again, this is another way for Westminster to impose its will on the devolved Administrations.

We know that there are too many free marketeers in the Government, and the fact that they will not allow state aid to be devolved or to be part of common frameworks suggests to me that there will be a race to the bottom in the future, when this Tory Government pull subsidies. There is a pretence at the moment that the argument with the EU is about how the Government want to provide more state aid—who’s kidding who? We know that in the long run, free marketeer rules will win, so it has nothing to do with supporting industry.

We have had 313 years of the Union and Westminster rule. We have only had 20 years of devolution. It is now clear to more and more people what has had the biggest impact on inequality and holding Scotland back, and it is not the 20 years of devolution. We look forward to independence, because more and more people realise that it is the only way forward.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I rise to support the Lords amendments in respect of devolution. Northern Ireland is allegedly sorted out now, and the international lawbreaking parts of the Bill have gone, but what of Scotland? According to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, businesses in Northern Ireland will enjoy “the best of both worlds”: access to the single market and, at the same time, unfettered access to the rest of the UK market. Presumably this means that when Scotland becomes independent and a member of the European Union, Scotland too could have the best of both worlds: access to the single market and to the rest of the UK market, with no hard border and no infrastructure on the border. We shall see, but one thing is for sure: the Conservative party can never again be allowed to get away with claiming that Scottish independence means that a hard border with England is inevitable.

Scotland has yet to vote for independence, but that is only a matter of time. In the meantime, we want to protect what we have. Scotland did not vote for Brexit, but Scotland did vote for devolution in very significant numbers in 1997. This House should not use Brexit, which Scotland did not vote for, to undermine devolution, which we did vote for. The Lords amendments are designed to protect some of the essentials of the devolved settlement. It is very telling that Lord Hope, who I count as a friend and who is a former Lord President of the Court of Session, former Deputy President of the UK Supreme Court and also a Unionist, said that initially, when he heard SNP politicians talking about a power grab, he thought it was an exaggeration, but after reading the Bill, he agreed with us. That is not a nationalist—that is a Unionist, so Government Members would be wise to listen up.

Others in the Lords did not fall for the Government’s sleight of hand in the Bill either. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, Lord Thomas said yesterday:

“the clause without my amendments would enable the UK Government to spend in devolved fields and bypass the devolved Governments and Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who have been elected to be responsible for those fields. It would, in effect, hollow out the devolution settlements.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1294.]

Lord Adonis warned:

“This Bill is deliberately intended to cut across and undermine the devolution settlements because the Prime Minister does not agree with them”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1294.]

The game’s up, and Government Members should realise that the heads of voters in Scotland do not zip up the back. Devolution is very popular in Scotland across parties. It is supported by the vast majority of voters in Scotland. Even some Scottish Conservatives—some, not all—support the current devolved settlement. Donald Dewar set it out carefully, making a delineation between reserved and devolved powers, and that is what this Bill is driving a coach and horses through. We must not forget today that Scotland’s Parliament—the democratically elected voice of Scotland’s people—has voted against the Bill by a margin of 90 to 28 MSPs.

I say to the Minister that we are sick to the back teeth of the Government’s disingenuous words, saying that they listen to the Scottish Government. Listening is not enough; they have to have respect for the democratic voice of Scotland, which is expressed through our Parliament. Our Parliament has said it does not want this Bill, and if the Government do not listen, then a vote for independence is inevitable. I say, “Bring it on.”

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Alan Brown Excerpts

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

[Paul Scully]

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

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

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

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

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is good that the Minister recognises the importance of common frameworks. All four nations of the United Kingdom have agreed a common framework on an emissions trading system, so why is the Treasury now considering imposing a carbon emissions tax instead, against the wishes of the devolved Administrations? Surely that does not respect common frameworks.

[Paul Scully]

Discussions on that are ongoing and it is right that we have them. On the common frameworks, the devolved Administrations and representatives of England in the UK Parliament have made their views well known.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

The right hon. Gentleman puts it correctly. When I have spoken to businesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they have agreed with businesses in England. The main market for so many of these businesses is within the United Kingdom. We talk about global Britain, but we have to make sure that we have our internal market right. The opportunities for business, including those in Northern Ireland, are absolutely at the heart of this Bill, and I appreciate his intervention.

Removing the powers that I have outlined would make it difficult for the Government to respond to businesses and the wider stakeholder feedback and act rapidly to respond to changes in the UK internal market due to the shifting economic landscape. The other place also added in conflicting, inconsistent amendments accepting our consultation offer, but also adding consent mechanisms.

Moreover, the other place’s three amendments 12, 13 and 56 introduce a new system for excluding requirements from market access principles, based on a long list of legitimate aims. This new clause would render the protections in part 1 almost meaningless. The regulator or legislator could justify a very wide variety of discriminatory measures using the justifications in the new clause. It would result in uncertainty as to what is in scope and leave little protection from regulatory barriers for businesses operating across the whole of the UK. However, the door remains open to the other place to reconsider, and we have kept our offer on the table.

I will turn now to Lords amendments 48 and 49. Clauses 48 and 49 support the Government’s determination to deliver the commitments on which we were elected—levelling up and delivering prosperity for the whole United Kingdom and strengthening the ties that bind our Union together. They provide for a unified power that operates consistently UK-wide.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will just make progress for a minute.

The power will allow for strategic investment throughout the UK, underpinning the United Kingdom Government’s determination to see all parts of the UK flourish. It will make sure that we can deliver UK-wide replacements for EU funds, including meeting our manifesto commitment to replace EU structural funds, and allowing the UK Government to invest directly to support communities and businesses across all four parts of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

There has been no consultation. The consultation apparently ended—I do not know—12 months ago or so. We do not know what this shared prosperity fund is going to look like. There has not been proper consultation with the devolved nations on it. There is a really important point here for the House. “Take back control” was an effective slogan, I think we can agree, though I did not support the cause, but I think voters throughout the United Kingdom—in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—will worry that taking back control is starting to look like taking back control to the Westminster Parliament. That is an issue not just in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but in England as well. How these funds work and whether it all gets decided from the centre is a really key point.

[Alan Brown]

On that point, the national infrastructure strategy has just been published, and under the heading,

“changing how decisions are taken”,

it says:

“Increasing the UK government’s ability to invest directly in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland through the UK Internal Market Bill”.

Does that not just smack of, “We’ll spend the money and we’ll make the decisions, and it won’t be collaborative at all.”?

[Edward Miliband]

I think there is a very legitimate anxiety, which I hope the Minister will reflect on. Again, it was expressed in the Lords. Yes, the Government were defeated in the Lords—all Governments get defeated in the Lords at some point—but we are talking about unprecedented margins, because of the depth and breadth of concern among their lordships about the Bill, including on devolution. In a sense, because the Bill went through so quickly here, there was less time for us to discuss the devolution issues, and the focus was more on international law, but there is deep concern about this.

