United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Ed Miliband Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House notes that the UK has left the EU; calls on the Government to get on with negotiating a trade deal with the EU; recognises that legislation is required to ensure the smooth, effective working of the internal market across the UK; but declines to give a Second Reading to the Internal Market Bill because this Bill undermines the Withdrawal Agreement already agreed by Parliament, re-opens discussion about the Northern Ireland Protocol that has already been settled, breaches international law, undermines the devolution settlements and would tarnish the UK’s global reputation as a law-abiding nation and the UK’s ability to enforce other international trade deals and protect jobs and the economy.”

There are two questions at the heart of the Bill and of why we will oppose it tonight. First, how do we get an internal market after 1 January within the UK while upholding the devolution settlements, which have been a vital part of our constitution for two decades and are essential to our Union? Secondly, will our country abide by the rule of law—a rules-based international order, for which we are famous around the world and have always stood up?

Those are not small questions. They go to the heart of who we are as a country and the character of this Government. Let me start with the first question. An internal market is vital for trade and jobs at home, but also for our ability to strike trade deals. It is the responsibility of the UK Government at Westminster to safeguard that market and legislate. On that, we agree with the Government. But that must be done while understanding that the governance of our country has changed in the last two decades. Two decades of devolution settlements reflect a decision that we would share power across our four nations, including devolving key powers over issues such as animal welfare, food safety and aspects of environmental legislation. We should legislate for an internal market, but in a way that respects the role and voice of devolved Governments in setting those standards. That is to respect the devolution settlement. From across the UK, we have heard that the Government are not doing that; that they want to legislate with a blunderbuss approach that does not do that and simply says that the lowest standard in one Parliament must become the standard for all, with no proper voice for devolved Governments. If the Westminster Government decided to lower standards, there would be no voice for the devolved nations, even in a discussion about those standards because the Government have decided not to legislate for common frameworks.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is getting to the nub of the matter. We have Joint Ministerial Committees, and huge progress had been made in the last few months on agreeing frameworks that would allow us to do exactly what the right hon. Gentleman asked for. Is not the right way to proceed through frameworks in agreement with the devolved Administrations, not the race to the bottom that we get with the Bill?

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman and I come from different positions. I want to respect the devolution settlements that uphold the Union and he has a different point of view, but on this matter we should be legislating for common frameworks. That would be the way to respect devolution. I do not know whether the Prime Minister even understands the legislation—I know he has many things on his plate—but I am sorry to say that on this issue, the Government’s approach has been cavalier. Since 2017, common frameworks have developed and the Government could have legislated for that. We will seek to do that during the Bill’s passage.

The issues were prefigured in the White Paper. Since then, we have an even bigger question to confront. Let me say at the outset that we want the smoothest trade across our United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. There is a way to resolve those issues in the Joint Committee set up for that purpose. I have to say that, from a man who said he wanted to get Brexit done and won an election on it, the Bill gets Brexit undone by overturning key aspects of the protocol that were agreed.

I have been part of many issues of contention across the Dispatch Box, but I never thought that respecting international law would be a matter of disagreement in my lifetime. As Leader of the Opposition, I stood opposite the Prime Minister’s predecessor David Cameron for five years. I do not know why the Prime Minister is rolling his eyes. I disagreed with David Cameron profoundly on many issues, but I could never have imagined him coming along and saying, “We are going to legislate to break international law” on an agreement that we had signed as a country less than a year earlier. Yet that is what the Bill does, in the Government’s own words.

I want to address three questions at the heart of the matter. Is it right to threaten to break the law in the way the Government propose? Is it necessary to do so? Will it help our country? The answer to each question is no. Let us remember the context and the principle. If there is one thing that we are known for around the world, it is the rule of law. This is the country of Magna Carta; the country that is known for being the mother of all Parliaments; and the country that, out of the darkness of the second world war, helped found the United Nations. Our global reputation for rule making, not rule breaking, is one of the reasons that we are so respected around the world. When people think of Britain, they think of the rule of law. Despite what the Prime Minister said in his speech, let us be clear that this is not an argument about remain versus leave. It is an argument about right versus wrong.

