Post Office Update
Alexander Stafford Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is what is so galling for the postmasters who had those roles in the past. They were the stalwarts and the backbone of their community; the stigma of being accused of false accounting or fraud must have been so unbearable, as we know from the incredibly tragic testament that we have heard. As well as getting answers on that, we want to reset the relationship with postmasters so that they can go back to being the centre of their community, adding such social value, and bringing and keeping communities together.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming the fantastic news that the sub-postmasters wrongly accused across the UK will no longer face prosecution, meaning that this hugely difficult time for them is finally at an end. I shall always stand by Rother Valley’s hard-working sub-postmasters and postmasters. It is incredibly important that full and timely justice is served. Will my hon. Friend therefore commit to holding the Post Office’s feet to the fire, ensuring that it studies carefully whatever recommendations may arise from the inquiry to ensure that this can never ever happen again?
Paul Scully
This is the end of the beginning. Clearly, there is a long way to go to ensure that we get the answers, but in holding the Post Office’s feet to the fire, I do not want to add stigma to the Post Office moving forward; for the reasons that we have heard today, post offices are right at the heart of all our communities, so it is important that we have that day zero to reset the Post Office’s future relationship with postmasters and its communities while getting answers, justice and fair compensation for those who have been wronged over the last two decades.
Levelling-up Fund: Rother Valley
Alexander Stafford Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I feel privileged to rise to discuss the levelling-up fund and its crucial role in the regeneration of Rother Valley’s high streets. It offers local authorities the opportunity to bid for up to £20 million of investment in projects that benefit the whole community.
Rother Valley has been identified as a priority 1 area, meaning that a strong bid submitted by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council could be rewarded with a grant of the full £20 million. Additionally, the Government have allocated £125,000 to enable RMBC to put together its bid and have assured the council that if its first bid, in June, is not successful, it can reapply in the future. There is no doubt in my mind that a project to regenerate my constituency’s high streets would have the biggest impacts on the greatest number of people.
I will use this opportunity to discuss the transformative potential of the levelling-up fund and the levelling-up agenda in Rother Valley. I and many Members of this House were swept to victory in December 2019 as a result of the historical neglect of constituencies by a complacent Labour party. People felt left behind, disenfranchised and ignored, and they decided to bring about change. The local elections last week show that this sentiment remains as strong today as it was then. I point to the results in my area of Rotherham, where the Conservative party surged from zero councillors to an incredible 20 councillors, breaking Labour’s decades-long stranglehold on the area in the process.
Why does the Conservative party enjoy such strong support among people in Rother Valley and similar communities across our country? There can be no doubt that a core element of our appeal is our levelling-up agenda. We can no longer allow our areas to decline and fade into obscurity. To remain a great, forward-looking nation, we must build back better and level up in all four corners of our United Kingdom. Levelling up resonates with the residents of Rother Valley because they want to be able to see with their own eyes tangible evidence of progress and real proof that their lives are being improved.
For my part, I am working tirelessly to ensure that Rother Valley collects every single penny of central Government funding. Today’s debate joins a petition presented to Parliament recently as yet another way of doing just that. I am sure the Minister agrees with me that Rother Valley is now known in Parliament and Whitehall in a way that it simply was not before the last general election. My job is to be the cheerleader for my area, and I always want to shout the loudest when it comes to representing my constituents.
I will address first the repeated shortcomings of the Labour-led council in looking after the towns and village of Rother Valley. For years, hundreds of millions of pounds of investment have been funnelled into the centre of Rotherham for white elephant schemes such as the redevelopment of Forge Island, while the rest of the borough has been completely ignored. Another example is the towns fund, which only benefits Rotherham central and not Rother Valley. Often, it seems that the Labour-led RMBC is a council for Rotherham town proper, as opposed to its adjacent hinterlands, and there is a fundamental issue with how RMBC approaches areas such as Rother Valley. It is not just that we do not receive any investment, but that there are few plans in place for these areas. The lack of development plans is particularly extraordinary when one considers that Labour has controlled RMBC since time immemorial. There were no council plans in place for Rother Valley’s high streets, and everyone in Rother Valley has known that for years.
To fill the vacuum left by RMBC, parish and town councils have had to adopt neighbourhood plans to plug the gaps. Dinnington has just adopted its plan, and Maltby and Wickersley are in the process of devising their own. However, as commendable as our town and parish councils’ work has been, individual and disparate neighbourhood plans are no replacement for a joined-up co-ordinated approach across the constituency, and our towns and parish councils recognise that fact. Their efforts cannot begin to match RMBC’s financial resources and capabilities with regard to economic feasibility studies and planning law. Of course neighbourhood plans have their role in the context of the building of new homes in existing communities, but they cannot be expected to imitate an overarching vision and a strategy for our area. We need RMBC to lead on this by adopting an ambitious masterplan for Rother Valley’s high streets and to work with town and parish councils to integrate their neighbourhood plans into a wider, unified scheme for the constituency.
Of course, it is not just RMBC that is responsible for the lack of plans in place for Rother Valley. The Labour-run Sheffield City Region has the power to transform Rother Valley’s transport, to fund large infrastructure projects and to boost businesses and local skills—all with central Government funding. As a key part of the Sheffield metropolitan area, we should be benefitting from devolution, but very little comes our way. Whether it is RMBC’s obsession with Rotherham town or Sheffield City Region’s fixation with Sheffield city, we lose out time and time again.
The impact of this neglect by the Labour-run local authority on Rother Valley’s high streets and our communities is stark. I shall take Maltby as an example, although much the same could be said of Dinnington, Thurcroft and towns across my constituency. In Maltby, a staggering 8% of residents are unemployed, 32% of households do not own a car, and travel time to the nearest town centre via public transport averages 42 minutes. Broadband speeds are almost half the England average, and the community needs score for Maltby is 167, compared with just 68 in England as a whole, indicating reduced community cohesion and civic connectivity.
Those disturbing statistics highlight how the chronic lack of investment in Rother Valley’s high streets means that areas such as Dinnington, Maltby, Thurcroft and Kiveton Park risk withering on the vine under Labour’s watch. That cannot be the fate of our wonderful towns, and I shall not stand for it.
Alexander Stafford
These are towns with immense potential, filled to bursting with warm, friendly, talented people. It is not the case that these are not great places; I can assure the House that they are some of the finest communities in our United Kingdom. However, in order to thrive they must be given a fair chance. That is all we are asking for—nothing more, nothing less. For the people of Rother Valley, this is the true meaning of the levelling-up agenda: ensuring that we have the same chances that are afforded to towns in Surrey and Oxfordshire, or to neighbourhoods in London.
