Budget Resolutions

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Growth in every postcode and breathing space—that is apparently the theme of this debate. That is what we are told the Budget will deliver. The sad fact is that it really could have been an opportunity to focus on growth and to support British businesses and people. It really was an opportunity to fix the mistakes of the past two years, to back business and unleash Britain—but the Government did not take it. All we appear to have had from the Secretary of State is the belief that more government will solve all of our problems.

The Budget was an opportunity to end the smash-and-grab tax policies on working people—that includes employers, by the way—but Labour doubled down. The Chancellor could have demonstrated that when he resigned as Defence Secretary he did so out of principle and set out a road to 3% of GDP on defence, but we did not get that either. The Government could have taken steps to cut welfare and get Britain working, but, too scared of their Back Benchers, the Government are allowing the welfare budget to continue to spiral out of control.

The Budget was a total missed opportunity. Far from growth in every postcode and breathing space, we saw a steady-as-she-goes Budget: a change of captain, a rearranging of the deckchairs, but no change of course—which would be fine if the vessel we were on were not the Titanic.

One area we did see some action in the Budget—one issue that was mentioned considerably—was on the cost of energy and our energy security, or lack thereof. There was a slight but definite acknowledgment that the energy policies enacted by the Labour Government up to this point had been having a negative impact on the people and businesses of Great Britain.

That was why I was more than a little surprised not to see energy as a theme of this Budget debate, and why I was surprised not to see the Secretary of State for Energy speaking as part of it. Or is she not too keen on this change of direction, and this moderate shift from the Government towards something resembling common sense does not sit well with her? Where is she? Absent from Parliament when they announced Jackdaw and absent from the Budget debate, she is either in hiding or being kept hidden. The words of the Chancellor last week that the Energy Secretary has “opposed” rather than approved Jackdaw was not so much a slip of the tongue as a lifting of the veil into the division at the heart of this Government when it comes to energy policy.

The truth is that we have a Government totally divided on energy policy, between a Chancellor and a Treasury desperate for growth and some good news, and an Energy Secretary and parliamentary party still wholly signed up to a Milibandism approach to energy that values net zero and clean power 2030 above all else—above jobs, cost and our security. We have an Energy Secretary briefing out that she is inclined not to approve Rosebank, presumably on the basis that growth in every postcode does not include postcodes that begin with AB, and a Chancellor briefing that it will be approved soon. We have Labour Back Benchers claiming that Rosebank is oh so different to Jackdaw because it is oil, which is exported, not like gas, which we use at home—as if, somehow, generating revenue from exports, displacing Russian oil from the European market and backing British jobs are bad things.

We also have the Office for Budget Responsibility including revenue from Rosebank and future discoveries as part of its projections for Government revenue over the next year. We have the Treasury cutting funding from carbon capture, utilisation and storage projects, Energy Ministers scrambling over themselves to insist that funding has not been cut, the Treasury announcing a cut to the warm homes fund of £1 billion, and the Energy Department insisting that the warm homes fund remains at the heart of the Government’s plans to support those on the lowest incomes insulate and decarbonise. This is utterly chaotic—no wonder the Energy Secretary is being hidden away or is in hiding.

For over two years, we have been listening to various Ministers lecture and patronise those of us on the Conservative Benches that we were wrong, that we did not need more gas from the North sea, that it was clean power that mattered over the cost of energy, and that we must have consensus on energy policies. The Conservatives have been clear from day one that the cost of energy, the security of our energy supply, and the future of our North sea are the issues that should guide and shape our energy policies. It is good to see that that consensus may be returning, and not just on the entirely reasonable and sensible step of ensuring that one has a well-stocked fridge of sauvignon blanc ready for emergencies.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Member agree that, unlike Norway, which kept its crown jewels—North sea oil and gas—and is funding public services with them, it was absolutely disastrous and wrong for the Tory Government to sell off the North sea? It belonged to the people who are now paying through their nose for energy.

[Andrew Bowie]

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not agree with him. In fact, what we have seen are billions of pounds generated for this country since the 1960s, driven by the private sector investing in jobs, investing in this country, creating wealth and making the North sea one of the cleanest and safest basins in the world in which to invest. I am very proud of the companies, and the men and women, who have driven that oil and gas industry to be the best in the world. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, and unlike the Government, we want to see that go further—we want to see further investment in our North sea oil and gas industry.

As I was saying, consensus is welcome, because we are in an energy crisis and there is no escaping that. The people and businesses of this country face some of the highest energy bills, domestic and industrial, in the developed world, and it is getting worse. Under Labour, our energy system is becoming increasingly unreliable and intermittent, and more reliant on imported energy. The burden of expensive energy is bearing down on Britain in households, businesses and industry, and having severe consequences. While the Chancellor acknowledged that, which was as welcome as it was surprising, it was entirely underwhelming.

Some of the announcements in the Budget may have seemed impressive, but they will not even touch the sides. There may be £100 for certain households, but when people’s bills are set to increase by over £500 in January, many will ask what was the point—will people even notice it? It is clear, however, that the Chancellor had at least noticed the Conservatives’ cheap power plan. Cutting VAT and scrapping levies on energy bills—I wonder where he might have got that idea?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

With respect to the Labour Government, one of the things that was missing in the Budget was the working middle class, who are caught in a devastating pincer movement between frozen thresholds and rising surcharges. They have worked extra shifts, been responsible in the way they have lived and managed to put some savings aside. In the Budget, the working middle class find themselves penalised for their aspiration, forced to pay out more of their hard-earned money, while watching inflation erode their savings. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is missing is any consideration for the working middle class?

[Andrew Bowie]

The hon. Member is absolutely right, but, as usual, the Labour party gives no regard to those with aspiration or who want to succeed and get on. All it cares about is handouts and subsidies for “Benefits Street”. The Conservatives are the party that will support those who are working hard to do the right thing and move forward.

[Connor Naismith]

The hon. Member talked about the Opposition’s clean power plan, and how marvellous it is, but if those ideas are so good, why did the Conservatives not implement them when they had 14 years in government to do so?

[Andrew Bowie]

It is the cheap power plan, not the clean power plan, but I do not want to be too much of a stickler for detail. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice that we are under new management now in the Conservative party, and I look forward to implementing our plan when we win the election.

There was also the surprise announcement of the removal of standing charges on gas bills—well, only surprising for the SNP group leader, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), who did not know whether he still supported the move that he called for in 2024. On the face of it the measure may appear to lower bills, but as ever, the devil is in the detail. If someone is a higher consumer—someone who uses gas for heating, cooking or hot water—then their energy bill is going to go up. Across Britain, temperatures are beginning to drop as we head into winter, and in large parts of this country—in the north of England and Scotland—it has just got more expensive to turn the heating on, thanks to Labour.