The Brexiteer and former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lamont, says that the Bill is impossible to defend. The Brexiteer and former Attorney General who helped to negotiate and sign off this deal as Attorney General says that the Bill is “unconscionable”. And the Brexiteer Lord Howard—the Prime Minister’s former boss—said this:

“I never thought it was a thing I’d hear a British minister, far less a Conservative minister, say, which is that the government was going to invite parliament to act in breach of international law…We have a reputation for probity, for upholding the rule of law, and it’s a reputation that is very precious and ought to be safeguarded, and I am afraid it was severely damaged…by the bill”.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the EU has been negotiating in good faith?

[Edward Miliband]

It is very interesting that the hon. Gentleman should say that because a report came out today from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which is chaired by a Conservative Member. This is what the report says and this is my answer to him:

“These talks began in March and continued throughout the summer in a spirit of good faith and mutual respect for the delicate arrangements in Northern Ireland.”

That is what the Conservative-controlled Select Committee says about this issue.

The Prime Minister has said many times that he wants to bring unity to the country during his premiership. I therefore congratulate him on having, in just one short year, united his five predecessors. Unfortunately, their point of agreement is that he is trashing the reputation of this country and trashing the reputation of his office. Why are these five former Prime Ministers so united on this point? It is because they know that our moral authority in the world comes from our commitment to the rule of law and keeping our word. We rightly condemn China when it rides roughshod over the treaties dictating the future of Hong Kong. We say it signed them in good faith, that it is going back on its word and that it cannot be trusted. And his defence? “Don’t worry; I can’t be trusted either.” What will China say to us from now on? What will it throw back at us—that we, too, do not keep to international law?

[Andrea Jenkyns]

Does the Labour party keep its word to the British voters?

[Edward Miliband]

Actually, yes we do, and I will tell the hon. Lady why. We respect the fact that the Conservative party, under this Prime Minister, won the election. He got his mandate to deliver his Brexit deal: the thing that he said was—I am sure she recalls this because it was probably on her leaflets—“oven ready”. It is not me who is coming along and saying it is half-baked; it is him. He is saying, “The deal that I signed and agreed is actually—what’s the word? Ambiguous. Problematic.” I will get to this later in my speech, but I wonder whether he actually read the deal in the first place.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. Would he perhaps tell the House who on earth might have signed this terrible deal with so many ambiguities less than nine months ago?

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes an important point; I do believe it was the Prime Minister who signed the deal.

In fairness to the Prime Minister, I want to deal with each of the arguments that the Government have made in the last few days for this action. It is quite hard to keep count of the different arguments—you know you are losing the argument when you keep making lots of different arguments—but I want to give the House the top five. First, let us deal with the argument about blockades, which made its first outing in The Telegraph on Saturday through the Prime Minister, and obviously it made a big appearance today.

I have to say, I did not like the ramping up of the rhetoric from the European Union on Thursday, following the Prime Minister’s publication of this Bill, but even by the standards of the Prime Minister, this is as ridiculous an argument as I have ever heard. Let me let me explain to him why—the point was very well made by the former Attorney General this morning. This is what article 16 of the protocol says:

“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”

In other words, let us just say that this threat somehow materialised—and by the way, I believe that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials would have to implement it, making it even more absurd that it would happen. If the threat materialised, it is not overturning the protocol that is the right thing to do; it is upholding the protocol, as article 16 says. But do not take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker; take the word of the former Attorney General—who definitely read the protocol—who wrote this morning:

“There are clear and lawful responses available to Her Majesty’s government”.

As if that was not enough, there is also an irony here—the Prime Minister tried to slip this in; I do not know whether the House noticed—which is that this Bill does precisely nothing to address the issue of the transport of food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It is about two issues where the Government are going to override international law: exit declarations, Northern Ireland to GB, and the definition of state aid relating to Northern Ireland. If the Prime Minister wants to tell us that there is another part of the Bill that I have not noticed that will deal with this supposed threat of blockade, I will very happily give way to him. I am sure he has read it; I am sure he knows it in detail, because he is a details man. Come on, tell us: what clause protects against the threat, which he says he is worried about, to GB-to-Northern Ireland exports? I give way to him. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot give way unless he is asked to.