It is the same on state aid. We support a UK-wide state aid regime, but once again there was no mechanism in the Bill to engage with the devolved nations on setting out this regime. Again, the best that can be said is that maybe the Government have blundered in; the worst would be that they simply do not believe in giving power away when it comes to it in practice; they believe in holding it here. We cannot overestimate the seriousness of this collection of devolution issues. I believe deeply in the United Kingdom; the way we uphold it is by upholding the settlements of the last 20 years, and recognising that commitment to shared governance, but that is not what this Bill does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Farry]

I want to focus largely on the Lords amendments to part 5 of the Bill and to speak in support of them. I am conscious that we may well be part of a charade this evening, in the light of discussions that are happening elsewhere, but it is surely self-evident that no deal with the European Union can be concluded, let alone ratified, if the offending clauses remain part of the Bill. If we end up with a no-deal situation—I very much hope that we do not—the UK will face huge economic damage and will be forced back to the negotiating table. I think most people privately would recognise that that is the reality. Once again, these issues will have to be addressed and overcome.

Since this House last debated the Bill, we have had the very welcome election of Joe Biden as President of the United States. It is clear that there is no prospect whatsoever of a trade deal with United States if there is any threat to the Good Friday agreement, in particular from this Bill or, indeed, the subsequent taxation Bill that may well follow. Obviously, that is of fundamental importance to the UK going forward. I think that the Biden Administration will be very much open to a deal with the United Kingdom, but that will not come at the price of undermining the Good Friday agreement, which Americans of both parties are extremely proud of in terms of their role in and contribution to. The internal market Bill is not helping those negotiations at all. At best it is a distraction from them, and certainly not a source of leverage, but at worst it gives the indication that the UK cannot be trusted with regard to agreements. In particular, if there is a sudden deadlock around issues of governance, the European Union will be very reluctant to give too much in that respect, given the very sad precedent that has been set. Again, the UK is shooting itself in the foot in terms of crucial negotiations.

I want to stress that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the majority of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the majority of businesses in Northern Ireland do not want the UK breaking, or threatening to break, international law on their behalf. The outcomes from this Bill are of course very seductive, but they represent a false solution. The only way to address these issues is via the withdrawal agreement and the Joint Committee on the Withdrawal Agreement. To achieve these flexibilities and derogations, we must again look to that word “trust”, which is again being undermined by these actions. That will make it more difficult to reach a conclusion through the Joint Committee processes.

Breaking international law may give some short-term relief to businesses, but it actually ends up hurting them because it puts them in the situation of not having a secure legal environment in which to do business going forward. That is of fundamental importance to businesses. It also potentially risks the return of a border on the island of Ireland. I know that some people want to dismiss that, but the difficulty comes from the fact that if there is not a guaranteed alternative system via the protocol, the pressure from the EU to protect the integrity of its customs union and single market falls back on the island of Ireland. That is one of the key concerns in terms of how the Good Friday agreement may well be breached through this Bill.

Some people seem to think that everything can stay the same as regards how things operate across these islands. The difficulty is that this reflects the choices made by the UK and its Government around Brexit and the nature of Brexit. Northern Ireland is a different place, and because of those choices special arrangements have to be put in place. The backstop was a better alternative, but the protocol is where we have landed, warts and all in terms of the negative consequences from that.

[Alan Brown]

Yet again we have been reliant on the Lords to try to remedy matters in this Bill, which from the outset has shown a complete disregard both for the rule of law and for devolution. The fact that the Government are going to overrule the Lords amendments tonight prompts the question: what is the point of the Lords even when it is doing good work?

In this Chamber, right from the outset of the debates on the internal market Bill, we have been treated to Back-Bench Tories standing up and telling us that they are proud Unionists. However, saying that they are proud Unionists wedded to the idea of the United Kingdom and the Union jack while supporting a Bill that rides roughshod over devolution shows that they do not really care about the Union, and they do not care about Scotland, or understand Scotland. That goes for the Prime Minister, in particular. We know that the Lords has Unionists, and the Lords has told the Government that this Bill puts the Union at risk. Are the Government and their sycophants wilfully stupid or just naturally stupid, because they are certainly not listening?

I want to focus on Lords amendments 48 and 49, which aim to delete the clauses with the same numbers. This is the real power grab about spending in Scotland. Lord Hope summarised the debate:

“It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this Government regard devolution as an inconvenience”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 1468.]

As a matter of balance, I will quote Lord Forsyth, who reckoned:

“The…Act of Union…has brought about more than 300 years of prosperity.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1323.]

If the Union has been so successful and brought so much prosperity, why are this Government having to embark on a levelling-up agenda? Why do Scotland and other regions around the UK have to rely on EU structural funds to plug the gaps from Westminster over the years? Incidentally, the EU has never imposed a single project on Scotland against its will, whereas this Bill allows the Government to create projects and spend money against Scotland’s will. Where is the shared prosperity fund anyway? Sadly, it is missing in action.

If the Union was so successful, why are this Government legislating for support for cultural activities, projects and events that Ministers consider benefit the UK and devolved nations? The same goes for sport, education and training activities. What kind of education projects do they want to impose in Scotland? Why do they think that that should be in the Bill in the first place? It is clear that they want to subject us to a Union jack fest, but I can tell the Minister that that will not go down well in Scotland either; actually, it will help our cause.

We have also been told that infrastructure spending will mean additional money coming to Scotland, yet when we look at the spending review we can see that we have just suffered a 5% cut to our capital budget. It is quite clear that that the Government will top-slice the Scottish budget, take some money off and then recirculate it in Scotland with a Union jack. It is so transparent, and the fact that the national infrastructure policy says that the Bill allows the Government to spend directly in the devolved nations tells us that it has been planned all along.

The consequential clause 49 remains a complete affront. Basically, the UK Government can interfere and spend money in Scotland on projects that might not be wanted by the Scottish Government, and clause 49 then allows them to impose repayment conditions on the taxpayers in Scotland. That is ridiculous—it is a con. Any Scottish Tory who argues that this is not a power grab and who thinks that these conditions are acceptable must be completely devoid of self-respect.

Lord Dunlop, a former Scotland Office Minister, said:

“I hope the Government will think long and hard before overturning in the Commons, on the back of Conservative votes alone, any sensible changes”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 585.]

There is no long and hard thinking being done on the Government Benches, but there is by the people of Scotland. Those who voted no in 2014 are changing their minds rapidly, because they know the contempt with which this Government treat Scotland.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I am pleased to speak in support of the Lords amendments and thankful to Members in the other place for trying to restore a shred of decency to this legislation. Sadly, the Government seem determined to destroy the rule of law, Britain’s international reputation and the devolution settlement that holds the UK together.