First, it is important that RMBC ensures that money is allocated to rejuvenate all high streets, not just those of Dinnington, Maltby and Thurcroft. We must level up in every corner of Rother Valley, including Kiveton Park, Waverley, Aughton, Whiston, Wickersley, Aston, Todwick, Treeton, Wales, Anston, Swallownest and all our wonderful communities. RMBC must work with these areas and with me to embrace localism and deliver on these communities’ priorities. There cannot be a top- down approach, and RMBC must not decide unilaterally what is needed in our areas.
In Dinnington, I have been in extensive discussions with Dinnington Community Land Trust and Dinnington St John’s Town Council regarding what is needed to regenerate the high street. The sheer number of boarded-up, burnt-out and abandoned buildings is disheartening. Both organisations raise the point that Dinnington was for many years the area’s main commercial centre. It had a broad range of shops as well as banks, a post office, a cinema, a theatre and the other commercial outlets that one would expect in a busy local town.
With money from the levelling-up fund, there are great possibilities for renewal on Dinnington’s high street. There has always been a market in Dinnington, but over the years it has decreased in size and importance due to lack of vision from the council and poor-quality facilities for vendors and customers. Yet it remains the only traditional market for many miles and still enjoys a good following on market days. It needs rethinking in order to give a 21st-century offering to its customers and vendors, with specialist vendors encouraged to set up in the market area to win back customers who travel to Sheffield for products they cannot currently buy at Dinnington market. My constituents will know how important an improved access road into Dinnington is in order to facilitate that inward flow.
The presence of Tesco and Aldi attracts up to 1,200 shoppers each day to the centre of Dinnington, and pre-pandemic up to 200 people visited for performances at the Lyric Theatre. We need to ensure that those people stay on the high street, by way of an attractive and well-defined pedestrian route, such as a “town centre gateway” through Constable Lane; a complete rebuild of the indoor and outdoor market; and support for more restaurants and bars along the street to encourage a vibrant night-time economy.
The levelling-up fund must support business owners to renovate their shop frontages and tackle the preponderance of unsightly shutters. Similarly, Dinnington’s high street is currently maintained by little more than one man and his brush. A small investment in street cleaners and waste bins would clean up our town centre and make it a more pleasant place to visit. Equally worth considering is a fully pedestrianised high street, which would tackle speeders and joyriders, and allow vendors to spread out into the high street, permitting trees, street furniture, monuments and seating to be strategically placed in order to create a more open feel. We must not forget our heritage, either, so it is important that some money is allocated to a local history centre on the high street, which would pay tribute to our miners and serve as a destination for local schools and community groups.
Those needs and wants are echoed on high streets across Rother Valley. In Maltby, we need to preserve the historic and iconic Maltby Grammar School building and endow it with a new purpose. Likewise, Coronation Park needs a comprehensive revamp. My constituents would like to see a nod to Maltby’s glory days, with any rejuvenation efforts paying tribute to the town’s mining heritage, textile industry, brickworks, library and picture house. Traffic congestion on the high street is a serious problem, with RMBC taking no steps to address the promised motorway bypass, and in fact building more and more new houses without taking mitigating measures.
We need to make Maltby High Street a destination once again. That means clearing up the broken glass and introducing frequent sweeps of the road; supporting lots of new shops and restaurants; improving the road between Maltby and Dinnington; and ensuring that our high street complements local attractions such as Roche Abbey and our beautiful countryside and villages. Furthermore, we urgently need a reliable, frequent and fast bus link between Maltby and Dinnington, with the network extending throughout Rother Valley. It is a disgrace that we do not have that direct bus link in the constituency.
In Thurcroft, the parish council has suggested that initial improvements with levelling-up fund money could include the renewal of bollards, street furniture, litter bins, new street management and the creation of additional shop units on adjacent land. Likewise, the Aston Parish Council recommended that Swallownest High Street, Rose Garth Avenue in Aston and Aughton Main Street urgently need funding for the return of the lengthsman who cleaned the streets three times a week, alongside more dustbins, street furniture, footpath repairs and an increased police presence.
In Kiveton Park and Wales, residents wish to see the levelling-up fund used to renew the roads and pavements, spruce up the existing shops, finance more dustbins and street cleaning—yes, there is a theme—and back the introduction of flower boxes and grass verges, as well as facilitating the drainage of the Kiveton Park football club fields. On Whiston High Street, we must take measures to safeguard against flooding in order to protect homes and businesses.
Vandalism and antisocial behaviour are a scourge on all our high streets as well. We need the levelling-up fund money to be spent on CCTV, street lighting and crime prevention measures, which will dovetail with my campaign to persuade the Labour police and crime commissioner to have a police base on Dinnington and Maltby high streets.
In the light of this consultation with my towns, and with the title of the debate in mind, how will regenerating high streets in Rother Valley lead to better outcomes for my area and my residents? It is important to understand the role of the high street in Rother Valley. Our high streets are not just the centre of our towns, but the very heart and soul of our community. They are a reflection of who we are as the people of Rother Valley— our heritage, our character and our aspirations—and serve as an illustration of the pride we have in our local area. And we are a proud people: proud of our industrial and mining past, which forms the foundation of every town; proud of our “roll our sleeves up and get the work done” attitude, which encapsulates our straightforward and uncomplaining nature; and proud of our ambition and talent, which we combine with our warm-hearted and friendly demeanour. That is who the people of Rother Valley are, and accordingly, we deserve high streets that match up to our rich history and our bright future.
That is why it is an absolute priority that the levelling-up fund money is used to regenerate Rother Valley’s high streets. We want to create the new high streets of the future, ensuring that they are the “places to be” and the “places to live”. This mixed usage will see provision for housing, health, business and transport, where residents can shop, work, access vital services and spend their leisure time. This funding really will transform our constituents’ lives, spreading jobs and opportunities throughout Rother Valley. It is clear that a prosperous high street means a prosperous town and a prosperous community.
I recently visited the regeneration project in Waverley, where there are plans to build a new, thriving, modern high street for the communities who live there, and I must say it sounds very impressive. There is no doubt in my mind that the principles being followed to build Waverley’s new high street must be applied to our historic high streets across Rother Valley: keeping residents local by ensuring that they have the amenities they need; building good transport links; clamping down on crime; and prioritising high-quality local employment and education.
Of course, the rejuvenation of our high streets with levelling-up fund grants will build on the work that I have undertaken to level up Rother Valley since I was elected. Recently, I presented a petition to Parliament on levelling up our area’s high streets that has been signed by over 1,800 constituents, and I have fought ceaselessly in the House for access to the levelling-up fund and increased investment for Rother Valley generally. The co-chairman of the Conservative Party—the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling)—and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government visited me on Dinnington High Street to support and discuss my high streets campaign, and over the past year, I have taken countless meetings with parish and town councils, constituents and RMBC concerning what Rother Valley needs most.