[Edward Miliband]

There you have it: he didn’t read the protocol, he hasn’t read the Bill, he doesn’t know his stuff.

Let us deal with the second bogus argument. The Prime Minister claimed on Wednesday that it was necessary to protect the Good Friday agreement. The first outing for that argument was on Wednesday, at Prime Minister’s questions. I have to say to him, I would rather trust the authors of the Good Friday agreement than the Prime Minister, who has prominent members of the Government who opposed the agreement at the time. However, this is what John Major and Tony Blair wrote—[Interruption.] They don’t like John Major. They said that the Bill

“puts the Good Friday agreement at risk”—

[Interruption]—this is very serious—

“because it negates the predictability, political stability and legal clarity that are integral to the delicate balance between the north and south of Ireland that is at the core of the peace process.”

These are very important words from two former Prime Ministers, both of whom helped to win us peace in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister may not want to believe them, but he will, I hope, believe himself—[Laughter]—maybe not—because this is what he said about the Northern Ireland protocol:

“there are particular circumstances in Northern Ireland at the border that deserve particular respect and sensitivity, and that is what they have received in the deal.”

It is

“a great deal for Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 578-579.]

I do not understand this. He signed the deal. It is his deal. It is the deal that he said would protect the people of Northern Ireland. I have to say to him, this is not just legislative hooliganism on any issue; it is on one of the most sensitive issues of all. I think we should take the word of two former Prime Ministers of this country who helped to secure peace in Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Before the shadow spokesman lectures the Prime Minister about reading documentation or starts lecturing us about the Good Friday agreement, does he not recognise, first of all, that the Good Friday agreement talks about the principle of consent to change the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, which is what this protocol does? The Good Friday agreement has within it a mechanism to safeguard the minorities in Northern Ireland through a cross-community vote, which again the protocol removed. So before he starts talking about the threats to the Good Friday agreement, does he not recognise that the protocol was a threat to it in the first place?

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman did not like the protocol at all. He would rather have not had the protocol. He and I just have a disagreement on this issue. I believe it was necessary to make special arrangements for Northern Ireland, or for the UK to be in the EU customs union to avoid a hard border in Ireland. That is why the Prime Minister came along and said the protocol was the right thing to do.

Let me deal with the third excuse we heard. This is the “It was all a bit of a rush” excuse. As the Prime Minister said in his article, times were “torrid” and there were “serious misunderstandings”. He tries to pretend that this is some new issue, but they have been warned for months about the way the protocol would work. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is sitting in his place, was warned at the Select Committee in March and was asked about these issues. The Business Secretary was written to by the House of Lords Committee in April.

Let us just get this straight for a minute, because I think it is important to take a step back. The Prime Minister is coming to the House to tell us today that his flagship achievement—the deal he told us was a triumph, the deal he said was oven-ready, the deal on which he fought and won the general election—is now contradictory and ambiguous. What incompetence. What failure of governance. How dare he try to blame everyone else? I say to the Prime Minister that this time he cannot blame the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), he cannot blame John Major, he cannot blame the judges, he cannot blame the civil servants, he cannot sack the Cabinet Secretary again. There is only one person responsible for it and that is him. This is his deal. It is his mess. It is his failure. For the first time in his life, it is time to take responsibility. It is time to ’fess up: either he was not straight with the country about the deal in the first place, or he did not understand it.

A competent Government would never have entered into a binding agreement with provisions they could not live with. If such a Government somehow missed the point but woke up later, they would do what any competent business would do after it realised it could not live with the terms of a contract: they would negotiate a way out in good faith. That is why this is all so unnecessary. There is a mechanism designed for exactly this purpose in the agreement: the Joint Committee on the Northern Ireland protocol. What did the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say on 11 March at the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union? He will recall that he was asked about state aid. He said:

“the effective working of the protocol is a matter for the Joint Committee to resolve.”

The remaining issues to which the Bill speaks are not insignificant, but nor are they insurmountable, and that is the right way to pursue them, not an attempt at illegality.