The provisions that were removed in the other place would

“enable ministers to derogate from the United Kingdom's obligations under international law in broad and comprehensive terms and prohibit public bodies from compliance with such obligations”—

not my words, but those of the Law Society of England and Wales. Such a legislative statement would be unprecedented, cutting across the precedent that political and judicial bodies uphold the rule of law.

Turning to devolution, I am deeply troubled to hear that if the Government vote to reintroduce the parts of the Bill that the other place so sensibly removed, the Welsh Government’s proposed ban on single-use plastics would be prevented. That would be another ground-breaking step by the Welsh Government stopped by this Government’s complete disregard for the devolution settlement. If it is plastics first, what next? This legislation will prevent the Welsh Government from standing up for Wales’s interests, legislating to ban chlorinated chicken or hormone-injected beef, or setting higher standards on house-building or the environment. By proposing mutual recognition without legally underpinning minimum standards, the UK Government are proposing that the lowest standards chosen by one Parliament must automatically become the minimum standards across all nations.

There are also significant concerns about the financial aspects of the Bill. By legislating to allow the UK Government to spend in devolved areas, the Bill undermines the devolved Governments’ ability to outline their own spending priorities. Of course none of the devolved Governments would be opposed to having more money to spend on their citizens, but this Government have had numerous opportunities to increase the amount received by each Government or reform the Barnett formula, yet they have chosen not to.

This is not kindness, but a cage. The Welsh Government have said that they are open to negotiating common frameworks, but they must be worked out in common and must contain mutually agreed minimum standards. A UK single market is vital to the continued internal trade of these islands, but if this is how the UK Government go about ensuring it, they will soon be the Government of England only.

The Welsh Government have called the Bill

“an attack on democracy and an affront to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have voted in favour of devolution on numerous occasions.”

I implore the UK Government to act as a Government for the whole United Kingdom, not just for themselves.

Exiting the European Union (Building and Buildings)

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is a doughty campaigner for his constituents in Strangford and across Northern Ireland.

The amendments we are debating today are of a technical nature, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not the objective of these measures to inhibit in any way the transfer of goods between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland or the transfer of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We want unfettered access to our mainland markets to continue, of course, for businesses and services in Northern Ireland. I will address those points in more detail in my remarks.

At the end of the transition period, the CPR becomes retained EU law and will form part of the United Kingdom’s legal system. We made the Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations in March 2019 to ensure its provisions will have practical application in the United Kingdom. That was, of course, before we had a withdrawal agreement or a Northern Ireland protocol.

Those 2019 regulations include the introduction of United Kingdom-wide provisions, such as the UKCA mark and UK-designated standards, in preparation for a no-deal Brexit but, of course, we have now left the European Union with a withdrawal agreement and a Northern Ireland protocol.

Without the amendments made by this instrument, the 2019 regulations would not be compliant with the Northern Ireland protocol, as they would have application to the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. Regulators would lack powers to enforce EU regulations in Northern Ireland, and manufacturers would not be able to test their products in the United Kingdom and affix the UKNI indication to place the product in the market.

The policy intent of these regulations is to keep the same requirements set out in the 2019 regulations in Great Britain but to introduce a Northern Ireland regime that complies with the Northern Ireland protocol. They do not change the key CPR requirements currently in place. The same standards will apply in Great Britain and Northern Ireland immediately after 31 December, as they did before the transition period, and products that meet Northern Ireland CPR requirements will have unfettered access to the market of Great Britain.

The effect of these regulations can be considered in three parts. First, they will amend the 2019 regulations so that current United Kingdom-wide provisions, such as UKCA marking and UK-designated standards, will become Great Britain-only provisions at the end of the transition period. A further effect of this territorial amendment is that it will ensure that EU construction products law will continue to apply in Northern Ireland, in line with the Northern Ireland protocol. As United Kingdom-designated standards will be identical to EU harmonised standards at the end of the transition period, there will be no change for businesses placing goods on the market in terms of the standards that must be met.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I understand what the Minister is saying about standards still being the same when we leave the EU, but if we leave without a deal the UK will be a third country. What will that mean for the export to the EU of construction goods manufactured in the UK? Will a reciprocal arrangement have to be put in place to recognise those goods, so that they will not have to undergo additional checks and certification in the EU?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I will be brief, because to be honest I do not understand why this SI is being debated in the main Chamber and has not been tucked away in a Committee Room as it should have been.

In a former life I worked as a civil engineer, so I was familiar with working with British Standards and then the changeover to Eurocodes. The harmonisation of products was welcome: it gave a wider choice and helped to bring down the cost of construction projects and make them more efficient, in the UK and throughout the EU. That was a big advantage of that harmonisation. I suggest to the Minister that the UK should not be in a rush to diverge, because there are unintended consequences from diverging for no real reason. Will the Minister explain how any proposed changes in legislation will be handled? How will he judge the impact of the benefits of making changes versus the possible disadvantages of diverging from an EU-wide coding scheme?

The Minister stated earlier that he hopes to get a trade deal; how detailed are the trade deal discussions on matters such as this? It is really important that after we leave the EU, EU products can still come into the UK to keep building projects going and that UK manufacturers are able to export their goods to the EU uninterrupted and uninhibited. Otherwise, there will obviously be an economic cost to the UK. How detailed are the proposals in the current trade deal discussions?

We need to face reality, because the Minister’s Prime Minister says that we can leave the EU without a deal and that that will not cause any problem. If we leave the EU without a deal, what will that mean for construction products that are either exported from the UK into the EU or, vice versa, imported into the UK from the EU? As I say, those imports are vital to keep our construction projects going—to keep houses being built and infra- structure upgrades going. The UK Government are planning a big infrastructure investment, which in itself is to be welcomed—if we get a cleaner, greener UK, that is to be welcomed—but it will rely on construction products coming from the EU. What will be the real impact if there is no deal and the UK is operating as a third country? I would be interested to hear the Minister clear that up. With those brief remarks, I conclude.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown).

I rise to speak in this debate because of the importance of building safety in my constituency—as in many parts of the country—following the dreadful disaster at Grenfell. We have a number of tall blocks, many of which are unfortunately still covered in dangerous cladding, including ACM cladding, cladding made from other materials and, indeed, dangerous wooden cladding. Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service has uncovered a series of problems in Reading and other Berkshire towns, and there is a great deal of concern from local residents about these matters. I appreciate the Minister’s reassurance on the nature of the UK standards and the fact that they are separate, although they interconnect with the European ones. I wish to reiterate residents’ concerns and ask some questions, in a helpful way, to try to elicit a response that might reassure local people.