I have sponsored debates in my campaign to bring high-quality renewable energy jobs to our towns—for example, focusing on the hydrogen and critical minerals industries. I have vocally opposed fracking, which would degrade our communities at the expense of fossil fuel companies. I have stood against High Speed 2, which would cost huge sums of money for a project that destroys our landscapes and homes for no benefit to us, when we need the investment to be spent on transport locally. I have championed the reopening of the South Yorkshire joint railway to connect our towns and villages. I have led a bus campaign as part of the Rother Valley transport task force, as well as convening the Rother Valley rural crime task force calling for the reopening of police stations to make our towns and villages safer. I have also spoken out against CISWO’s sale of our community assets, which have been paid for by miners and should have remained open for residents to enjoy. All of that work is part of my vision for safer, prosperous high streets and a truly levelled-up Rother Valley.
As I draw to a close, I am pleased that RMBC has noted my petition, and now agrees with me that high streets need to be prioritised in this bid. I ask the Minister to urge RMBC to level up for all our communities and for all the people in Rother Valley, by restoring our high streets to their former glory and making them a place of pride once again. The levelling up fund will be life-changing, and I look forward to seeing that change on Rother Valley’s high streets in the months and years to come.
Levelling Up
Alexander Stafford Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Eddie Hughes
As I said in answer to a previous question, the Government will not be rethinking the data or the methodology that they apply to distributing their funding, but given the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has set out, I strongly urge that he engages with Ministers in the Department, because, as I have explained, a significant number of funding streams are available, and I would like to think that one of them is a good fit for his constituency.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) [V]
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. High streets across Rother Valley have been ignored and neglected for decades. The levelling-up fund presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rejuvenate our high streets, providing up to £20 million of funding to bring them back to life. Here in Rother Valley we cannot allow any more dither and delay for economic recovery of our communities. What encouragement can he give to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, my council, which is a priority 1 area, to fully grasp this amazing opportunity to get a bid in for the first round of funding for Rother Valley, so that we can start the necessary work of regenerating our high streets as quickly as possible?
Eddie Hughes
I would suggest two things: first, that the council engages quickly with its excellent local MP to identify appropriate projects for this funding; and secondly, that it fully utilises the £125,000 that will be given to help it work up an impressive and commercially appropriate bid.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alexander Stafford Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick
We have been very clear that the further work that we are doing now, building on the hugely successful Everyone In scheme, will be available to all individuals. Councils need to apply the law and that means making an individual assessment, but the unique circumstances of winter and the pandemic will mean that councils will use that to support more people off the streets and, importantly, to view this as a moment not just to support them now, but to get them GP-registered so that, in due course, they can be vaccinated, so we lead the world in supporting this vulnerable group and ensuring that they are fully vaccinated.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) [V]
Robert Jenrick
I do remember that visit to Dinnington when my hon. Friend was a candidate, and I was delighted that he was later elected. He has assiduously made the point that we need to think about smaller towns and larger villages in the preparation of our plans, whether that is the levelling-up fund or the UK shared prosperity fund. I appreciate that in places such as south Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, there are small communities, perhaps ex-steel and ex-coalfield communities, where the need is great and where we need to ensure that investment arrives. That will very much be in our minds as we prepare the prospectus for the levelling-up fund.
Planning and House Building
Alexander Stafford Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate. The “Planning for the Future” White Paper states that it plans for local communities to have control over where development goes and what it looks like, in its plan to build the homes this country needs. I wholeheartedly agree that local communities should have a great deal more agency regarding building developments in their area. However, given the recent activity in my constituency of Poplar and Limehouse, I very much doubt the Government’s credentials in this field.
The controversy surrounding the Westferry Printworks development in my constituency illustrates that this Government’s priorities lie in serving billionaires rather than the interests of local people. I believe that viability assessments must be undertaken centrally, and published, for sites on which affordable housing is contested. By allowing private companies to undertake their own assessments, controversies such as that of Westferry Printworks become built into our housing system.
In a BBC report, one of my constituents was quoted as feeling “cheated” and described local people as losing out as a result of the Westferry Printworks development. That controversy is indicative of a failing housing system—a system that has led many in my constituency to live through the covid-19 pandemic in overcrowded housing.
Apsana Begum
I will not.
Some of my constituents now face the threat of homelessness with the evictions ban lifted. One fifth of residents in my borough are paid less than the living wage of £13,650 a year. We have one of the highest average rents in London, while at the same time having some of the highest levels of poverty in the entire country. Clearly, the combination of high rents and low wages is toxic. With the Government’s already patchy pandemic support being withdrawn, we are facing the possibility of mass homelessness this winter.
It is therefore shocking that now, of all times, our Government plan to further empower private property developers, instead of turning their efforts to building social housing to deal with a winter homelessness crisis that is around the corner. Since the Prime Minister was elected, the Conservative party has received £11 million in donations from property developers. This White Paper is evidence of the influence such developers have bought themselves from our Government, with many referring to the Government’s planning reforms as a developers’ charter.
For many, job security has been hit hard by the covid-19 pandemic. With the Chancellor’s financial support being gradually withdrawn, many are facing a winter of uncertainty. To illustrate the point, it has been reported that there are now more food banks in the UK than McDonald’s restaurants. That statistic is an indictment of the lack of care that our Conservative Government have for so many in our society. Can the Minister explain what adjustments will be made to proposed housing reforms to combat the oncoming homelessness crisis that we may face?
Algorithms used by the Government have been in the news for negative reasons recently. The A-levels fiasco illustrates the flagrant lack of regard the Government have for the welfare of those living in less affluent areas. This White Paper sets out the use of a new algorithm and compulsory standardisation methodology that will dictate the allocation of new housing across local authorities. The planning and development consultancy Lichfields has reported that the algorithm will result in greater levels of planning allocation in rural areas as compared with built-up metropolitan areas. With areas such as Tower Hamlets facing some of the greatest housing poverty in the UK, the algorithm looks set to be another design to further engrain the social inequalities we face in this country.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I also speak as a sitting local councillor in my constituency of Luton South, which has many examples of the housing failures of 10 years of Tory rule, most recently brought to my attention by the Luton Community Forum. A lack of genuinely affordable housing and the changes to housing benefit and universal credit for the under-35s have increased the reliance on houses of multiple occupancy. Alongside that, an increase in unfit housing created through permitted development rights means that young people and families alike are living in substandard, overcrowded conditions, and house prices and private rents are unaffordable for many.
So what is the Government’s response? Cutting red tape—or, as I would say, removing regulations and democratic oversight that are there to ensure good-quality, safe homes. As the president of the Royal Institute of British Architects put it:
“Deregulation won’t solve the housing crisis.”