Some 80% of households in Britain rely on gas to keep them warm, which is why the delay before making a decision on Jackdaw was so maddening. When the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero approved the decision, through gritted teeth, it was rightly justified on the basis of energy security. Getting gas out of the Jackdaw field is what is best for Britain, because every bit of gas from that field will go directly into the British gas network.

However, the devil is in the detail. As I have said, we were all very surprised to see that revenue from Rosebank is still being accounted for in the OBR’s projections for revenue. Considering that the Secretary of State has suggested to the press that she is not minded to approve Rosebank, despite it being a quasi-judicial decision, does that mean that the forecasts are possibly misleading or wrong—or is the Chancellor about to get his way again, and Rosebank is about to get the go-ahead? We need to have that cleared up. We need to understand.

The theme of today’s debate is growth in every postcode and breathing space. This Budget, however, did nothing for growth and gave no breathing space, save for a couple of gasps of cold air from those who will be too scared to turn on their heating this Christmas. It could have done, though. We could have seen a bold Budget: a Budget that said, without equivocation, that we support our North sea oil and gas industry; a Budget that got Britain drilling by removing the energy profits levy today, not in three years; a Budget that reduced the cost of energy by slashing the levies, charges and taxes that still make up too much of an individual’s or business’s energy bill; and a Budget that reindustrialised our country by incentivising investment and growth, not one that doubles down on net zero and linking the emissions trading scheme with Europe. That is the Budget we needed to see. It is the Budget the Conservatives would have presented, and it is the Budget we will present when we win the next general election.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Budget Resolutions

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I hope the Conservative council will also be opening all the Sure Start centres that were closed because of the actions of the Government.

The truth is that if we look at what the Government are doing with the towns fund, for instance, which is something that Conservative Members like to talk about, we can see that it operates in the same way as a burglar, who first strips a house bare and then expects gratitude for returning the toaster. Blackpool, Darlington and Hartlepool are all getting back barely a quarter of the funding that the Conservatives took away in the first place, but Conservative MPs have nothing whatever to say about the way that their communities have been stripped bare by this Government.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for 10 minutes and I am yet to hear anything about what the Labour party would do if it were in Government and we were not. What would the hon. Gentleman cut that we are not cutting and what would he invest in that we are not investing in?

[Steve Reed]

I am looking forward to telling the hon. Gentleman that later on in my speech if he could just restrain his enthusiasm for one moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

During the previous time that there was a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament, that majority Government did in fact open their door to discussions with the other parties, and the hon. Gentleman’s party was quite happy to take advantage of that. He may remember, in fact, that it was an initial suggestion from his party that led to the Scottish Government introducing and maintaining to this day a record of 1,000 additional police officers compared with the maximum number that ever existed in Scotland under the previous Lib Dem-Labour coalition.

This will be seen as the year the Tories finally ditched any pretext that Budget day has anything to do with the public finances, helping the economic recovery or sustainable growth. Budget day has become purely and simply a propaganda exercise for the Government, and particularly for the Chancellor. That is what the days and days of utterly inexcusable leaks were about—leaks that until 10 years ago would have meant automatic dismissal or resignation for the Chancellor. The Chancellor seems to measure its success not by how effectively it closes the gap between rich and poor, because it does not, or by whether it delivers on any of his party’s manifesto promises—that is on the off chance that anybody can find any that havenae been broken—but on how many favourable headlines he gets in the right-wing press. It is almost as if the Chancellor has worked out how important the right-wing press is going to be in choosing the next Tory leader in a year or two’s time when the present incumbent gets fed up with being Prime Minister and goes off to do something different.

This Government have a track record of spending millions of pounds on pushing soundbite slogans that are utterly meaningless. [Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) if he has got—[Interruption.] Okay, if he does not want to intervene he can keep his mouth shut. In 2015, George Osborne gave us a “long-term economic plan” that changed, on average, every three months until he resigned. In 2017, we had “strong and stable”, leaving Britain weaker and less stable than it has ever been in peacetime. In 2019, we had “get Brexit done”, which meant we all got done over by Brexit, and in 2019 also we had an “oven-ready deal” that left most of us feeling that we had been stuffed like Christmas turkeys. This month’s catchphrase is “levelling up”. Looking at the detail of this “levelling up” Budget, it is like claiming that you have levelled out the potholes on the road by digging a massive great hole somewhere else in the road to supply the rubble to fill in the original potholes. It is about filling in holes left behind elsewhere in our economy and in our public services by 11-and-a-half years of a failed Tory Government trying unsuccessfully to maintain a failed British state.

The Government want us to believe that they are making things better for some people without making them worse for anybody else. Some people will get a bigger piece of pie, but nobody will have to make do with a wee-er piece of pie. You cannae do that unless the pie is getting bigger, but the fact is that the pie is still much, much smaller than it was when the Tories came to power.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said in response to the Budget:

“For most departments, the budget increases announced today will be welcome, but not enough to reverse the cuts of the 2010s.”

If the best the Tories can say about this Budget is that, with a following wind and a wee bit of luck, they might just be about be able to remediate most of the damaging cuts they have inflicted on us during their term of office, that does not strike me as a cause for celebration. That is why they will not see a great deal of positive responses to the Budget from those on this side of the House.

[Andrew Bowie]

rose—

[Peter Grant]

I give way with pleasure.

[Andrew Bowie]

I understand and respect that we have political differences on our respective sides of the House, but surely the hon. Gentleman can join us in welcoming the fact that this Budget delivers the largest ever block grant to the Scottish Government in history since the Scottish Parliament was created. Perhaps he can expand on how he will be pressing the Scottish Government to spend that extra funding that we have delivered from the UK Government to Edinburgh.

[Peter Grant]

The sad thing is that no matter how much anyone in this House presses the Scottish Government on their decisions, a record amount of that money coming back to Scotland has already been decided not by the elected Members of the Scottish Parliament, but by Members of the UK Parliament who could not get elected in Scotland. Record amounts of that money come with strings attached and conditions attached that tell the Scottish Government how they have to spend our money.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question about the amount, if he looks carefully, he will see that, yes, there are welcome increases for capital spend, but the day-to-day service provision budgets of the Scottish Government will continue to be under intense pressure. While we welcome the increase in capital spend, the Departments of the Scottish Government—just like the Departments of this Government and the departments of local authorities the length and breadth of England and Wales—will find that the resources to meet the ever-growing demand on their day-to-day services will be as tightly pressed as ever.