First, let me outline the scale of the issue in our community, because at first sight it might not be obvious that in a medium-sized town thousands and thousands of people are affected by this building-safety scandal. It affects not only the people who live in taller blocks, nearly 10 of which are affected in Reading. They are all either privately owned or have a mixture of different forms of ownership, but they are not council-owned—the council blocks are safe. These privately owned blocks have been clad dangerously and are affected by a series of other matters, such as a dangerous car park ventilation that could lead to fires on the side of buildings.

There is a range of issues and a great deal of concern among thousands and thousands of residents. In fact, that is something of an understatement, because another group of residents might also be affected, and the level of risk in their buildings is unclear. I am talking about people who live in lower-rise blocks of flats and houses of multiple occupation. The issues are similar: many have issues with potentially dangerous cladding; others have issues with fire safety doors or just the very fact that a block has multiple occupation and requires greater scrutiny of the fire safety messages, briefing and information provided to residents.

In a town the size of the one I represent—and its suburbs—a substantial number of people live in medium-sized accommodation of three to six storeys, and however technical these matters may be, all those people are affected deeply by changes to building safety.

[Alan Brown]

I was hesitant to interrupt the hon. Member’s flow because this matter is obviously important for him and his constituents. Is the real issue the products that are on the market or governance in terms of building control, inspection and regulation?

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful to the hon. Member. I believe it may be both of those as well as the lack of resource for the fire service, which sadly has been cut significantly since 2010. There are, therefore, a number of significant issues for us as parliamentarians. I seek the Minister’s reassurance in particular on, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and my hon. (Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) mentioned, what happens as we move out of the scope of EU regulations and into a UK-based regime covering Great Britain while there will be continuation of EU measures in Northern Ireland. There is a great deal of scope for confusion.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Alan Brown Excerpts

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

[Paul Scully]

I have had non-viability and flunking today—I am doing well! I will come to this in a moment. We are framing this in a number of pieces of legislation. I have talked about the Environment Bill, which was introduced in January. It will require the Government to set at least one target for each of four priority areas: air quality, biodiversity, water and waste reduction, and resource efficiency. It will also protect the environment from future damage by—

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman keeps wanting to intervene. At least he has had the decency to put his name down on the speakers list this time, so maybe he will have a chance to make his points when he speaks later.

The Environment Bill will protect the environment from future damage by embedding environmental principles at the heart of policy development across Government, with clear and pragmatic guidance on their implementation. The environmental principles will be used by Ministers and policy makers to ensure that policy and legal frameworks help minimise the ill effects of human activity on the environment. Given the Government’s strong commitment already to meeting their ambitious climate targets, and the frameworks established under the Climate Change Act and proposed under the Environment Bill, I do not think that it is necessary to put such a legislative requirement in this Bill.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

This is a very good Bill for Scottish people, for Scottish businesses, for Scottish consumers and for the entire United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Maybe if the hon. Gentleman stopped engaging in a conversation with Government Front Benchers, he might listen to the reasons why this Bill is good for his constituents and good for the entirety of Scotland. If he really cared about the Scottish economy, the lives of his constituents and the life of every Scot, he would not move his amendments today but vote with the Government to ensure that this Bill passes and that we cement our most important market in statute, as set out in the Bill.

[Alan Brown]

It is a kind of pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). He strikes a conciliatory tone and he sounds reasonable, but the bottom line is that he talks complete tosh. Nobody in the SNP is arguing against preserving the UK internal market, but this Bill does not preserve the internal market; it actually undermines Scotland’s position, because it means we can be forced to accept conditions imposed on us by Westminster. It undermines devolution for the very same reason.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill allows the UK Government to spend more money in Scotland. That is bypassing the devolution settlement. There is nothing to stop the UK Government working with the Scottish Government at the moment to give the Scottish Government more money to spend on infrastructure and to discuss with them our needs in Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman supports a Prime Minister who in the past has said:

“A pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde.”

A Prime Minister who wanted the Barnett formula scrapped. A Prime Minister who said:

“I do think it is pretty monstrous that you have free care for the elderly in Scotland and no tuition fees…when you still get considerable subsidies from the rest of the UK”.

Where is the respect for devolution and for the Scottish Government making their own policy decisions in Scotland? It is non-existent.

As we have heard, clause 46 is the biggest power grab ever, allowing the UK Government to impose spending decisions on Scotland, bypassing the elected Government of Scotland. We have heard that it will be additional money, but where is the proof? This allows the Tory Government to cut the Scottish block grant and then spend that money for its own political gain, pretending that it is top-up money when it is not. It is a con trick.

The first sentence of clause 46 includes the provision:

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

Given the Tory track record—as we have heard, they have awarded a ferry contract to a company with no ferries, awarded PPE contracts to their cronies and outsourced the track and trace scheme, for example—how can we trust their spending judgments and their integrity to spend money in Scotland, supposedly for our benefit?

Scotland previously relied on EU structural funds to help to plug shortfalls from Westminster, and now we are supposed to trust the UK prosperity fund, which sits in the Department of English communities and local government, managed by a Secretary of State who ploughed the English towns fund money into Tory marginal seats and who made an unlawful planning decision to save a Tory donor millions of pounds. There is no way we can trust him to look after the needs of Scotland. We cannot trust the Tory Government with clause 46 and, to rub salt in the wounds, clause 47 allows returns and punitive interest to be applied to any spending that comes through clause 46.

Clause 48 allows Westminster to decide what is and is not allowed with state aid. Let us look at farming, for example. The Scottish Government may wish to pay headage figures for lamb and beef production, but the UK Government could overrule that if they do not support English farmers in the same way. If we get to the stage where the free marketeers have their way and UK Government state subsidy is eliminated for certain sectors, by default, the Scottish sectors will also have their rug pulled from under them because of state aid rules. How does that respect devolution? When it comes to farming, the UK Government have form, previously having stolen the common agricultural policy convergence uplift money from the EU.

We know the risk of imports of chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef. However, Argentinian beef could come in and undercut the market. Genetically modified crops could be imposed in Scotland. We have more robust climate change targets that could now be overruled by Westminster. The Government might impose this Bill on the Scottish Parliament against its will, but they are going to lose the independence argument.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of the Government’s Bill and their amendments. This Bill exposes an inherent weakness in the withdrawal agreement—namely, that while the EU and UK Government must use best endeavours and act in good faith to reach an agreement, it does not spell out a clear course of action if either or both of those criteria are not met. We all know that the EU has become accustomed to a United Kingdom that repeatedly comes back to the table asking for an extension, and maybe this is why the EU’s format of negotiation is a sequencing one, meaning that it agrees to move forward only once an agreement has been reached on a previous matter. This has the effect of incurring huge delays, and the EU’s unwillingness to multitask must have a purpose—namely, continuous delays desirable to the EU and damaging to the UK’s prospects of a good deal.