Let me come back to the excuses. Fourthly, on Sunday, there was the Justice Secretary’s “the fire alarm” defence: “We don’t want to have to do this, but we might have to.” I want to be clear with the House about something very, very important about a decision to pass the Bill. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), but I want to make this point. The very act of passing the Bill is itself a breach of international law. It would be wrong for hon. and right hon. Members on either side of the House to be under any illusions about that as they decide which Lobby to go into tonight. If we pass the Bill, even if there is a nod and a wink from the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, we equip the Government with the power to break the law. That in itself is a breach of the Northern Ireland protocol and therefore a breach of international law.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I have listened carefully to the right hon. Member’s formulation and I understand much of what he says. However, an Act passed by this House only becomes law when it comes into force. He will be right, I submit, to say that as soon as any of these provisions came into force we would potentially breach international law. That is not quite the same thing, as I think he would fairly concede.

[Edward Miliband]

That is not a risk we are going to take.

So the fire alarm defence simply does not work. The last defence was floated as a trial balloon, one might say, by the Northern Ireland Secretary last Tuesday, I believe. He said it was a breach of the law in a “specific and limited way.” That really is a new way of thinking about legal questions. It now turns out that breaking the law specifically and in a limited way is a reasonable defence for this Government. We have all heard of self-defence, the alibi defence, the innocence defence; now we have the Johnson defence: you can break the law, but in a specific and limited way.

Think about the grave context we face. The Home Secretary is in today’s newspapers warning everyone, “You must abide by the law.” On this, she is absolutely right. She says,

“I know that, as part of our national effort, the law-abiding majority will stick to these new rules. But there will be a small minority who do not”.

You couldn’t make it up. What she does not say in the article, but what we now know about this Government, is that the Johnson defence means something very specific: there is one rule for the British public and another rule for this Government. Pioneered by Cummings, implemented by Johnson—that is the Johnson rule.

This is the wrong thing to do. It is not necessary and it is deeply damaging to this country. Let us think about the impact on our country in the negotiations. The Government’s hope is that it will make a deal more likely, but that relies on the notion that reneging on a deal we made less than a year ago with the party we are negotiating with now will make that party more likely to trust us, not less. Think about our everyday lives: suppose we made an agreement with someone a year ago and we were seeking to have another negotiation with them; if we had unilaterally reneged on the first deal we made, would it make them more likely to trust us, or less likely? Obviously, it would make them less likely to trust us.

We know the risks. I very much hope the Prime Minister gets a deal. As a country, we absolutely need a deal. We know the risks of no deal if this strategy goes wrong. The Prime Minister said last week that no deal is somehow “a good outcome”. He is wrong. I hear all the time from businesses—I am sure the Business Secretary, who is in his place, does too—that are deeply worried about the danger of no deal. I know what the Prime Minister thinks about the views of business, thanks to his four-letter rant, but this is what businesses have to say. Nissan says there could be no guarantee about its Sunderland plant if there were tariffs on UK to EU trade. Ford says that no deal would be disastrous. The NFU says it would be catastrophic for British farming—indeed, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when he was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said the same thing. We are in the biggest economic crisis for 300 years, the biggest public health crisis for 100 years. No deal is not some game; it is about the livelihoods of millions of people across our country.

What about the prized trade deal with the United States? I know the Prime Minister thinks he has a friend in President Trump, but even he must recognise the necessity of being able to deal with both sides. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, said:

“The UK must respect the Northern Ireland Protocol as signed with the EU… If the UK violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a US-UK trade agreement passing the Congress.”

This is the signal that we—the country known for the rule of law, the country that abides by the law, the country that founded international law—are sending to our friends and allies around the world. That is why we cannot support the Bill.