While the Government will try to pull the wool over our eyes and say, “It is all covid’s fault”, we cannot and will not let them forget that the British Government’s management of the economy during covid has been among the worst of the world’s major economies. The International Monetary Fund has predicted that the long-term economic damage from covid in the UK will be worse than in the other G7 economies. Even that does not tell the whole story, because while the Secretary of State rejoiced in the fact that we hope the long-term economic damage of covid will be restricted to 2%, he forgot to tell us that Brexit is twice as bad as that. I wonder why he forgot to mention that the long-term, self-inflicted damage of Brexit is likely to be twice as bad as the long-term damage of covid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

This is the first time that I have spoken from the Back Benches in a while and the first time that I have spoken at all in this place since the reshuffle, so I have a new perspective on the Dispatch Box: it is rhetorically the easiest place to speak from in this place, but intellectually and emotionally, it is so much the hardest. I hope that it is not too glib to recognise the responsibility that Ministers bear and to say thank you, and I hope that my gratitude makes up for now pestering them so frequently and shamelessly in the voting Lobby.

The second hardest place to speak from is the Government Back Benches, because we do not have the luxury of standing up and making empty speeches and claiming that everything would be better if a different party were in power. I hope that the three things that I have to say about the Budget are heard in the constructive spirit in which they are meant.

First, it is right, as the Chancellor said, that the Conservative plan is working: unemployment is down, employment is up, growth is up, wages are up, and we are tackling the tax on work that is the taper rate and addressing the cost of living by scrapping fuel duty rises. Those are all great things, but perhaps most importantly, the Chancellor has levelled with people. I believe, in both hope and expectation, that he and the Prime Minister are low-tax Conservatives. In an age when political rhetoric has too often been a way to veil talking about the hardest choices we have to make, the Chancellor has more than justified today’s tax rates while spelling out the path to lower ones in the future.

We say glibly sometimes that to govern is to choose, but these are life-and-death decisions, and I praise the Chancellor’s honesty in saying why taxes are where they are now and laying out a path for where he wants them to fall. If I could choose three values for my kind of Conservatism, they would be: honesty with voters on the impact of policies, a social desire to live and let live; and, of course, the low taxes that come with as small a state as possible. So I support that fiscal approach.

Secondly, I want to talk about levelling up. I would like to see even more money going into research and development, but I thoroughly welcome the huge investment that is already there, particularly in infrastructure. The most consequential impact from levelling up will come from digital infrastructure—from broadband, 4G and 5G. We have just hit the figure of half the country having access to gigabit-capable connections, up from just 9% when the Prime Minister took over.

[Andrew Bowie]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and to everything that he did to improve the digital infrastructure across the United Kingdom. When does he expect more than half this country to have gigabit fast broadband?

[Matt Warman]

I had a little to do with it, but the truth is that it was the private sector that delivered that growth, and it is the private sector that will get us to about two thirds by the end of this year. Much of that growth is in Scotland; I know that my hon. Friend will take a particular interest in it.

Digital infrastructure, more than any one road or any one railway line, has a huge impact. I will never forget a teacher in Northern Ireland telling me that she had to teach at the pace of the slowest broadband in her class. If we cannot have equality of access to everything from YouTube to the rest of the internet, teachers cannot teach equally; that is what levelling up means.

My third point is about the speed of Government and public services. Ordinarily, tax changes take a while to come in, but the taper rate change in particular is coming much faster. In part, that reflects its urgency, but it also speaks to some broader issues. Whatever we think about its tax bill, Amazon is the pace of life at which many of our constituents now live: deliveries come the following day and supermarket slots are booked for an hour.

Government has to be deliberative—of course it does—but in the pandemic we showed that we can act with real agility. Our democratic pace is sometimes out of step with the pace that our constituents want, so I welcome the huge investment in further digitising the NHS so that digitally booking an appointment might feel a little more like booking for groceries. That does not mean that the availability of appointments has to be identical, but the ease of booking them and the way in which the Government interact with the citizen have to improve.

It has been easy to make those constructive criticisms, because I do not have to implement them, but Ministers do; Back-Bench MPs of the governing party are on the hook for delivering them, too. This has been a Budget that gets things done: it will fund better roads in my constituency, whether that is through the levelling-up fund or through the towns fund, and it will tackle the climate emergency as we find the path back to 0.7% and invest in some of the countries most affected by climate change. I look forward to the promise of lower taxes stimulating growth and helping around the world

What we say in this place matters. Budget debates, perhaps even more than Opposition day debates, often degenerate into Members on one side saying that everything is terrible and Members on the other saying that everything is perfect. Voters understand the immensely difficult choices that the Government face; I think perhaps we could sometimes level up the standard of debate in this place by acknowledging that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Budget presented last week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After over four and a half years in this place, and over 10 years involved at some level or other in Scottish politics, I am used to the SNP being able to manufacture a grievance out of absolutely nothing. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) gave it a good shot tonight, but I was pleasantly shocked and surprised by his contribution. Granted, there was very little mention of the £176 million that the UK Government invested directly in local communities in Scotland through the levelling-up fund, and there has been no mention from those on the SNP Benches of the domestic air passenger duty cut, which I campaigned for, and which will support regional airports in Scotland as they recover from lockdown and the pandemic, though the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), where Aberdeen airport is situated, is still to speak. I look forward to his comments welcoming it.

There was very little mention—the honourable exception was the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden)—of the spirits duty freeze, which will support the Scotch whisky industry. There has been no mention from those on the SNP Benches of the freeze on fuel duty, which will support commuters, and help people in rural Scotland more than those anywhere else. Also, there has been literally no mention of the increase in the national living wage, which will help so many people across Scotland.

What shocked and surprised me was the fact that in answer to my intervention, the hon. Member for Glenrothes actually welcomed the largest increase to the lump sum given to the Scottish Government since devolution began in 1999—£4.6 billion on top of the annual baseline figure of £36.7 billion. It is the largest annual block grant, in real terms, in any spending review since devolution was created. It is almost as though, earlier today, the hon. Member, like me, read Mandy Rhodes saying in Holyrood magazine that the SNP have to stop being the

“winner at being a sore loser.”

In that spirit of cross-party consensus, I am reaching out across the aisle and offering an olive branch to my SNP colleagues. I ask them to join the Scottish Conservatives—not in campaigning to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom; that would be too far for them. I ask them to join us in calling for the Scottish Government to spend this biggest ever block grant better; join us in campaigning for the £200 million that was promised to the north-east of Scotland to improve journey times between Edinburgh and Aberdeen in 2016. Where is that money? Join us in—

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I will not because there is not much time left. I am sure the hon. Member is speaking later, if not tomorrow, and I will look out for his contribution then. [Interruption.] He has already spoken. Well, I apologise.

Join us in calling for the Scottish Government to spend more money on education so that we can shrink the now-growing attainment gap in Scotland. [Interruption.] Join us in fixing the bridges in Aberdeenshire, which the hon. Member shouts out about.