Is the sequencing approach to negotiating a demonstration of using best endeavours or negotiating in good faith? I submit that it is not. It is now clear to most objective observers that the EU’s current interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol is to use it as a lever in the negotiations. How is that a demonstration of negotiating in good faith? This Bill will ensure that Northern Ireland remains part of the UK’s customs territory and that Northern Ireland businesses retain unfettered access to GB markets. I must, however, place on record that more needs to be done in relation to Northern Ireland, having heard very powerful and compelling speeches from Unionist colleagues today and previously.

We know that the withdrawal agreement provided for the Joint Committee to set out heads of terms of a future deal, but the prospect of there being a timely and full agreement now appears unlikely. Why does the EU fail to agree at the Joint Committee on a single exemption from controls and tariffs for any goods flowing between GB and Northern Ireland? Is that behaviour consistent with best endeavours and good faith? Again, I submit that it is not. Why is it failing to agree exemptions at the Joint Committee on food checks for food moving between GB and Northern Ireland when we have been a member of the EU for 40 years and set standards ourselves? However, more fundamentally, what country and what Government in their right mind would devolve such fundamental sovereign powers to a foreign entity so that it would have the right to decide whether we can move our own food around our own Union of nations, as we have done for centuries? If we do not deliver this Bill, the EU will also have jurisdiction over how state aid decisions are made, for example on bail-outs related to covid or any future crisis.

For all those reasons, the Bill is about the delivery of Brexit and about sovereignty. It puts into law the ability for the Government to take action if a deal is not agreed. It delivers on an instruction that the good people of Dudley, and across our Union, gave this place not only in the 2016 referendum but at the last general election. We should, and must, press on with this.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

What I can say for sure is that it will not be the European Union, and that summarises the argument in a nutshell. It is something I spoke about in the debate only yesterday, where I made it entirely clear that there is one thing we have to be absolutely clear about, and this Government, as compared with the previous Administration, have made it clear. In relation to that vast range of state aids that I mentioned yesterday—they are effectively decided by the European Commission and imposed on our own companies and our own internal economic sovereignty at the moment, but we are now going to insist on retrieving them, and we have retrieved them by leaving the European Union—the position is simply this: the manner in which the European Court and the European Commission operate needs to be revised, reviewed and abandoned for the purposes of ensuring that in the United Kingdom, we have a competition policy that enables us to be able to compete fairly, not only throughout the whole world, but also in relation to the European Union.

It is well known that the question of state aids, which goes across such a wide range of matters, as I mentioned yesterday, causes an enormous amount of problems in many sectors of the British economy. We have to be able to compete effectively. We have just heard a statement on coronavirus. The damage that has come about as a result of this uncontrollable—or virtually uncontrollable—disease, which has infected so many people, affects the operations of our businesses and has created a great deal of economic dislocation. We will need to be able to compete effectively throughout the world. This is a serious matter about a serious issue. What we cannot have, as I mentioned yesterday, is the situation that we have at the moment, which is where authorisations are given by the European Commission that either create discrimination against British businesses or have the perception or the potential for doing so. They will affect the voters in Scotland—and the voters in Sheffield, if I may say so. I was brought up in Sheffield. I saw what the European Coal and Steel Community did to the British steel industry. [Interruption.] I hear what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) says. The reality is that those businesses were driven out of business by, in many cases, unfair subsidies and unfair state aids that were given to other member states. I can give an example. I happened to know many people who worked at the coalface—I used to play cricket with them when I played for Sheffield—and I can tell Members that the Sheffield steelworkers, whom I also played with on occasion, sometimes it was rugger, found that they were very severely jeopardised by the massive state aids that were given to the German coal industry—it was as much as £4 billion—and authorised by the Commission. For a variety of reasons, we did not get the same kind of treatment here in the United Kingdom. This is all part of the problem of how to have fair and reasonable competition.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Let us come to the here and now, looking at this Bill. Say, in the future, the Scottish Government want to support the Scottish farming industry, but the UK Government have decided that, as free marketeers, they want to pool all support for their farmers. Under these proposals, is it not the case then that Scottish state aid for their farmers would be ruled illegal and they would not be able to trade in the UK internal market?

[Sir William Cash]

As far as I am aware, the answer is no. The Office for the Internal Market will not be able to override decisions made by the devolved Administrations. What has happened—

[Alan Brown]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I want to look at the clauses. On clause 28, it is proposed that “Scotland” be left out. On clause 29, amendment 29 would insert that following a legislative appeal from all the devolved powers, we would have a consultation before any changes. On clause 35, it is proposed that prior to publishing any information, the CMA must consult all Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Ministers and the devolved Administrations. All these amendments seem to have one thing in common: they are asking for all consultation on how we move our internal market forward to be done with the devolved powers in the United Kingdom. Many in the House have raised the issue of who will be holding the CMA to account. We here represent the entire United Kingdom. We are elected to represent all parts of the United Kingdom.

[Alan Brown]

Is the hon. Lady therefore confirming that Westminster should take sovereignty over the devolved Administrations and the will of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments?

[Joy Morrissey]

Absolutely not—that is not what I am saying.

[Alan Brown]

That is what I heard.

[Joy Morrissey]

Let me clarify for you. An internal market is something that is brought together historically. When we look at successful internal markets of the past, where have they been successful? We can look at the single market within the EU and at the 13 original colonies in the United States. They were 13 separate entities that had no regulatory system and were bound together by an internal market that allowed for free trade and the movement of goods and services. This Bill is not a political Bill—it is an economic Bill to enhance our competitiveness with the world. It is not to detract from the powers of Scotland—it is to make Scotland stronger through the power of free trade within the internal market.

I have been listening very carefully to what hon. Members across the House have been saying and the points that you have been raising, and I am very sympathetic to your cries about a lack of democratic representation. That is why I voted to leave the EU: for the very reason of the lack of democratic representation by the European Commission, which oversees the single market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alyn Smith]

Absolutely. We are deeply concerned on behalf of Scotland’s farmers—and, indeed, everybody else’s—that trade deals could see a lowering of standards. Mutual recognition of the UK internal market could undermine the capacity of the different authorities to have those rules.

[Alan Brown]

On that concern about the lowering of standards, the International Trade Secretary said previously that consumers would choose what products they wanted on the shelves. Does that not indicate that the Bill is a Trojan horse for a lowering of standards that would affect Scottish farming?

[Alyn Smith]

Exactly. I fully agree with my hon. Friend, who has been fighting for farmers in his constituency for many years. New clause 5, for which I hope we have some support from those on the Opposition Benches, is specifically about the maintenance of minimum standards, so I hope that when the House comes to consider it, there will be support for it. If we are scaremongering about lowering standards, then Members can support the amendments to make it explicit in the Bill that standards will not be lowered. Prove us wrong. By refusing to back the amendments, we will be proven right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I do not think I have spoken under you before. My constituents in Rother Valley and fellow Members of this House will be aware of my deep and unwavering commitment to the Union. I am an avowed Conservative and Unionist, and I never pass up an opportunity to celebrate the success of our British family. As such, it is a privilege to promote our Union and this Bill, unamended, which promises to protect the jobs and safeguard the unity of our nation.