The Government’s “Planning for the Future” White Paper fundamentally misdiagnoses the cause of and the solutions to the housing crisis in this country. Affordable homes are no longer affordable and there are not enough homes being built, particularly for social rent.
In Luton, we have more than 13,000 people on our council house waiting list. Luton Council’s affordable housing document identified an unmet need of around 5,500 affordable dwellings, but there are few brownfield sites left in our town to develop. The duty to co-operate has been more or less ignored by neighbouring authorities.
Rachel Hopkins
I will not.
Key workers in Luton are struggling to pay rent. The very people we have relied on throughout the pandemic to keep us safe—our nurses, hospital cleaners and care home staff—are going home worried about keeping a roof over their own and their families’ heads. The latest End Child Poverty statistics state that 46% of children in my constituency live in poverty. The Government should be supporting children out of poverty, not consigning them to it. A good-quality, secure home is the foundation for a stable future.
While the planning system needs reform, simply slashing red tape ignores some of the real issues, including the fact that there are no measures to force developers to use unimplemented planning permissions or to tackle land banking, as has been raised by many hon. Members. As the Local Government Association has noted, nine in 10 applications are approved by councils, with more than 1 million homes that were given planning permission over the last decade yet to be built. That must be addressed.
The White Paper’s front-loading of public participation towards involvement only in the development of the local plan and away from individual applications strips local people of their voice in planning applications and removes their ability to formally object to specific developments in their area. It deprives elected councillors and communities of the ability to shape their area and shifts the balance in favour of developer choice instead. If we want to build back better, local people and communities must be at the heart of any regeneration and they should have more say, not less.
Scrapping red tape and extending permitted development rights will lead to the creation of more slum housing that does not meet the needs of local people. My constituents in Luton South desperately need a better plan, one that will build high-quality, genuinely affordable and environmentally sustainable homes. The Government have fallen way short of the mark for a decade as the situation has worsened, and now they have presented the House with a plan that takes local communities further away from planning decisions, while lining the pockets of wealthy developers. The Government need to rethink.
End of Eviction Moratorium
Alexander Stafford Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Lady makes a good point. My Department and my officials are in regular contact with a large number of stakeholders and groups concerned with those affected by this crisis. I myself have taken part in a large number of roundtables with various interlocutors. As I say, we will keep our policies under review to deal with the challenges that people face. I simply point her again to the interventions that we have already made, including the job retention scheme, the help with local housing allowance and the discretionary housing payments that have been disbursed to local authorities to help people in difficulty, including young people.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Minister will know that a large number of homeless people and those facing eviction are veterans. Although there are many good charities out there working to help homeless veterans, such as Help 4 Homeless Veterans, led by Steven Bentham-Bates and operating in South Yorkshire, what support can the Minister and his Department give to those men and women—our heroes—who are facing evictions?
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend will know that anybody who has been a regular member of Her Majesty’s armed forces will receive priority treatment from local authorities with regard to housing and housing need. I certainly commend the work of Help 4 Homeless Veterans, led by its chief executive officer, Mr Steven Bentham-Bates, in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I wish them, and him, more power to their elbow.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Alexander Stafford Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bim Afolami
I was afraid that the hon. Lady would not understand my point fully. Let me make it for her again: the idea that standards for teachers in Scotland are somehow higher than those in England is not correct. The fact is that across all our nations there are certain small differences in the professional qualifications of different people in different professions. This argument—almost—that we are having illustrates the fundamental point, which is that we should have a principle of non-discrimination for goods, services, teachers and all professions across this United Kingdom.
I am having some fun, so let me take on another point in respect of amendment 89. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) made this point very well, and I am sad that he is not in his place because I do like to praise him—he is a very intelligent, smart fellow. The amendment would in effect allow a devolved Assembly or Government from one part of the United Kingdom to impose regulations on the people of Scotland. If I was a member of the SNP and believed that the people of Scotland’s interests were paramount, I would think that quite odd. Again, it illustrates the illogicality of the SNP position.
Fundamentally, SNP Members care about one thing: they do not care about free trade across the United Kingdom or prosperity for businesses; they just care about breaking up the United Kingdom. The reason why the Scottish nationalists dislike this Bill so much—I have been wondering what is driving their animus toward the Bill—is that they know it can help to bind the United Kingdom together. That is why they hate it, that is why I support it and that is why the Minister and the Government are putting it forward.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if SNP Members actually wanted to break up the Union and the Bill was as terrible as they claim, they would vote with us to put through such a terrible Bill? The fact that they oppose the Bill shows that it is a good Bill that will bind us together, showing once again the illogicality of their arguments.
Bim Afolami
As always, I agree with my hon. Friend.
The Bill has been put forward and we are in the position we are in. The Prime Minister made his statement earlier today and will make a statement to the country this evening. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and we all know that.
We also know that the economic consequences of that pandemic are only starting to show. We must do everything we can, regardless of party politics, regardless of where we sit on various issues on the constitution or anything else, to help jobs. It is about jobs, jobs, jobs—people’s livelihoods. This Bill can underpin and help strengthen that aim.
Sixty per cent of Scottish exports—I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—go to the rest of the United Kingdom, and yet the SNP says that it wants more, not fewer, barriers to that trade. The biggest long-term challenge of this Parliament, after the terrible health consequences of the pandemic, is, I believe, the economic damage that ensues. The Bill helps not just the United Kingdom come together, but any United Kingdom Government support businesses, jobs, people and communities across these nations—that is something to be commended, strengthened, and supported—alongside increasing by more than 100 the powers going to devolved Assemblies and Governments. I believe that that will strengthen the Union, strengthen our internal single market, and strengthen the economy of this country.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I will address you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh, as is customary, but I hope through you to get a message to the people of Scotland, because it is our duty to warn those who are not yet aware of it that this Government down here in London are planning to take powers away from the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and, ultimately, the people of Scotland.
They say that they have no such plans. Nobody in my party believes that, but let us say that they are correct. I am going to give a couple of examples of what we are so alarmed about, and I would be very happy for any Government Member to stand up when I have done so and tell me that I am wrong and have misunderstood. But they should be warned: if they plan to do that, they had better be able to point to the actual legislation that guarantees that our fears are unfounded. If no Government Member can do that, the people of Scotland will know. Whether this Government like it or not, an independence referendum is on its way to Scotland, and our people are watching very closely.
Let me start with the first example. We in Scotland, as Members will have heard many times today, are very proud of our minimum price controls on alcohol. It is a policy that I, as a former Member of the Scottish Parliament, and others fought tooth and nail to introduce many years ago, though unsuccessfully at the time. In fact, I remember making my speech in the Scottish Parliament, holding aloft a 2-litre bottle of what was at the time a very cheap top-strength cider, to illustrate a point. As an aside, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) was my researcher at the time, and his job was to buy it and empty it down the sink so that I did not take alcohol into the Chamber.