[Richard Thomson]

Where is the levelling up funding?

[Andrew Bowie]

Aberdeenshire has not even applied to the levelling up fund yet—we are applying in the next round. Aberdeen city, which we have heard nothing of in this debate, has received £76 million to level up the city centre—something that I support and I really hope the hon. Member will add his support to as well. This is a Budget that levels up across the United Kingdom.

In this new age of cross-party consensus, which the hon. Member for Gordon is doing so much to undermine by shouting across the Chamber tonight, I would like to work with my SNP colleagues so that we can press the Scottish Government to spend their money better. In that way, maybe they will see that what the Chancellor said last week is true: that we truly are better, stronger and wealthier when we all work together.

Holocaust Memorial Day 2021

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) [V]]

With the sheer scale of the tragedy, the unimaginable horror and the fact that it happened in Europe—on our doorstep—in the mid-20th century, the holocaust is almost impossible to comprehend. Over the 76 years since the liberation of the concentration camps and the end of the second world war, the destruction of Nazi tyranny and the genocide, we have become numb to the numbers and the facts, but we must remind ourselves over and over again. As the numbers of those who survived sadly diminish each year, it is up to us, a new generation who have heard at first hand from those survivors what happened, to remember and to pass on.

In 1933, when the Nazis first came to power in Germany, there were 9 million Jews living in Europe. By 1945, 6 million had been killed—two out of every three—not through disease or natural causes or war but through a programme of extermination, a cold, calculated effort to wipe an entire people from the face of the continent. While we remember all of that faith who, for their faith alone, were tortured and killed, we cannot on this day forget the 5 million others who did not fit into the vision of a perfect race, or who would not submit to the vicious ideology of Nazism: more than half a million Roma Gypsies; thousands of Christian priests and Ministers who refused to submit to the Nazis; political opponents; resistance fighters; the 15,000 members of the LGBT community who died having first been forced into the ignominy of wearing pink triangles so that they could be easily recognised and even further humiliated; the disabled put to death under Hitler’s cleansing programme; the black children who were forcibly sterilised. For all who suffered and died because of their faith, who they were, who they loved or what they looked like, we must remember and say “Never again.”

It is often asked why we did not do more in the 1930s in the run-up to world war two. Surely we knew what was happening, if not the scale. Maybe we did, but it was harder to know exactly what was happening on foreign shores back then—not so anymore. In this interconnected world, a world that seems closer and smaller than ever before, that argument no longer stands, so I wonder, however well meant, how hollow our words feel to the people of Rwanda, Darfur and Bosnia. I wonder, when they hear politicians in the west say “Never again” what they actually think. We knew what was happening in those countries and still we did nothing. We saw on our TV screens the death and destruction, the genocides taking place in our world and in our lifetime. We saw Bashar al-Assad use chemical weapons against children, and this House voted not to intervene. We see forced sterilisation, forced labour and prison camps in Xinjiang for the Uyghur Muslims, and the suffering of the Rohingya in Myanmar. Today, when we say “Never again” let us mean it.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

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

[Edward Miliband]

As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) says, do not sign it, but I make another point. This is an agreement that the Government signed, and as the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) exposed, under article 16 of the protocol, there is not only a Joint Committee set up but a capacity for unilateral action in the case of social and economic disruption. He asked whether the protection will still be in place for unilateral action if these clauses go away—I can answer him, since the Minister did not: yes, they will still be in place, because they were in place all along. This has all been a completely unnecessary charade.

It is not just on international law that this Bill was savaged; it was savaged on devolution as well. This is very important, because it goes to the heart of the way we are governed as a country and the heart of our future as a country. Like the Government, the Opposition believe in our United Kingdom, but many people—including Conservatives—feel that this Bill deeply undermines devolution. Let us just listen to Lord Dunlop. For the benefit of the House, Lord Dunlop is the Government’s devolution guru—he is the guy advising the Government on devolution. He describes the Bill as

“an unnecessarily heavy-handed approach to balancing the demands of free trade within the UK with respect for the roles and responsibilities of devolved institutions.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1336.]

He also says that the Government should

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

made to the Bill on devolution. So on devolution and international law, the Bill has been savaged.

Something has changed in Government on the Bill during the last three months. The truth is that the top brass of Government are running a million miles from the Bill, not just on international law but on devolution as well. We learned a few days ago from the very reliable Paul Waugh that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has some thoughts on the Bill. He wrote:

“Even some Whitehall officials were baffled why the bill was drafted in the first place.”

He went on:

“Sources tell me that Gove has been looking at ways to either amend the devolution section of the bill, or ditch it altogether. If the whole bill is quietly left”—

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is untrue.

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman says that that is completely untrue. I hope it is true, in the following sense: unless we remove the provisions in the Bill on lawbreaking and amend the provisions on devolution, we are massively undermining the Union, because as I will explain, we are departing from the principles of shared governance that we have developed over 20 years.

It is not surprising that the Government top brass are running from this Bill. Has it succeeded in improving our international standing? No—it has been calamitous, embarrassing and toxic for our international reputation. President-elect Biden, among others, is deeply concerned about the Bill. Has it succeeded in upholding and strengthening the United Kingdom, which I know the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) supports? No, it has not—it has given a stick with which those who want to undermine the United Kingdom can beat the Government.

Has the Bill succeeded in getting the Brexit deal that the Government told us it would hasten? Remember what they said—that it would show we were standing up to the EU, show that we meant business and face them down. This is a very important day to be talking about this issue. Where is the deal then, less than a month before the end of the transition period? Where is the deal? As a country, we desperately need a deal for business, workers and our economy. It is 12 weeks since this piece of legislation had its Second Reading and still no deal has been struck. And on this of all days the Government choose to bring this Bill back to the House. Our message to the Government is simple: deliver the deal that they said was oven-ready so that business can plan, even in these short weeks. Deliver what was promised.

Let me turn to the detail of the Lords amendments from the Opposition point of view. I start by going back to the issue of the rule of law. As I said, Members across all parties in the other place worked together to defeat the Government on part 5 of the Bill. I cannot do any better than Lord Howard—I have never said that before—who said:

“I do not want”

the UK

“to be an independent sovereign state that chooses as one of the first assertions of that sovereignty to break its word, to break the law and to renege on a treaty that it signed barely a year ago.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1295.]

That is not some remoaner, as I think the saying goes—it is not some person who voted remain; it is Lord Howard, a Brexiteer and the former leader of the Conservative party.

The House could instead listen to Lord Cormack, who said

“this is shameful; there is no other word for it. I am deeply ashamed that a Conservative Government should have embarked on this course.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1301.]