The Government must go back, remove the provisions breaking international law and ensure that the Bill works in a way that respects the devolution settlements. That is what a responsible, competent and law-abiding Government would do. This is a pivotal moment to determine the future of our country—who we are and how we operate. In shaping that future, we have to stand up for the traditions that matter: our commitment to the rule of law. The Bill speaks of a Government and a Prime Minister who are casual, not to say cavalier and reckless, about the gravity of the issues confronting them. The Prime Minister should be focusing on securing a Brexit deal, not breaking international law and risking no deal. He is cavalier on international law and cavalier on our traditions. This is not the serious leadership we need, and it is why we will oppose the Bill tonight.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Ed Miliband Excerpts

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

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I join the Business Secretary in paying tribute to the Public Bill Office for the work that it has done. I also profoundly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for the incredible hard work they did during the Bill’s Committee and Report stages. I am pleased to see the Business Secretary back in his place for the Third Reading of the Bill. I am afraid to have to report that the person deputising for him on Second Reading did not do a great job. Next time the Prime Minister asks to fill in for him, I suggest that he tells him to go elsewhere and he will do a very fine job, thank you.

Let me go to the heart of the debates around this Bill. We support the principle of the internal market, but there are two profound flaws at the heart of the Bill, and that is why we will vote against it tonight. On devolution, Labour Members believe deeply in our Union, but the strength of our Union lies in sharing power, not centralising it, and this Bill does not learn that lesson. It makes a choice to impose the rule that the lowest regulatory standard in one Parliament must be the standard for all without a proper voice for the devolved Administrations. I have read carefully the debate in Committee and on Report, and there has been no proper answer forthcoming from the Government about why they did not seek to legislate for the common frameworks, as they could easily have done. Nor can they explain why they are taking such broad powers over public spending in specific devolved areas of competence.

[Joanna Cherry]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the great scheme of devolution of the illustrious former leader of the Labour party in Scotland and Scotland’s first First Minister under devolution, Donald Dewar, was that every power would be devolved unless specifically reserved? What is wrong with the Bill is that it gives the British Government the power to override devolved powers. That is the heart of the matter.

[Edward Miliband]

There is an important point here. To take the example of animal welfare or food safety, those powers remain devolved, but they are devolved in name only, because by imposing the minimum standard as the lowest standard for all legislatures, those powers are seriously undermined. I have to say to the Business Secretary that I fear that the Bill will only strengthen the hand of those who want to break up the UK.

On international law, nobody should be in any doubt about the damage already done by the Bill. I do not blame the Business Secretary, but this law-breaking Bill has been noticed around the world by not just the Irish Government, not just our EU negotiating partners, and not just Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, who the Government can dismiss. Even President Trump’s Northern Ireland envoy Mick Mulvaney visited the Republic of Ireland yesterday and said:

“I think anyone who looks at the situation”—

with the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—

“understands there could be a series of events that could put the Good Friday Agreement at risk.”

When the Trump Administration start expressing concern about your adherence to international agreements and the rule of law, you know you are in trouble. That is how bad this Bill is.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

I am going to carry on.

It is important to hear the words of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in her coruscating and brilliant speech in Committee. Government Members are rolling their eyes about the former Prime Minister. She said that,

“the Government are acting recklessly and irresponsibly, with no thought to the long-term impact on the United Kingdom’s standing in the world.”—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 668.]

That is what a former Prime Minister—the previous Prime Minister—of this country said.

[Sir William Cash]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in fact, in the past, there have been substantial breaches of international law by Labour Governments as well as by other ones? Furthermore, does he believe that the Iraq war was lawful?

[Edward Miliband]

This is unprecedented in the following sense: the Government are coming along and breaking an international agreement they signed less than a year ago. I have heard the hon. Gentleman, and I have read the debates on the issue, and he certainly has not produced an example in any way remotely similar to what is happening in the Bill.

I want to develop my argument, because an important point has been understated in the debate since Second Reading. The clauses are not simply wrong, as so many hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise; they are not simply unnecessary, because the protocol has mechanisms to deal with the issues at hand; but there has been a notable event since Second Reading that has exposed the Government’s strategy even further, which is the cancellation of the Budget.

Let us recall the Government’s fig leaf designed to hide their embarrassment. The issue was at-risk goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The whole case made by the Prime Minister was that the Bill was necessary to prevent the blockade of goods from GB into NI. The threat was described as “extraordinary” and the very reason to break international law, but the measures, as we now know, to break the law in this Bill, do not, as he had to admit at Second Reading, deal with the issue of GB to NI trade.