We are very proud of minimum pricing, because in two short years we have already seen a decrease in harmful drinking in Scotland. But what if we had not passed that legislation already, and what if the democratically elected Scottish Parliament wanted to do so next year, after this Bill has been enacted? It would not matter how many bottles of cheap liquor we held up. It would not matter how many stories we shared of the untold damage done to individuals and their families because of the easy and cheap access to very high-strength alcohol. It would not matter if every single Member of the Scottish Parliament—Scotland’s democratically elected Parliament—voted yes to minimum pricing next year. With this Bill, the UK Government could drive a bulldozer through it and there would be nothing we could do while we remained a part of this Union.
As we heard earlier, Professor Michael Dougan of Liverpool University has identified that Scotland’s minimum price controls could be characterised as a form of product requirement. That would mean that the principle of mutual recognition in this Bill would apply, and once that obligation applies there is virtually no scope for Scotland to justify applying new rules to imports from England.
Members might ask, “Why does that matter now? Scotland did pass minimum pricing. This legislation applies to new rules, and minimum pricing is not new.” But it does matter, because what happens when we in Scotland come to review minimum pricing? And what if, in that review, the democratically elected Scottish Parliament were to vote for tighter legislation? What if it were to step it up because it works? None of the new rules would apply to alcohol imported from elsewhere in the UK, so cheap high-strength alcohol from England, Wales and Northern Ireland could flood the market in Scotland and a bulldozer would again be driven through all of our good work.
Alexander Stafford
I am listening very carefully to the language the hon. Lady is using. There are lots of coulds and woulds, but no actual evidence. It is always “could” and supposition. Is she admitting that the Scottish Government do not have the power or the willpower? Concrete facts would be great.
Alexander Stafford
We are talking about songs today, and I appreciate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) quoting The Who; lest we forget, the famous Roger Daltrey is an ardent Brexiter and has made it perfectly clear that he supports Brexit, so I will take his words any day.
I welcome the opportunity to speak again on the Bill in Committee—I also spoke last week and on Second Reading—because it is of fundamental importance to us as a country. It is not a political Bill; it is not about being for or against independence or for or against taking powers. It is a Bill about jobs and economic prosperity and ensuring that when we leave the EU fully at the end of this year we can trade as one big bloc. I believe that is why the SNP is against the Bill: because it is a good Bill that binds the country together. There may be some tweaking around the edges, but, fundamentally, this Bill will increase prosperity in the UK, and I think it will convince more people in Scotland that the Union is a good thing and is here to stay.
Moving on, however, this Bill will ensure that businesses can continue to trade across our country, as they do now, avoiding new burdens and barriers. The amendments that SNP Members and others are putting forward will increase those barriers and burdens on business. If there is anything we have learned from this crisis, it is that we need to support business. The only way we can pay for the great schemes the Government have introduced—the furlough scheme, the bounce back loans—is by having businesses thriving.
We want businesses to thrive and this Bill allows businesses to thrive, but I fear the SNP amendments would not. They would put up a barrier between England and Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland, and that would be detrimental for the people of Scotland as well. I think those amendments are very crass, dare I say it, because they will actually increase hardship for the people of Scotland. We want to make things easier for their everyday lives, not harder for political gain.
We have talked about powers being given, and this Bill clearly guarantees more powers for the devolved bodies, with powers increasing in at least 70 policy areas. This is a good Bill. If people believe in subsidiarity and in devolution, this Bill is good because it gives more powers to the people. It is taking them off the European Union, yes, but giving them back to the devolved nations, and that is a good thing.
Furthermore, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland disproportionately benefit from market access, with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy risk assessment calculating that internal barriers to trade would impact on Scotland and Wales four or five times worse than on the rest of the UK.
Amendments 34 and 35, from the nationalists, seek to tie the hands of the UK Government. We have seen time and again in this House that SNP Members want to tie our hands and not allow free trade to flow and free conversations between our nations, which is worrying. The nationalists want to amend the provisions of the Bill so that the Government must gain the agreement of the aforementioned Administrations, in an attempt to paint Westminster as overruling the will of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people. These amendments are actually trying to paint us as the baddies that we are not. We are one family—Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, English. We are the same people, and we are cut from the same cloth.
Alexander Stafford
Of course, on family—I will always give way to a member of my family.
Deidre Brock
The hon. Gentleman is talking a lot about this family of nations and how we are all going to come to some sort of agreement, but can he answer the question about there being no internal mechanism within the Bill whereby minimum requirements or an agreed harmonisation of standards could take place?
Alexander Stafford
I think we discussed this last Tuesday in relation to the Competition and Markets Authority and markets, which are how we come together, but I want to touch on the point about that minimum of low standards. Why do we have to legislate for everything? Why do we have to legislate for every could, should and would? SNP Members keep trying to portray the worst-case examples, saying, “Oh, you know, the asteroid might hit us. Why does this Bill not talk about the asteroid and how we could deal with it?” We cannot think about all these coulds and shoulds; we have to deal with what is in front of us. We have to work together, and this Bill allows us to work together to overcome any issues, and to come together.
Deidre Brock
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that this is based on bitter experience of this place? I would point him to our experience of the Scotland Act 2016. Over 100 amendments and new clauses to that Bill were tabled, and not a single one of them was accepted. Where was Scotland’s voice then?
Alexander Stafford
Once again, this comes back to the difference between our parties. I believe in one country—one United Kingdom. The SNP and the Scotland did have a say. The people of Scotland had a say when they elected the Government in 2019. They have their voice in this Parliament: under the Acts of Union, they have this voice and they can talk contribute through this voice. To balkanise our country into these small states is just wrong.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I banged my head on the desk when I was upstairs watching this on television. The separatists on the opposite side of the House seem to forget and never talk about the fact that we have a £1.5 billion city and region growth deal, on which the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government came together and worked together to bring prosperity to the people of Scotland. Why do they not celebrate success like that, rather than talking about breaking up the United Kingdom?
Alexander Stafford
I could not agree more, but let us be honest, SNP Members do not want to talk about success; they want to talk about breaking up the country, and about how bad it is, because they are unashamedly nationalist. That is their prerogative—they have been elected on a nationalistic ticket—and they will do anything to push this false narrative, but my hon. Friend is completely correct about the benefits. However, I do want to make some progress now.
Turning to amendments 38 and 88, it is critical that the UK Government insert the Bill as a protected enactment in respect of the devolution Acts. The Bill applies to the whole of the UK. If devolved legislatures were able to amend it, it would rupture the internal market and cause chaos for businesses and consumers. Again, I emphasise that this Bill is about businesses and consumers. We want to give them stability after we leave the European Union; we want to ensure that businesses flourish, not to try to break things up and create uncertainty for business. That is incredibly important.