As I said last night on Second Reading, we are one family. The Bill strengthens the familial ties between the four countries of our family, but I fear that the amendments—particularly amendments 28 and 29— weaken those ties and fundamentally undermine the purpose of the Bill. The Bill binds us ever closer together. It provides that any goods that are legally sold in one part of UK must also be freely sold in any other part of the UK—equality.

[Alan Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alexander Stafford]

Why not?

[Alan Brown]

Where is the equality in goods of a lower standard being forced on another country in the UK?

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but my point is that this is about equality. We are one country and one family, and everyone should be equal. The father is not superior to the mother, the wife not superior to the husband, and the husband not superior to the daughter. I do not know what sort of family the hon. Gentleman comes from, but everyone is equal in my family.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alyn Smith]

rose—

[Alan Brown]

rose—

[Alexander Stafford]

Can I make a bit more progress?

[Alan Brown]

Just on that little point?

[Alexander Stafford]

Oh, why not? I haven’t had enough of you! More, please!

[Alan Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way once more. With all this coming together, we should bear in mind that we do not yet know who the CMA and the OIM will be made up of, but we know that they will be appointed by the Government, and that Dominic Cummings will probably have a hand in that, so what are the chances of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish business interests being represented by those people? There’s not much coming together there, is there?

[Alexander Stafford]

I have every faith that the Scottish people will be represented, and the Welsh and the Northern Irish and—I hate to say the word; I do not think the hon. Gentleman mentioned this—the English people as well. This Government and this party want to represent the United Kingdom. The SNP wants to represent the Scottish people only. I want to represent the entire country, so of course we will come together.

Going back to the main part of my speech—

Planning Process: Probity

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

One reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has called in the Mayor’s plan is that we believe it to be insufficient; it has a paucity of ambition for the sorts of houses and the number of houses we need in London. By his own admission, the Mayor is missing his own target. The reason why this particular application came before my right hon. Friend was the failure of the local authority to properly determine upon it. He came to the conclusion that it should go ahead because of the number of homes and of affordable homes that were going to be built—the sorts of homes the Mayor of London is not building.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

This is like the Dominic Cummings affair and we have a Minister defending the indefensible. When the Secretary of State personally approves a planning application a day before the deadline, which saves the developer £40 million of fees in infrastructure payments, it raises serious questions. When it transpires that the developer then donates to the Tory party, to the public this matter simply stinks. Worse, the Secretary of State’s actions overruled the planning decision of the local council and it was against his own Planning Inspectorate advice. Why did he think he knew better? Why do the Minister and the Secretary of State not think it would be better to have more affordable homes funded? Surely they must agree that a multi-millionaire funding a £1 billion development helps fund future infrastructure for the greater good. Why was the Secretary of State content with his decision until legal action was raised by Tower Hamlets Council? Why do the Government think it is acceptable for the Secretary of State to remain in place after an unlawful decision, which he admits shows apparent bias? This is a party whose former Prime Minister and current Prime Minister once auctioned off a tennis match with themselves for £160,000. Does the Minister understand what these fundraising events look like to the public when other decisions then get made that seem to favour those who attend the events? For a Tory Government, it is one rule for them and one rule for another. Fortunately for us in Scotland, many people in Scotland now see independence as a better option, because nothing the Minister can say gives confidence in this place.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I said, it is not unusual for Ministers to look at and call in significant applications, and for them to come to a different conclusion from that of the Planning Inspectorate. My right hon. Friend’s reasons for his decision were clearly outlined in his decision letter of 14 January. He makes it clear that one reason for his decision to allow the application was the very significant number of homes that were going to be built as a result of it, including affordable homes. I might say in response to the hon. Gentleman that in the same week, in an application to the same authority, my right hon. Friend came to a very different conclusion when he refused a planning application made by and supported by the local authority to demolish the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, the one that created Big Ben and the Liberty bell. The local authority, the well-known tribunes of the people in Tower Hamlets, wanted to demolish it and build a luxury boutique hotel. My right hon. Friend will always come down on an application based on its merits and in the interests of the people. That is what he did on this occasion and that is what he will always do.

Horizon: Sub-Postmaster Convictions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend refers to Susan Knight. He has also told me about another constituent of his who was the landlady of a local pub and lost that pub. It was another terrible story, alongside those we have heard from Members on both sides of the House about their constituents. In terms of compensation, members of the group litigation have reached a settlement, and I am pleased that a settlement was reached after many years and that the deadlock was broken. As I said, anybody else who has not claimed can join the historical shortfall scheme, and if people have been wrongly convicted, there will be procedures in place for them to claim compensation.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.

While the Post Office was wilfully hiding its own failings, it operated a system where sub-postmasters were automatically guilty. The Post Office then ran its own prosecutions, so in effect, it was judge, jury and executioner. This proves that we need a judge-led public inquiry, with all the powers associated with that, to get full disclosure and a call for evidence. In the meantime, can the Minister tell me what steps the Government have taken to ensure that this abuse of power can never be replicated and that sub-postmasters now have fair and transparent contracts?

[Paul Scully]

Justice Fraser is that independent judge who has looked into exactly what the hon. Gentleman described, which is why we want to build on those findings in what happens next. The Post Office has realised and finally acknowledged that it has done wrong. The fact is that the Government, within our new relationship and new framework as the sole shareholder in the Post Office, need to ensure that we can analyse the work that is done to earn trust and rebuild the relationship with future sub-postmasters.

Social Housing

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for helping to secure it and I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on leading it. He made an excellent opening speech, which covered all the key issues in the motion. I agree with his comments, and those of other Members, that it would have been nice if there had been more Members in the Chamber, but it has probably led to better contributions because people have not had a time limit imposed on them. In one way, it has allowed the matter to be explored in greater detail.

I liked the way the hon. Gentleman illustrated the post-war housing policies versus the modern Tory housing policies. I agree with the sentiment about the cry for investment, clear targets, brownfield development and ending right to buy. These are matters I intend to return to.

We have heard some excellent speeches from the Back Benches. The themes seem to be homelessness, quality of existing stock, affordability, the critical matter of the lack of existing stock, and waiting lists.

For too long, since the Housing Act 1980 which allowed the right to buy, social and council housing has been the poor relation of housing aspirations. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) mentioned a stigma that is sometimes attached to social housing. Clearly, people owning homes is not a bad thing, but the rules for the original right to buy have led to the current crisis in social housing, with homes being sold at a discount, the receipts bypassing councils and going to Westminster, and councils not being allowed to fund or build new council housing stock. It did not take a genius to see that it would lead to a housing crisis.