I am proud to be defending the rule of law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

The hon. Gentleman may disagree with the right of the UK Government to intervene financially on all the areas that have been specified, but he cannot say that this amounts to us taking away a power from the Scottish Parliament, because that is fundamentally untrue, and he is in fact misleading the House when he does so. [Hon. Members: “Withdraw.”]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not misleading the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. It is no surprise that in Scotland we have now had 15 opinion polls in a row that show that a majority of people support independence. That has not happened overnight; that has happened because they have been watching what has been happening here, and have seen the contempt with which Scotland and Wales’s Parliaments have been treated. The result is the growing demand for us to protect our Parliament in that way.

When it comes to devolution, the Tories used to wear a mask to hide their contempt, but the Bill, and recent comments from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, have ripped it away once and for all. The Prime Minister recently told his MPs that devolution was a disaster and Tony Blair’s biggest mistake—the latest in a long line of statements that he has made to show his distaste. We all remember him saying that

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

The Leader of the House has called devolution a failure and is arrogantly dismissing it, while the Scottish social attitudes survey shows that only 7% of the Scottish people do not support devolution. As I have said, the Bill is an orchestrated attempt by this Tory Government to re-centralise powers.

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way to me for a second time. I simply cannot sit here and listen to him describe this party and this Government’s position on devolution in the way that he is. Under the Calman commission and the Scotland Act 2016, we have devolved more powers to Scotland than any Government in the history of devolution. We have created police and crime commissioners across England and Wales. We have devolved power to our greater cities and regions across England and Wales. Next year we will publish our devolution White Paper. To stand there and say that the Government do not respect or believe in devolution is simply baloney.

[Drew Hendry]

This is the man who said:

“The UK Government is back in Scotland. Get used to it.”

We have seen the Tories for an awful long time. In Scotland, we have not voted Tory since 1959, I think. [Interruption.] Sorry, 1951. That is how long the Scottish people have seen what the Tories are at. We do not want a Tory Government making decisions for people in Scotland. That is why the vast majority of Scottish people voted, with a settled will, to have their own Parliament, and all polls and the social attitudes survey show that, more and more, they support not only devolution but independence.

The Government want to drive a wrecking ball through the devolved settlements. That is reflected by the fact that this Bill, as we have heard, has been ripped apart in the House of Lords. On the shared prosperity fund, it said:

“The Government should explain why such a broad power for the UK Government to spend money in devolved territories has been included in this Bill.”

It also said that the delegated powers in the Bill are “extraordinary” and “unprecedented”,

“and many of them are constitutionally unacceptable.”

Of course, we know from experience what happens when UK Ministers have control of spending. The former Tory Prime Minister John Major took much-needed cash from the highlands and redirected it to Tory marginal seats that were under pressure in the south-east of England. Decades on, nothing has changed. As we know from the pork barrel scandal whereby the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government directed funding to 61 towns that were key to the Tories gaining or retaining seats in the general election, priorities for Scotland will mean little or nothing to the Tories—probably the latter—unless they see some political advantage. Their naked intention to break devolution and break the law has been condemned across the world and even from their own Benches.

This Bill is not worthy of this or any other Parliament. Outside of Tory Government circles, it has been rightly and absolutely panned. Catherine Barnard, professor of European law at Cambridge University, said

“This is a remarkable piece of legislation and it expressly contravenes our international legal obligations to a point that the legislation itself says this is the intention”.

Imagine that. Steve Peers, a professor at the University of Essex, said:

“It is an obvious breach of international law.”

David Anderson, QC, tweeted:

“The Ministerial Code still mandates compliance with international law, despite a change to its wording, as the Court of Appeal confirmed in 2018”.

Simon Davis, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, said:

“The rule of law is not negotiable.”

Perhaps most tellingly, George Peretz, QC, tweeted:

“But it is hard to think of a better argument for Scottish independence than a UK government that is prepared to use Westminster’s unconstrained sovereignty to override a binding treaty commitment it entered into less than 12 months ago.”

Former Tory Prime Ministers, including a Member still sitting in this House, have savaged this shoddy piece of legislation. From their own Benches, the Government have been told that

“a willingness to break international law sits ill for a country that has always prided itself on upholding the rule of law.”

They have also been told by their own Members that it is an act of bad faith and that the rule of law is not negotiable.

The Bill has also been condemned in the United States. This is a Government who are really good at negotiating no deals, and it looks like they are about to negotiate another one with the US. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, said:

“The U.K. must respect the Northern Ireland Protocol as signed with the EU to ensure the free flow of goods across the border.

“If the U.K. violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a U.S.-U.K. trade agreement passing the Congress.”

We have also heard comments from the Taoiseach and others across the European Union. In America, Antony Blinken, the chief foreign policy adviser to Joe Biden, said that Joe Biden

“is committed to preserving the hard-earned peace & stability in Northern Ireland. As the UK and EU work out their relationship, any arrangements must protect the Good Friday Agreement and prevent the return of a hard border.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

Indeed, it should be the right of people living in any country to determine their own future, and he is right: if the people of Northern Ireland choose a different path, they should be respected, as should be the case for those in Wales and Scotland as well.

I will start to wind up my comments now, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could go on for much more time, but I know that you have packed Benches of Members waiting to come in. I was just about to talk about Joe Biden. He said:

“We can’t allow the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland to become a casualty of Brexit. Any trade deal between the U.S. and U.K. must be contingent upon respect for the Agreement and preventing the return of a hard border. Period.”

That is what he said.

This Bill continues to facilitate a race to the bottom on standards, threatens our quality food and drink, opens the door to genetically-modified beef and chlorinated chicken, among other products, and opens the door to privatisation of our water and our NHS. As I have pointed out, the House of Lords has rightly carved up this disastrous, petty, grubby, law-breaking, power-grabbing, messy Tory Bill. Its amendments must be respected and agreed. The Scottish Government have always engaged willingly to take forward the common frameworks progress this devolution-wrecking—

[Andrew Bowie]

Rubbish.

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Member says “Rubbish”, but he knows that is not the case. We understand that the Tories have a very casual relationship with the truth, but we expect them to at least have a one-night stand with it.

This Bill confirms the contempt that the Prime Minister and his Government have for devolution. People in Scotland see this clearly. As I have said, 15 polls in a row are showing that independence is the only way to save our Parliament’s powers and the voice of the Scottish people, and as the Defence Secretary confirmed earlier, we can have that discussion in the referendum that is coming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to four minutes. With five minutes, I call Andrew Bowie.

[Andrew Bowie]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern).

There is a distinct sense of déjà vu today. The House of Commons is debating Brexit legislation, and the Prime Minister is locked in talks with the President of the European Commission regarding our exit from and future relationship with the European Union, so hon. Members will forgive me if I break out into a cold sweat when the Division bell rings later today. It will bring back some rather tense memories for me in this place.