Labour’s amendment 86 looks to undermine the very purpose of the Bill by expanding the definition of a “legitimate aim” to permit discrimination against incoming goods from one part of the UK to another on grounds of environmental, social and labour standards. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House agree that our country is a world leader in those areas already, and nothing will alter that fact. Accordingly, it is important that we permit internal discrimination against goods only on the most restricted and limited basis, such as to prevent threats to life. Expanding the list of legitimate aims threatens to frustrate the purpose of the Bill—the market—and to go on to fragment and balkanise our internal market. We must keep our single market as one. Therefore, I cannot see why any Member would support Labour amendment 86.
The SNP and the Alliance party have collaborated to produce new clause 5, which seeks to ensure that regulations under part 1 do not result in lower food or environmental standards applying in any part of the UK than those that already apply in the EU. It is abundantly clear that those parties have not accepted the vote of the British people in 2016, our subsequent withdrawal from the EU this past January, and now our exit from the transition period at the end of the year.
Anne McLaughlin
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Scotland did not vote to leave the EU? Scotland voted to remain in the EU, and we voted quite decisively. He seems not to be able to acknowledge that.
Alexander Stafford
I hate to rehash the arguments, but the United Kingdom did vote to leave the European Union. I am sure that Mrs Miggins at 34 Acacia Avenue in my constituency did not vote to leave the European Union either, but we are still part of the same family and we are leaving. We cannot balkanise our country. We cannot split up this family. That is the fundamental difference between Government Members and Opposition Members. We see this as a family—a family of nations; a family of people that we love. We want to keep us together, and we will not parcel off our great country. I will not be ashamed of promoting what this country voted for.
I turn to Government new clause 12, which enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance relating to part 1 of the Bill explaining how the UK internal market principles operate, in order to support traders, regulatory authorities and the public. That guidance will help us all to understand and benefit from the Bill, which will increase the internal market. Again, I emphasise that this Bill is about the market, not politics. It is not an independence Bill or a Brexit Bill; it is a business Bill—a Bill to get businesses going and to recover our economy.
The House must pass this Bill, which protects our domestic markets, rejects separatism and division, eliminates chaos and confusion, ensures transparency and impartiality, and strengthens our world-beating standards. I believe that in doing that, the Bill, with the Government amendments, will create a better business environment for all.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I do not go down exactly the same route as some of the conversations we have had recently. I had a good deal to say yesterday on the previous part of the Bill, and I will not repeat that, because I see my good friend the Minister in his place, no doubt ready to ensure that amendment 66 is moved at the end of the day. He knows—as do you, Ms McDonagh—that since that is the case, my amendment 4 will not need to be moved. Having made sure that he will remember to move amendment 66, I can now move on to the stand part debate.
I am a little prejudiced here; a name like Robert James MacGillivray Neill is probably indicative that my heritage comes from various parts of the United Kingdom, and I am very proud of my Scots background. I might add that the weekend after the European Union referendum, in which everybody knows I campaigned vigorously to remain in the EU, I happened to come across my call certificate to the Irish Bar via King’s Inns in Dublin. Who knows, it might come in handy one day, but it reminded me that there are huge and deep-rooted linkages between the countries of the United Kingdom. We can talk about what are the right governance arrangements between them, but there are personal interdependencies and economic interdependencies that benefit us all. I hope that later this evening we are going to be able to deal with a number of those concerns. No doubt there is more to discuss, but, having banked that progress, I want to say that the rest of the Bill is desirable.
That is why the thrust of the Bill is desirable and, as I said yesterday, I have no trouble supporting it all, apart from my concerns about part 5.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Alexander Stafford Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alyn Smith
I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He accuses me of promoting the case for independence and, indeed, I do promote the case for independence, but Government Members need to be in no doubt that a substantial element of the population of Scotland is deeply disgusted by this process. They are frustrated by the disrespect that Scotland has been shown since the EU referendum, where we rejected Brexit significantly, but were told to shut up and get back in our box. Just after the 2014 referendum, we were told we were a partnership of equals, but we were then told immediately afterwards that we are part of the United Kingdom, not a partner in it. The Bill makes that explicit in the eyes of the people of Scotland.
I won Stirling from the Conservatives with 51% of the vote precisely because I am in favour of the rule of law and international solidarity, as demonstrated by the multilateral, binding, voluntary solidarity of the European Union. That is a structure we are comfortable with and a structure we are very comfortable with Scotland fitting into in the future. Dare I say it, but Scotland has a far sharper sense of its place in the world than the UK does right now.
This Bill seeks to cement power in the hands of the unelected, aided and abetted by people who—with good intentions, I do not doubt—are facilitating that power grab, but in so doing are upending the principle of devolution that is dear to the hearts of the people of Scotland and Wales and is deeply sensitive in Northern Ireland. When the hon. Gentleman says I am promoting the cause of independence, damn right I am, but I am also defending constitutional probity in the rule of law within the United Kingdom. Perhaps Government Members need to think a little harder about what they are being whipped through the Lobby to support.
To conclude, our amendments seek in good faith to insert into this package, which we dislike so much, the principle of consent of the Scottish Parliament and the devolved Administrations. Failing that, we seek to exempt Scotland from this madness. I urge Members to support the rule of law and democracy within these islands.
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
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.
Alexander Stafford
I have just given way, so I will make some progress first. I am mid-flow.
As I was saying, any services that are authorised in one part of the United Kingdom may be offered without any additional authorisation in all other parts of the UK. Professional qualifications issued in one part of the UK will also be recognised in all parts of the UK. This makes it easier for us to trade and work between our four great nations. The SNP’s amendment 28 goes against the fairness and terms of the Bill, and it will make trade and equality harder for everyone.
For centuries, our internal market has been at the heart of the UK’s economic and social prosperity, and it has been a source of unhindered and open trade across all four countries. Our internal market predates all other economic unions, and it has been uniquely successful in pushing forward economic progress and prosperity across the country. This Bill provides businesses with the certainty they need to grow and thrive. What is more, business organisations agree that the Bill, unamended, does so. The CBI has said that protecting the UK internal market is essential, and the Scottish Retail Consortium has said that protecting the UK internal market will mean that Scottish consumers benefit enormously. Are we honestly saying that if the amendment is accepted, Scottish consumers will benefit more? I do not think so. If the voice of business says this, we should listen to them. We are, after all, Conservatives—the party of business. Business will make us prosper.