The excuse was that GB to NI issues would be dealt with in the Finance Bill, as was explicit in the statement put out on 17 September by the Government, which said:

“Further measures will be set out in the Finance Bill, relating to tariffs on GB-NI movements, including the same Parliamentary process that the Government has committed to for the UKIM Bill.”

In case it escaped the House’s attention, the Budget has been cancelled and so has the Finance Bill. So where now is the mechanism to deal with the extraordinary threat that we face as a country? Can anyone on the Government side tell me where it is? The country faces an extraordinary threat that has to be dealt with, but the legislation we are considering does not cover it, nor does any legislation even in view.

I will give way to the Business Secretary if he would like to tell me how this will be dealt with. There is no answer—he would prefer not to. I do not blame the Business Secretary, because let us be clear what has happened here: the legislative hooligans in Downing Street who dreamed this up have moved on to something else, but the Bill is still with us, and so we are going through all this pain, all this grief, all this damage to our international reputation, and the central argument on which it is based is not even covered by any legislation.

What are we to conclude? Was this all a charade—a “dead cat” strategy, as I think it is known—to distract attention? Was it a trap designed to pretend that we were rerunning remain versus leave? Was it perhaps a Government strategy to pretend to their Back Benchers that the Government are willing to break the law in order to soften them up on accepting concessions in the endgame of the negotiations with the EU. Whatever the excuse, all of them reflect so badly on the Government.

We are at a grave national moment—our gravest for a generation, because of coronavirus. We are trying to conclude a Brexit deal, which is vital for our country. We need new trade deals, in which our word is our bond. Yet the Government play these appalling games, thinking so little of their Back Benchers that they think they can pull the wool over their eyes; willing to resile from a treaty that they signed, for a day’s headlines; playing fast and loose with the law for short-term gain.

The Bill will get its majority and go to the other place, but their lordships should know that, across this House, there is deep concern about it. That has been shown again and again by good people on both sides of the House in the last few weeks. I urge the other place to bring the Bill into compliance with the rule of law and salvage our reputation. But we in the House of Commons have a chance tonight to show our concern again. It is an indefensible Bill. It damages our country. It is wrong and self-defeating. I urge Members on all sides to oppose it tonight.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Ed Miliband Excerpts

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Colleagues will see that there are a large number of right hon. and hon. Members who want to contribute to this debate. If we have any chance of getting them in, I will have to start with an immediate five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, but that may well have to go down.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be opposite the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). This big Bill began its life with the Prime Minister, then the Secretary of State and now it is a pleasure to be opposite him. I must say that I have enormous respect for him, but I did feel that I was living in a parallel universe when I heard him this afternoon. This Bill has been absolutely savaged in the other place. It has been absolutely savaged not just on international law, but on devolution as well, not just by Opposition parties, not just by Cross-Benchers, not simply by the former Lord Chief Justice or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but by the heart of the Conservative party—by Lord Howard, Lord Hague, Lord Clarke, Lord Cormack, Lord Lamont, and Lord Barwell, the former chief of staff to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) laughs from a sedentary position. He may not consider him exactly Conservative, but he is a Conservative peer. Believe it or not, Madam Deputy Speaker, even the Duke of Wellington spoke out against this Bill. I gather that he has recently left the Conservative party—and who can blame him?—but nevertheless, he said this:

“In a single piece of proposed legislation, the Government have managed to antagonise almost everyone, including a multitude of counterparties and international public opinion.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1342.]

The Duke of Wellington is right, and given his family history around our relationship with Europe, he is in a position to know. That is why we saw the largest defeat in a generation on this Bill, including 44 Conservative peers, seven former Conservative Cabinet Ministers and many other former Ministers.

I make that point because I think we heard the beginnings of the grinding wheels of the climbdown in what the Minister was saying. After three months of posturing, undermining our reputation in the world, today, an hour before the debate begins, we perhaps see some preparations for the brakes being applied before we go over the cliff. I am not going to give the Government any credit for that, and I do not take their word for it either. The one thing that this whole sorry saga has shown the world beyond any doubt is that this Government’s word is not their bond—they cannot be trusted, because they are willing to rip up international agreements they made less than a year ago.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I was going to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on endorsing the hereditary principle, which I did not know he was such a big supporter of. The real question I want to ask him is, what should a state do if it finds that its obligations under one treaty conflict with those under another treaty or its own constitutional law?