I will focus my remarks today on the devolution aspects of the Bill, but I want first to say a bit about the common frameworks. We know that there is still work to do regarding common frameworks. The Government and the devolved Administrations have already agreed the principles that will guide the development of common frameworks. Indeed, Lords amendments 1, 19 and 34 address the issues. However, I do not agree with those amendments, as they would have the effect of undermining the UK Government’s ability to set new rules and divergence through modifying appropriate exemptions to market access rules, and the power to ensure unfettered access for Northern Irish goods into Great Britain. That is why I will be opposing those amendments this evening.

Let me turn to devolution. It was a real pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). I believe him when he says that he is a passionate advocate for our United Kingdom. I remember him campaigning in the referendum in 2014. I disagree with him, however, because this is a very good Bill for the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I know that because the SNP is so vehemently opposed to it. If this was not a good Bill for our United Kingdom, they would of course be supporting it. This Bill is good for business, good for jobs and good for people, and it will bind the United Kingdom closer together. This Bill will deliver a significant increase in decision-making powers to the devolved Administrations. There will be no power grab, as we have heard time and again.

[Joanna Cherry]

The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said that there is no power grab, but Lord Hope of Craighead, who is very widely respected in Scotland and across these isles, said in the Lords that when the SNP described the Bill as a power grab, he initially thought it was “hyperbole”, but

“having read the Bill and…report of the Constitution Committee,”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1361.]

he could very well see why the expression “power grab” is being used. Who is right: Lord Hope or the hon. Gentleman?

[Andrew Bowie]

There is disagreement about this Bill, of that there is no doubt. But we have debated this matter time and again in this place and in other places, and every time that it has been put to the Scottish National party, the Scottish Government or anybody else who opposes the Bill that the term “power grab” is false, they cannot in any way describe one power that is being taken away from the Scottish Parliament.

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Andrew Bowie]

I will give way because I like and respect the hon. and learned Lady.

[Joanna Cherry]

It is not as simple as listing a power. [Interruption.] No, it is the whole scheme. This is not my view. It is the view of Professor Michael Keating, a very well respected constitutional expert across these islands. It is about the cross-cutting powers that give not just this House, but this Government, the last say across a whole range of devolved fields that Donald Dewar devolved to Edinburgh.

[Andrew Bowie]

The hon. and learned Lady knows full well that this place will not have the last say over vast swathes of devolved powers. No powers are being taken back to this place. In fact, we are giving more than 70 powers to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government as a result of our leaving the European Union. Professor Keating, who I know very well, as he was a professor of politics of mine at the University of Aberdeen, knows that it will not be the first time I have disagreed with him on such a point.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I will not, because I know there are far more people who want to speak.

It is not just me who says it is not a power grab. Former SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars said that

“Nicola Sturgeon has been dancing up and down on the ball saying, you know you’re stealing powers from us. The irony is that if she gets these powers, she wants to hand them all back to Brussels. That’s a massive contradiction in her policy position.”

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) cannot shake her head and disagree with that, because that is a fact.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I am afraid I cannot, because we have not got very much time.

This Bill will amount to more money being spent in Scotland. That is a fact. As a result of the Bill, no powers are being taken away and the Barnett consequentials will not be affected. Jobs will be safeguarded as a result of the Bill. It does amuse me to hear Members of the Scottish National party defending and supporting amendments being put in the other place. I hope the Scottish National party one day will come in here and stand up for democracy and the democratically elected Chamber of this United Kingdom. When will the Scottish National party defend the democratic will of the British people?

I seriously urge SNP Members to reconsider their support for the Lords amendments and to stand up for the Bill because it is good for Scotland. But I know they will not. Frankly, the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government do not care that the Bill protects jobs and is good for business and for the country because it binds the United Kingdom closer together. That is why they do not like the Bill: it binds the United Kingdom closer together. That is the truth of it. They do not want the internal market to succeed. They do not want it protected. They do not want the United Kingdom to succeed, and they will sacrifice Scotland’s prosperity, Scottish jobs and anything else, as long as they achieve their aim of undermining the United Kingdom and achieving separation.

As if to make my point, on BBC Radio Scotland’s “Good Morning Scotland” today we heard from Mike Russell, the Minister for constitutional affairs in the Scottish Government. Like the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West—I congratulate her on her election, by the way—he is a member of the national executive committee of the Scottish National party. He said that the Scottish National party will not vote for a Brexit deal even if one is achieved. The SNP would vote against the deal. It has not even seen a deal, but it would rather say no, because it thinks that will further the cause for separation. SNP Members want the United Kingdom to fail, and that is why they are against the Bill this evening, and that is why they will vote against the Brexit deal if we get one in the coming days.

We want to level up the United Kingdom and, as my hon. Friend the Minister has set out, that is why we are disappointed that their lordships have in amendments 48 and 49 attempted to remove the power of the UK Government to intervene to provide financial assistance across the United Kingdom. It is a fact that formerly EU assistance powers now rest with the UK Government. It is right that through the UK prosperity fund, and with consultation with the devolved Administrations, we have the same powers now that the European Union had previously.

I have great respect for my hon. Friends and, indeed, some Members across the aisle for supporting the Lords amendments tonight. I disagree with them, but they have principled objections to the Bill, as do many of their lordships. Although I respect the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West personally, I am afraid I do not respect the position of the Scottish National party, which, as ever, is opportunist, divisive and seeks only to further the aim of breaking up our country, with everything that that means. I will back the Government today because this Bill binds our country closer together and is good for trade, good for jobs, good for people, good for Scotland and good for our entire United Kingdom.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

This was a controversial piece of legislation on Second Reading, so it is no surprise to find that our noble Friends in the other place have made historically substantial amendments to it. It is probably a sign of the remarkable times we are living in that the Government should attempt not only to table legislation that effectively breaks the law, but to do so in such a way as to destabilise a critical bilateral negotiation, the outcome of which will have a major impact on the lives of every single UK citizen.

According to announcements made while we have been here in the Chamber, the Government have so far been unable to conclude our negotiations with the European Union over a future trading relationship. To proceed with this legislation when these critical discussions are at such a crucial stage ought to be unthinkable, were it not for the fact that the Government have routinely ridden roughshod over every convention, broken faith with every promise and undermined every pillar of our society when they threatened to stand in the way of Brexit.

I feel somewhat relieved therefore that their lordships have inserted some normality into proceedings by taking as their first principle that legislation and legislators should not break the law. The Liberal Democrats wholly endorse their amendment that removes the whole of part 5 from the Bill, and we oppose the Government’s motion to reject the amendment.