I turn to some substantive clauses of the Bill and the nub of today’s discussions. This Bill will see the creation of an independent Office for the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority. It will be a British body monitoring British trade, putting mutual recognition and principles of non-discrimination at its heart—equality. If we are to continue with the levelling-up agenda, we must welcome the OIM, so that we have a body that ensures effective competition in every aspect of the country. It will provide balanced oversight and, ultimately, a central point for the different Parliaments to plug into, thus binding us closer together. In other words, everyone will get a say. The Parliaments and Assemblies of the country will get together to talk and work through difficulties. We will not be pulling apart; we will be coming together under this body, and that will strengthen us. That is why the SNP do not like this Bill. As the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, they want independence, and they want us not to come together. Under this Bill, we will all come together.
Kirsten Oswald
The hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong, but he has just suggested that the Scottish Parliament and other bodies would come together under this new office. May I clarify if that is really what he is suggesting?
Alexander Stafford
I will clarify that I believe this organisation brings the parties together so that we can discuss and get through any issues that arise. Of course, there will be issues and differences of opinion, but this body allows us to talk in a good way. We have heard antagonistic rhetoric from many different parties on both sides of the House, but with this body, we will talk as equals.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman spoke a moment ago about families. I believe in this family as well, and I believe in the United Kingdom staying together. The problem is that in families, without respect or communication things go pretty wrong. Does he think it was acceptable for the UK Government only to share the contents of the Bill with the Welsh Government the night before it was published? Does he think that that fosters the type of familial relationship that he so espouses?
Alexander Stafford
I do believe in respect, and I do believe in recognition. I also believe in respecting the will of the people. I think it is disgraceful that Members on the other side of the House come here and talk about respect when, over and over again, they have tried to thwart the will of the people on Brexit. I will take no lectures from such a party talking about recognition.
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—
Alexander Stafford
I have taken a huge amount of interventions already, so I will make some progress.
This body, fundamentally, is at last going to look after Britain and British interests, and that to me, is vitally important. Moving on to the main clauses of the Bill, clause 28 as it stands will allow the OIM to monitor the internal market, which is another example of how we have taken back control of Britain’s future. We are looking after our own markets at last. Clause 29 states that the CMA will be able to conduct research of its own volition in addition to research requested by political parties, the devolved Administrations and legislatures and, of course, the UK Government. It will regulate cross-border competition, cross-border investments and the levels of trade between the different parts of the UK. This will be great for the levelling-up agenda, because the CMA will look at all aspects across the borders.
Clause 30 will make the system more transparent. The CMA will have to share all reports commissioned with all national authorities—including the Scottish Parliament—after 15 days, regardless of who requests the report, in order to be compliant. All parties should welcome this level of transparency and openness in politics. In other words, if one body asks for it, everyone gets to see it. There is no cloak and dagger; everyone is involved and treated equally. Clause 32 states that the CMA will be able to report on the economic impacts of the Bills passed into law. It is fantastic to have objective-free reporting, without party-political goggles or restraints. This will allow us to have an objective-free, open way of looking at things.
Clause 34 will allow the CMA, at its own discretion, to exclude particular categories of information from its reports, where they are judged to be significantly harmful to UK business interests. That puts our economy first, which is exactly what the body ought to do. It is not a political body, and it is not a Parliament making political points. It is trying to say, “We are here for business”, because this is a business Bill to promote British business and our British trade. It is not about independence. Is not about a so-called power grab. It is about promoting trade, and nothing more. It is about making things better for everyone—for the people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
Clause 36 grants the CMA information-gathering powers, and states that no information can be requested if it cannot be compelled to be given in the course of civil judicial proceedings before a court. This gives a level of protection against invasive Governments of all colours, whether in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, because this party backs business. Despite what the SNP is telling us about a so-called unelected cabal of people being in control, that is simply not the case. This body is about business. We have had many interventions in the debate, but now that I am talking about the clauses and about business, how many times have SNP Members intervened to talk about the nub of the Bill rather than going on about independence? The Bill is not a power grab. It is about business and the economy.
Clause 47 sets out conditions on non-compliance. The CMA will be able to decide whether information requests have been supplied to a satisfactory level, and non-compliance will be punishable with a financial penalty. Dispute resolution will ultimately be a matter for the courts, and the Government will be kept out of it. Once more, we are talking the language of business. We are not doing this in a party political way; we are doing it in a business way. As anyone who has worked in a business or run a business will know, we do not want politicians sticking their noses in business. We actually want a fair way to get through things.
Alyn Smith
As an utterly pro-business but also pro-democracy party, we would contend that the Parliament of Scotland is best placed to look after jobs and work in Scotland, so will the hon. Gentleman condemn the Prime Minister’s earlier comment when he used a four-letter expletive about business?
Alexander Stafford
I am not sure what word the hon. Gentleman refers to, I will be honest. There are lots of great words for business. “Great” business? That is five letters.
We can all talk about business, but all I know is that this Government are pro-business and always have been; we are the business party, because only through business can we get prosperity. I know that the SNP is not pro-business—it is a sort of left-wing socialist party that wants to stamp down on free trade—but the Conservative party wants businesses to be managed and to operate properly and to get the Government off businesses so that they can do what they do, which is to thrive and create jobs. That is what the Bill is about.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I believe that my hon. Friend just answered my question. I was going to ask whether it is the case that the Scottish Parliament should not interfere in business as much as possible and actually allow businesses to run their own affairs?
Alexander Stafford
I completely agree, obviously. Parliament should not be getting into this.
Alexander Stafford
I will give way in a second. Government should not get in the way of business. Business will thrive and needs to thrive. When we fully leave the European Union, we need business to thrive, and we need this internal market to be turbo-charged.
Owen Thompson
On interference, is it not the case that the Government are now interfering in devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by imposing the Bill against the wishes of those devolved Administrations?
Alexander Stafford
I completely refute that point. In fact, I think the Bill will actually create a better working environment, as I said, by bringing the four components together. Since ’97, the Union has been pulling apart, and the Bill will actually bring the parties together, to talk better. That is why the SNP does not want the Bill, because the Bill actually says that we are one family. Yes, we have differences, and yes, we have different opinions, but we are a family and we need to work together. The Competition and Markets Authority is the Christmas table, bringing us all together from across the land to share the stuffed goose.
Paul Bristow
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is essentially an economic argument, not a political argument, despite how much Members opposite—the nationalists—are trying to make it into a political argument?
Alexander Stafford
I completely agree—this is an economic thing. In fact, I am about to talk about clause 38, which brings me on to answer my hon. Friend’s point. Clause 38 says that the CMA is able to choose between a number of penalties to punish non-compliance, which is good, but is unable to levy a penalty against national or devolved Governments. It can therefore never be a stranglehold on Governments and can never be used as a tool between Governments; it is not going to bash the English Government or the Welsh Government or the Scottish Government. The CMA is actually a business body. This is not a political Bill but a Bill for business, because business will bring us together. Fundamentally, the Acts of Union of 1707 came together over business. Lest we forget, after Scotland’s failed colonial project in Panama, when Scotland went bankrupt, we had to come together to promote business. That is why the Acts of Union happened. This helps to create business.