Since the original sell-offs, 40% of flats sold in England under right to buy have entered the buy-to-let market, pushing up private rents, increasing the housing benefit bill and costing the taxpayer. To balance that extra cost to the taxpayer, local housing allowances have been frozen, as we have heard today, which has put pressure on social housing stock and resulted in homelessness as people cannot afford to live in the private rented sector.

In addition to the failed right to buy legacy, we had further disastrous policy decisions by the Lib Dem-Tory coalition Government and the 2015 Tory Government. The bedroom tax—not only unjust but proven to be illegal in some of its applications—has led to increased personal debt and rent arrears, the cost of which has been borne in the social sector by other rent payers and local tax payers. It just shifts a central Government cut on to local tax payers. Furthermore, the local housing allowance cap was to apply to refuge accommodation, which would have caused that vital support sector to collapse, had it not been for the belated but welcome U-turn.

Universal credit has caused issues wherever it has been rolled out—the five-week delay, massive rent arrears—and this has had an impact on social and council housing stock in terms of the ability to maintain properties and build new ones. Meanwhile, in England and Wales, the 1% year-on-year rent discount in the social rented sector, which the Tory Government have forced through, is applying downwards pressure on the revenue available to look after the stock. And now we have the ongoing voluntary right to buy pilot for social homes. If this is fully rolled out, the sales projected will result in a £10 billion discount in the sell-off of stock, which means £10 billion effectively going to subsidise people to buy houses and being taken out of the investment revenue available.

Another negative policy has been the disastrous reinvigorated right to buy scheme introduced in 2012. Since then, approximately 76,000 houses have been sold, but there have been only 20,000 new starts or acquisitions. Not only are the UK Government miles from meeting their one-for-one replacement target over three years, but the gap is widening every year to the tune of about 7,000 houses. Worse, the replacement figures are based on new starts or acquisitions; we do not monitor completions or when houses become available for people to move into. It is almost a wheeze. I am pretty sure that someone could get a JCB, dig a hole in the ground for a 20-house development and show they had started 20 new houses. On paper, they would have met the new start criteria, but the important thing is: when will these houses be available for people to move into?

Under the one-for-one replacement target, the new houses need not be of the same type or built in the same location. This is clearly another failing policy putting further pressure on the social housing sector. It does not matter what the Minister says; it demonstrates that housing policies are still flawed. It also shows that replacement is not just a numbers game; there is much more to it. The motion mentions the number of houses that need to be constructed, but we need houses of the right type, in the right location and with access to local services and public transport, and to do that a mass of planning is required. Indeed, several hon. Members have mentioned the importance of planning.

Prior to entering the House, I served as a local councillor and was lucky enough to have housing as part of my cabinet portfolio. I was glad to instigate plans to convert low-demand flats into family houses for which there was a much greater need and much greater demand. In conjunction with the SNP Government, East Ayrshire Council implemented a council housing build programme to build new houses, including houses that were suitable for the elderly or adapted for wheelchair use. People are often trapped in houses not suitable for them, so building new suitable housing can change people’s lives and free up larger properties for families who need them. If thought out properly, that is a clever way of refreshing the housing stock, and there is a spin-off as well: it reduces delayed discharges from hospitals, which is another important aspect.

Moreover, in East Ayrshire, as elsewhere in Scotland, part of the new council and social housing build policy is aimed at brownfield developments. The council is building new houses, creating new assets, freeing up properties for families and building proper houses while actually regenerating areas, which brings further drive and growth in the area.

All that shows that the picture can be different from the issues we have heard about today. There are ways forward and this can be solved, as the examples from East Ayrshire show. There it has been done in conjunction with the Scottish Government. Not only are they building new houses—this relates to some of the asks of hon. Members today—but they have ended the right to buy policy and so retained an additional 15,000 houses in stock. They also started a council house build programme in April 2009. It was the first council house build programme in a generation. Between 2007 and 2018, the supply of affordable homes in Scotland was 35% higher than in England and, in the last four years, that rate has been 50% higher.

In the same four-year period, the Scottish Government have delivered five times more social housing per head than England. We have built more council houses in Scotland than have been built in the entirety of England over the period of the SNP Government. That has been based on centrally funded money from the SNP, along with some local housing revenue money, not on the sell-off of existing council house stock. In Scotland, we are doing this despite Tory austerity and despite having to offset the bedroom tax, the council tax relief and LHA reductions, which obviously has put further pressure on the Scottish Government’s budget and local budgets. In Scotland, we also have stronger legislation to protect homeless people and give them the right to housing.

We have heard some excellent contributions from across the Chamber today. I hope that some of the examples I have given show that going forward with drive and ambition we can build more houses, make them fit for purpose and regenerate areas. In that area, the Scottish Government have been leading the way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

My right hon. Friend is to be admired in displaying yet more impatience for homes to be built, and he is right that the newly revamped Homes England is an impressive and entrepreneurial organisation which is using its skills to unlock sites across the country. In the six months that I have been in this job, I have been impressed by its work and I am now busy touring sites, as I was in Poole in Dorset, where it is applying its skills and industry to unlock precisely the kind of problem that he talked about.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

There is a three-year period for a one-to-one replacement to start at a site, but what is the average time for completion of one-to-one replacements? Of the one-to-one replacements that the Government say are in progress, how many are actually occupied?

[Kit Malthouse]

I am afraid I am going to fail the hon. Gentleman: I do not have that precise number at my fingertips at the moment. But I am more than happy to write to him about it. He will know, however, that we have consulted on changes to the one-to-one replacement policy and we will be coming forward with a response, and hopefully improvements, soon.

East Coast Main Line Investment

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. As other hon. Members have done, I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on securing the debate, and I commend her for the work that she does as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the east coast main line.

The hon. Lady’s speech covered history and looked forward. As to the history, we heard about Stephenson and the Rocket, and the development of the original engines in Newcastle. That was interesting to me, and it made me feel I should mention some of my constituency’s rail history. The oldest remaining railway viaduct in the world, the Laigh Milton viaduct, is in my constituency. The town of Kilmarnock has a proud heritage of building railway locomotives. There are still two companies active in Kilmarnock involved in the manufacture and refurbishment of rail rolling stock: Wabtec and Brodie Engineering. QTS, which is located just outside my constituency, employs many of my constituents and is involved in the ongoing maintenance of rail infrastructure up and down the UK. It is a company that helps to keep trains running.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North clearly highlighted some of the issues affecting the east coast main line. As to punctuality, I noted the figure of 80%, against an 86% average in England and Wales. It is worth mentioning that the ScotRail franchise in Scotland operates at nearly 90% punctuality, and even that gets quite a bit of criticism, which shows what the level of performance on the east coast main line really is. However, it is not just a matter of statistics: the statistics mirror passenger experience, and it is important to point that out. If there is an intention to increase passenger or visitor numbers, and to get people to return to the railways, clearly there is a need for an enjoyable rail experience. That is tied in with punctuality and reliability. The issue underpins the whole argument about investment on the east coast main line. I support those calls, because the route is a cross-border one.