Since 2016, the Conservative Government have repeatedly ducked the difficult choices required following their decision to implement the referendum outcome in the most damaging way possible. Many of us thought that these choices would finally have to be confronted once Brexit stopped being a right-wing dream and became a reality, but it comes as no surprise that the Government will break the law and destroy our international reputation in order to delay unpleasant reality for a little while longer.

We do not know what unintentional consequences will be unleashed by reinserting this clause into our national legislation, but if we as a nation break treaties, act in bad faith and undermine our international relationships, we should expect there to be a price to pay. This is a recklessly foolish action at a time when we urgently need to build and strengthen our links with other countries, not just because we need new trade deals, but because we urgently need co-ordinated global action to defeat coronavirus and fight against climate change.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

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

[Drew Hendry]

I want to make some progress.

Organisations across Scotland are also deeply concerned about the proposals. NFU Scotland has confirmed the attack on devolution. It said that

“it is the clear view of NFU Scotland, and the other faming unions of the UK, that the proposals pose a significant threat to the development of Common Frameworks and to devolution.”

The General Teaching Council for Scotland said that the proposals

“would undermine the four UK nations’ devolved education functions.”

The STUC has warned:

“Johnson is uniting political parties, trade unions and wider civil society in Scotland against a power grab which would see UK Government interference in previously devolved matters and a rolling back of the constitutional settlement we voted for in 1997”.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I have resisted the temptation to ask the hon. Member to give way up to this point, despite the fact that he may be inadvertently misleading the House by pretending that, in some way, this Government are intent on grabbing powers back from Holyrood and taking them to Westminster when nothing could be further from the truth. I will bring him up, however, on his using the National Farmers Union of Scotland and its arguments as a reason not to back this Bill. The NFUS said:

“NFU Scotland’s fundamental priority, in the clear interest of Scottish agriculture…is to ensure the UK Internal Market effectively operates as it does now.”

That is what the Bill delivers. Nothing of what he has said up to this point is any way relevant to the Bill today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

The last time I bought a second-hand car, the first thing I did was make sure it was roadworthy, legal and in line with the legislative provisions of this country.

I have followed this debate very closely, speaking both on Second Reading and in Committee, and I say yet again that we have had more heat than light. We started off—let us not forget that it was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and nobody else, who started off—by saying that the Bill would breach international law. It was not the Labour party that said we would accept everything the EU says; it was from the Dispatch Box that he said the sentence that in fact has put this entire Bill under a cloud.

The Government have got themselves in a terrible mess on devolution. A key pillar of devolution is setting priorities in key areas, but, as the explanatory notes to the Bill say, clauses 46 and 47, which aim to provide financial assistance, fall

“within wholly or partly devolved areas”.

That is clearly an area of disagreement.

In parallel with the Bill, we are waiting for Lord Dunlop to report on the UK Government’s Union capability. At the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee a few weeks ago, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that that would come before this Bill hits the statute book. It is clearly, again, putting the cart before the horse.

We have to admit and understand the asymmetry across the Union given the size of England. It is not hard for us to try to do that. I am somebody who thinks that, despite our Union being forged in conflict, with a very difficult history, it is actually precious. It is an exemplar of what is good about politics, democracy, how we can come together with the hard graft of compromise and the ability of us as politicians to evolve our positions and reflect change over time. However, that has to be based on respect.

It is clear that the heavy-handed way in which the Government have introduced this Bill—and, I have to say, many of the speeches given to Conservative Members to read—has not appreciated such respect or the fragility of the Union. We could have had minimum standards included in this Bill, and we could have had the frameworks put on a statutory footing. It could have been done very differently, and that is a source of great regret.

This is not just an economic Bill, as we were sold it in the first place; it is a deadly serious constitutional Bill, and it is deeply problematic. I would like to speak more about Northern Ireland, but I cannot given the time. Again, it was deeply irresponsible of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to herald the Bill in the way he did. We know the situation is fragile and we know that Brexit creates difficult problems on the island of Ireland, and it behoves all of us to dial down the rhetoric and recognise that we are now in for a very long haul on the processes to make this work.

Whether in the Joint Committee, the specialised committee, the joint working group, strands 2 and 3 of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, the British-Irish Council or the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, of which I am proud to be a vice-chair, we are not able to meet at the moment as parliamentarians. That is a real problem because we are not able to talk with people with whom we disagree fervently, but with whom we need to make peace across these islands.

With our demise in the EU, the fact that the 25-odd meetings a day we had as British and Irish parliamentarians —we do have many more common interests than with the rest of the EU—are lost and that those relationships are about to fall away is something the Government need to take much more seriously. In 1990, we started forging these agreements as parliamentarians across these islands, and that was when we started to develop the peace that came some eight years later.

The Government must treat not only the regions and parts of the United Kingdom with much more respect, but they must now take much more seriously the implementation of strands 2 and 3 and the relationship with the Irish Government. We know that there are more things to come with tariffs, and so on, and the Government need to take much more heed of that.

[Andrew Bowie]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on this vital Bill, as it was when I spoke on Second Reading and in Committee.

Contrary to popular belief, I have a lot of respect for my colleagues on the Scottish National party Benches. Their view about the future of Scotland is very different from mine, but I respect their view. I respect the fact that they come down here to improve the lives of Scots in their particular way, as I hope they respect the fact that, from my perspective, I believe I am doing the same, although with a Conservative bent. That is especially the case with the spokesperson for the SNP today, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), which is maybe why I was so disappointed by the tone he struck in his speech. He did not take very much instruction from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about the overuse of hyperbole.

Maybe that is also why I am a little perturbed by SNP Members’ opposition to what is a very good Bill—a Bill that is pro-business, pro-consumer and ultimately pro-Scotland. I know they will not take my word for that—I understand that—but maybe they will take the word of the CBI, which said that protecting the UK internal market is “essential”, and that:

“Preserving the integrity of the internal single market—the economic glue binding our four nations—is essential to guard against any additional costs or barriers to doing business between different parts of the UK.”

Or maybe they will take the words of the Scottish Retail Consortium, which said:

“Scottish consumers and our economy as a whole benefit enormously from the UK’s largely unfettered internal single market.”

And I have already quoted Andrew McCornick, the president of the National Farmers Union Scotland, who said:

“NFU Scotland’s fundamental priority, in the clear interest of Scottish agriculture as well as the food and drinks sector it underpins, is to ensure the UK Internal Market effectively operates as it does now.”

That is what this Bill does: it underpins and cements in statute the existence of our most important market—the internal market of our United Kingdom.

Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Bill

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 26th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He will realise that I have to face the House and am not deliberately turning my back on him as I reply. He is absolutely right that if someone makes a legitimate complaint to their local authority or pursues a case under the Bill, there must be clear actions to be taken if so-called revenge evictions take place.