Ultimately, the Bill ensures that high standards are protected across the whole UK. Our legislation will maintain consistently high standards across every part of it, promoting co-operation between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures. There will be no diminution of our food hygiene or animal welfare standards. I know that the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not buy into this nationalistic, manufactured hysteria. Scottish National party Members claim to represent all the people of Scotland. No, they do not. They represent their own views, and those of many people —I grant them that; many people want independence—but not the whole of Scotland. What represents the whole of Scotland support for business.
Christine Jardine
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but how does he explain that those of us who are not nationalist, who do not want to see independence in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and who believe wholeheartedly in the United Kingdom feel that this part of the Bill is damaging and is the very thing that will potentially tear apart the United Kingdom? How does he allow for that, and for the fact that we object to the Bill?
Alexander Stafford
I say sorry that those people are falling into nationalist arguments and giving succour to the independence movement, rather than actually coming together for business, as true Unionists in the House should. They should celebrate coming together for business rather than playing these party political games that will only tear us asunder. We should work together, and I encourage them to work together.
Alexander Stafford
I have already given way once, so I will make progress.
The Bill is not a Westminster power grab, but a guarantee of a strong United Kingdom that will safeguard jobs and make us stand tall on the world stage. It will make us all more prosperous. The devolved nations, like Rother Valley, stand to benefit greatly from this Brexit bonanza, and I will lend them my support every step of the way.
Through the Bill we will enshrine in law the principle of mutual recognition so that goods and services from one part of the UK will be recognised across the country, and the principle of non-discrimination so that there is equal opportunity for companies trading in the UK, regardless of where they are based. This not only protects the integrity of the United Kingdom, but strengthens it. However, I wish to appeal to all our fellow Britons, north of the border, across the Irish sea and in Wales. This is about more than just pounds and pence. The economic benefits of the Union are undeniable, but our United Kingdom stands for so much more than that. I have the greatest respect for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and their people, history, culture and devolution settlements. That is why I back the UK Internal Market Bill—it empowers all Britons, wherever in the United Kingdom they may live, and strengthens devolution.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham, and to speak to new clause 2, which was tabled by Labour’s Front Benchers. This new clause seeks to put common frameworks on a statutory footing. Only yesterday the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reassured Members of the importance of common frameworks. If that is the case, I expect the Government to have no problem accepting this amendment, which seeks to prevent Ministers from overriding and imposing lower standards on devolved nations against their will. However, the devolved nations have every reason to be worried because when it comes to empty words, meaningless platitudes and empty promises, I am afraid that this Government have form. There is a pattern here: the Government promise to maintain our standards while simultaneously passing laws to allow themselves to lower them.
Let us take, for example, the Environment Bill, which the Government used not to set targets, but to give themselves the power to set their own targets in the future. They voted against the principle of non-regression to stop environmental standards being lowered. We have also heard about agriculture today. The Agriculture Bill offered nothing to guarantee that food standards would not be lowered and undercut in new trade deals. Hon. Members might be wondering why the Government would keep making promises and then refuse to legislate for them. The agenda is pretty clear to me. This is about creating a race-to-the-bottom economy. It is about undermining our standards. It is about the Government allowing themselves to sell off our rights and protections in dangerous trade deals that will undermine our future for decades to come.
Meanwhile, when we tried to amend the Trade Bill at least to ensure parliamentary scrutiny, the Government rejected that, showing very clearly what taking back control actually means—not parliamentary sovereignty, but an Executive power grab. Now with this Bill, especially in its current, unamended form, the Government are trying to cement that power grab by giving themselves the right to impose lower standards on devolved nations while ripping up the withdrawal agreement that they so proudly campaigned on just nine months ago, and breaking international law in the process.
The Government’s posturing will do nothing to protect the millions of workers in all four nations across the country who are worried about losing their jobs; nothing to reassure the British farmers who are worried about their products being undercut and dangerous trade deals that lower food standards; and nothing to foster the international co-operation that we need to defeat this pandemic or tackle the climate crisis. I urge people who have spoken passionately about our food, environmental and trading standards, and the Union, to vote for new clause 2 so that the Bill does not ride roughshod over our devolved nations and so that it resembles something that is fit for purpose.
Local Government Responsibilities: Public Services
Alexander Stafford Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Hall
Those are two points well made. On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, if he is having any trouble at all communicating with my Department, he should please let me know directly. I assure him that we are speaking to councils every single day to make sure that we communicate information as quickly as possible in this fast-moving environment. We understand that getting out the guidance as quickly as we can is going to be vital.
As the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced the initial £3.2 million targeted at rough sleepers and people who are in danger of sleeping rough, in case they need accommodation should they need to self-isolate. She asked for assurances about whether that was the totality of the amount; I assure her that that was the initial funding. We are of course continuing to look at what will be a complex matter as we look to support some of those people into accommodation during self-isolation periods.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I am pleased that the Government have announced financial support, but support for local councils is about more than just money. We have to be serious: this is about the people who deliver essential services, whether it is sweeping the streets or being carers. What steps are the Government going to take to make sure that we have enough people working at councils if a lot of council staff have to self-isolate or are sick? We know, for instance, that a lot of airlines are currently laying off a lot of people; is there any provision to use people who have recently been laid off to provide some of the essential services to keep our country going?
Luke Hall
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point in the way that he did. All local authorities are, of course, working through their contingency plans, which include staffing plans. I am happy to sit down with him and ensure that we look in detail at his local authority’s contingency plans. It is worth confirming that additional military personnel will help local resilience forums with their coronavirus response plans. In order that local government bodies can focus on the priorities of supporting social care, vulnerable people and local economies, we must allow them to direct their resources into the key priorities on which we are working with them. We do not want to slow down their response times, which is why we are looking at giving councils greater flexibility. That is also why we have confirmed that routine Care Quality Commission inspections will be temporarily suspended. We will take a pragmatic approach to inspection and will, of course, continue to take the proportionate actions necessary to make sure that we are keeping people safe.
We are also allowing councils to use their discretion on deadlines for freedom of information requests during this period, and we have extended the deadline for local government financial audits to 30 September this year. We are considering bringing forward legislation to remove the requirement for annual council meetings to take place in person, and legislation to allow council committee meetings to be held virtually, online, for a temporary period. Legislation is also being prepared to postpone local elections until May 2021, with measures to be introduced by the coronavirus Bill. We intend the legislation to cover all local elections and by-elections during this period.