The £780 million package that magically appeared at the time of the Cabinet visit to the north in July was interesting. Obviously, it was welcome, but it made me think. I hope the Minister can explain. A surprise announcement kind of makes a mockery of the whole asset management system—the approach to managing infrastructure and going about long-term planning and investment—because suddenly, from nowhere, there is an announcement of a £780 million investment. It would be good if the Minister could explain the rationale for that and how it was prioritised in relation to other things that are still needed—either investment for the east coast main line, or other rail investment called for by Members in the surrounding area.

I have my own experience and memories of travelling on the east coast main line, which was the service of choice when going from the west coast of Scotland to London. At one time, the east coast main line had a much better service than the west coast main line, even though the journey was longer. It is clear that upgrades to the west coast main line have changed that dynamic and resulted in a shifting of the passenger balance, with more now using the west coast main line. That underpins the need for upgrades to the east coast main line. However, there are some parallels, looking forward; some upgrades will be made to the west coast main line to facilitate High Speed 2, but they will leave other areas of the rail network further behind. Some passengers will end up with an even poorer second-class system, while other areas of the network will get upgrades to facilitate High Speed 2.

The valid point has been made that the Treasury can spike projects or control the final release of money. We need to move away from that. Surely the Department for Transport should make the final decisions on investment.

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) made another of his repeated requests for upgrades in the Cleethorpes and Grimsby area. I have heard those requests many times, in the main Chamber and here, so it might be thought that at some point Ministers would hear his requests and act on them. It would be good to hear the Minister’s response. An ongoing issue that the hon. Gentleman touched on was the theory that privatisation brought in a lot more investment from the private sector. What it did was to allow private companies to borrow money at a higher rate than the UK Government can, against, effectively, the guarantee that taxpayers and rail users will pick up the tab. It is not free money or magic money. It is a different way of hiding the Government’s borrowing. That is my issue with privatisation and the argument that it has brought in all this extra investment. It is actually just another way of hiding the borrowing.

That took us neatly on to the speech of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), who responded by saying that privatisation is a joke. I think that the hon. Gentleman will gather that I agree with his sentiments—certainly, as to how the matter is presented. He rightly pointed out that between 2009 and 2015, the state-operated rail company generated £1 billion in track fees and £42 million operating profit. Of course, that profit did not go to shareholders but was invested straight back into the railway, again showing the merits of public sector involvement in the operation of the railways.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted the fact that the UK runs an unbalanced economy with a focus on London and the south-east, which he said was to the detriment of north-east England. I observe, however, that a Labour Government were in power from 1997 to 2010, and surely they should have done something about that imbalance and invested in the east coast main line up to the north-east.

[Mr Hepburn]

Do not forget the neglect that we in that Labour Government inherited. We turned around the imbalance in hospitals and schools, and we spent a fortune on raising standards to give working-class people a better chance in life.

[Alan Brown]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the mess that was inherited, but I still think something could have been done about the east coast main line. When the west coast main line was being done, it would have made sense to have a long-term plan for upgrading the spines along the west and east coasts, to see how that could generate growth and connectivity with cities and regions across the UK.

I can exclusively reveal that any speech in Westminster Hall by the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) starts with, “I wasn’t going to speak, but I was inspired and now feel obliged to do so.” I agree completely with his comments about franchises and the fact that lawyers suck a lot of money out of the system. Cost consultants also suck a lot of money out of the system, and the money that we are paying for lawyers, cost consultants and management is money that could be used for investment and to drive growth in the railways.

Relevant points were raised about the Hatfield disaster, and about how ideology led to the privatisation of the rail infrastructure. That reminded me of a recent statement on the railways by the Transport Secretary, in which he spoke about the forthcoming rail review and kept referring to the fact that some failures of the existing system were due to what he called the “nationalised” part of the railway system. For me, that had bad undertones of future privatisation, which is why I challenged him on that point. Thankfully, he said on the record that there are no plans to privatise Network Rail, and we must certainly never go back to the disaster of the Railtrack venture.

The hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) made a plea for the improved services that have apparently been promised for Lincoln, and it would be good to hear the Minister’s response to that. She correctly pointed out problems with the existing franchise system, and the fact that tenderers are allowed to over-promise, under-deliver and walk away. There is something fundamentally and morally wrong with the fact that Virgin Trains East Coast was able to walk away owing the taxpayer £2 billion. The Secretary of State always says—the Minister probably does as well—that the £2 billion was not a bail-out, but if I let somebody who owed me £2 billion walk away from me, that would effectively be a £2 billion bail-out. Vtec had an IOU for £2 billion, and it was able to wrap it up and walk away. That is a bail-out, in layman’s language, and that money could have been invested in the railway. We have an investment of £780 million, but with £2 billion coming from track fees, that is old money being invested in rolling stock. I understand that the new operation will still generate track fees, but no private company should be able to walk away and still be involved in other franchise bids. It makes no sense.

I agree with the comments made about the franchise system, and I welcome the review into that. We must, however, move away from short-termism and towards longer-term plans for investment in the east coast main line. I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North about the need for the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government on cross-border planning and investment. The Scottish Government funded the reopening of the Waverley line down to the borders, which was the biggest new rail project in the UK for something like 100 years. We want that to extend further and become a proper cross-border connection again, and I ask the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government on that in the long term.

I cannot finish a speech on the railways without saying that the SNP wants Network Rail to be devolved to Scotland. The Transport Secretary keeps saying that Network Rail is such a problem, so why do the Tory Government not allow that part of Network Rail in Scotland to be devolved and become the responsibility of the Scottish Government, along with other operations in Scotland? That would perhaps help the efficiency of the east coast main line. It would save money spent on Network Rail, and any money saved could be reinvested. I will now conclude my remarks, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

First of all, I would point out that this money represents a very significant increase in spending on the east coast main line. In control period 5, from 2014 to 2019, we spent about £400 million on upgrades to the line. In control period 6, that amount will increase to £780 million—it will almost double. To cast that increase as a reduction does an injustice to the Government’s ambition for this section of our network. That spending will be coupled with a £5.7 billion programme of investment in the new rolling stock, a significant proportion of which will result in increased capacity and more comfortable journeys for passengers along the east coast main line—that cannot be described as a reduction.

Of course, there will always be bids for further Government spending on all bits of the transport network. They cannot all be accommodated at the same time, but as and when business cases develop for specific pieces of work, they can be considered as part of our enhancement programme.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give way?