I am conscious that that danger may vary between areas. In some parts of the country, a large amount of housing may be available at reasonable prices, although I accept that affordability is an issue across the country. However, in other places, particularly the area represented by the promoter of the Bill, the cost and availability of housing are huge issues. The threat of having to move out is much more significant in such places than somewhere where people could just move down the road. There is a need to tackle revenge evictions, because if revenge evictions are the result of the Bill, it will not be a success.

Again, the vast majority of landlords respond to complaints fairly and reasonably and will work with their tenant in their mutual interests. If the landlord has a long-standing tenant, they do not have to pay agency fees to relet their property. Likewise, the tenant is able to make more of a life for themselves and does not have the disruption to their family life and their children’s schooling that comes with regular moves.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North, as always, brings his vision and knowledge to this debate, and rightly highlights that we must not only ensure that the powers are used, but that revenge evictions do not take place.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

What would my hon. Friend say to those who say—I disagree with them—that any legislation that impacts on landlords will have an unwarranted impact on the availability of housing, because people will be more unwilling to rent out their properties in areas where there is already a pressing demand for housing?

[Kevin Foster]

What I would say to them is, as an Opposition Member said earlier, “If you are renting out a property that is unfit for human habitation, you really should not be in the business of being a landlord. If that is the standard of what you are renting out then, bluntly, we do not want you to carry on.”

Will there be an impact on availability? Possibly, but—and it is a very big but—if someone cannot afford to do a property up to the standard where it is fit for habitation, they have an obvious option, which is to sell the property to someone who can. Another option is to discuss with the local authority whether planning permission needs to be granted to allow for a proper redevelopment.

I recently went to see a superb development in Paignton. It used to be poor-quality, guild house-style accommodation. In theory it was sheltered accommodation, but it was more like guild house-style accommodation, with shared bathrooms and facilities that were not particularly good. It was on the site of a former brewery. It was really not that great and the local housing association took the view that it did not meet the standard. It has been done up properly and there are now 22 new homes. The new apartments are modern properties that meet modern standards of disability access; the facilities reflect this era, rather than the 1950s; and young families have moved back in.

Let us be clear about what happens when we take action on housing standards. I know my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) will agree with this point; indeed, he probably made his intervention so that I would put it on the record. There is always the theory that when we introduce legislation and take action on housing standards, we might reduce the supply and make it more difficult or more expensive—because if we contract the housing supply, the price clearly goes up—for the tenant to find housing. However, in my experience when enforcement action is taken by local authorities, which will still happen, in many cases it results in the same amount of housing, or even slightly more of it, but this time of the right standard.

If a landlord feels that one of their properties is not up to standard—again, I refer to the landlord with a property in Paignton—they should start engaging with the local authority. Most councils will be reasonable and sensible if a landlord is trying to do the right thing. That could mean looking at how the property is used, perhaps converting the property or getting planning permission to allow the proper redevelopment of the site, as happened in Paignton. I am happy to take another intervention but I think that my hon. Friend can be reassured that, although there is always an argument about how much we do in terms of pushing measures so far that we reduce supply, this Bill will not do that. In fact, it could reduce the supply of completely unsuitable accommodation and increase the supply of the type of rental properties that we want to see.

Let me turn to the matter of implying terms into a lease—a sensible and proportionate measure. For those wondering what that means, this is about how the legislation creates the civil enforcement. Any tenancy will now contain this provision in the lease. As has been said, this is not about bringing back a piece of Victorian legislation, where the maximum rental price is now woefully out of date—probably as historical as the piece of legislation itself. Rather, this is about having a modern piece of legislation that does not come with the idea that every so often we need to decide the maximum rent to which it would apply. That makes this a more secure piece of tenancy legislation.

Following amendment in Committee, it would be interesting to understand how the Bill will affect those who rent out a property in a block where the leaseholders are the freeholders. A concerning issue came out following the fire safety work in Torbay after the Grenfell Tower fire. To be clear, there is not a large local authority owner of tower blocks in Torbay, as some hon. Members might have in their constituencies. We have a lot of apartment blocks and blocks of flats, particularly for those entering retirement, where the leaseholder is the freeholder—that is, the leaseholder owns a share in the freehold—and some of these flats may be rented out. In these cases, the freeholder, who is supposed to be dealing with certain issues and maintaining certain safety standards, has absolutely no incentive to enforce against its own shareholders. In fact, the shareholders are not very keen at all for the freeholder to take enforcement action.

There was an example in my constituency whereby a block had been built in the late 1960s—not a dissimilar era from that of Grenfell Tower. There were two apartments on a floor, which had two fire doors, then the corridor and then the door to the stairwell. About 20 years ago, the owner of one flat bought the other flat on the floor and turned it into one property along the whole floor, so instead of having two doors and the fire door to the stairwell, there was now just a fire door to the stairwell. This had not been picked up, partly because the freeholder had no great incentive to take action against the leaseholder, because the leaseholder was the freeholder. In the Minister’s contribution, she might wish to reflect on whether a tenant of a leaseholder would be able to enforce against the freeholder in such a situation.

British Transport Police/ Police Scotland Merger

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Douglas Ross]

Absolutely. We have to remember that the joint programme board is made up of representatives of the Scottish Government, the UK Government and Police Scotland. At their latest meeting in February, they all agreed to recommend a pause to the Scottish Government. None of them could see the implementation of integration being achieved safely by 1 April 2019.

The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) takes me back to where we are now, which is the pause. We are in a welcome place: the SNP, Police Scotland and the joint programme board all accept that the implementation date of 1 April 2019 will not be met. Gone are the supportive comments from the Police Scotland high command that everything about the proposal is rosy.

I cannot forget the response I received to a question that I put as a member of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee; it came from Assistant Chief Constable Bernie Higgins. Almost exactly a year ago today, on 7 March, I asked him about the problems we had seen with the merger of the eight forces into one and the ongoing challenges faced by Police Scotland. At that point last year, I was asking whether it was the correct time to force ahead with this merger. ACC Higgins, before the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee, replied:

“To be frank, two years is a luxury, based on what we had to do to bring Police Scotland together, so I am confident that the transition would occur”.

Two years as a luxury and confidence from an assistant chief constable of Police Scotland—all now wilted on the vine. Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone has made it very clear, in his remarks to the joint programme board and since, that Police Scotland was not ready, that it was not a luxury to have two years to implement the integration and, therefore, that it is correct that we have now paused.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Given all that, does my hon. Friend think it might be the time for Her Majesty’s Government to consider delaying the laying of orders facilitating the merger north of the border?

[Douglas Ross]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and will come on to that towards the end of my speech, when addressing the Minister on what we could do in this Parliament.