[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.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to give way on that point?

[Edward Miliband]

It is always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman, so I shall.

[Sir William Cash]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman recalls the fact that section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 was passed not only by the House of Commons—by 120 votes—but by the House of Lords itself. That contained the same principle regarding the notwithstanding arrangements specifically in relation to section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

[Edward Miliband]

I think the hon. Gentleman and I have had this exchange before. The fact is that the reason this Bill has caused such concern—among five former Prime Ministers and all the people in the House of Lords I have mentioned—is that it will rip up a treaty that we signed. That message has been sent loud and clear around the world. As I said, there is already provision in article 16 of the protocol for unilateral action in the event of

“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”.

The provisions are not only wrong, then, but unnecessary.

I wish to deal with the “insurance policy” argument that has been put forward—the Minister used the term “safety net”. This legislation is not a safety net or an insurance policy; it is a trapdoor for us, and I will tell him why. Let us say that the worst happens and we fail to get a deal, and we then trigger these provisions. What then? We set off an escalating dispute with the EU, and we do not know where that dispute ends; we further alienate President-elect Biden and scupper any chances of a US trade deal; and we destabilise the politics of Northern Ireland. This is no insurance policy; it is a guarantee of the destabilisation of our country piled on to no deal—in other words, the very last thing the country needs. That is why we will vote to uphold the Lords amendments that keep part 5 out of the Bill.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Of course we all want agreement and we all want a trade deal, but what happens if relations break down? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, first and foremost, the Labour party is a Unionist party that believes 100% in the economic integrity of the United Kingdom and will not act as a poodle for nationalists? Can he give me an absolute guarantee that if relations break down and we reject this Bill, we will not be in a very difficult place in terms of the economic integrity of the United Kingdom?

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman and I agree absolutely about the United Kingdom, and I am now going to come on to why I have such fear about this Bill. I fear that it is ignorant and blundering on the most important question about the way in which we share power across the United Kingdom. My fear about that and about the Bill is that it has given those who want to undermine the United Kingdom a further weapon with which to do so. That is why I want to turn to the devolution aspects of the Bill.

I particularly want to put on record my thanks to Lord Hope, former Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General, for his work on the Bill. The common frameworks are a complex issue, but it is worth spending some time explaining them. The common frameworks process—the Government deserve some credit for this—was established in 2017 to enable us to agree high standards across the United Kingdom and manage any divergence in those standards. The problem with the Bill is that there is no mention of common frameworks. Instead, it provides a blunderbuss principle that the lowest standard in one jurisdiction is the standard for all, with no voice for the devolved nations.

Take the issue of single-use plastics, which is a very concrete example. The Welsh Government want to legislate to ban the use of single-use plastics, but the problem is that the Bill as it stands enables the UK Parliament to simply come along, without discussion and without a voice for the Welsh Government, and legislate to stop them doing that. In a written answer earlier this month, they said very clearly that they believe that they will not be able to make that legislation stick. The Bill in its current form allows the UK Government simply to undercut the powers of the devolved Administrations in key devolved areas, including the use of plastics, other environmental standards, animal welfare and other consumer standards. That is very serious, because the common frameworks are a way in which we can both secure high standards—this is the intention of Lord Hope—and manage divergence when it occurs across the United Kingdom.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very valid point. Does he agree that the problem with the Bill is that it enables the British Government, through its control of the UK Parliament, to become like a boa constrictor around the devolved Parliaments, restricting their ability to act in the policy fields for which they have responsibility?

[Edward Miliband]

However we describe it, I do not believe that the Bill properly respects the principles of devolution. These are principles that we have developed in a very British way, in a sense, over the past 20 years or so. The principles of devolution are, I think, principles that it is crucial that we uphold. I ask the Minister to think again. He should think again, and should agree to Lord Hope’s amendments, which put the common frameworks into the Bill. It makes no sense that the Governments of the four nations have spent three years working on the common frameworks only for them to make no appearance in the Bill.

Then we have a related issue, which is that in the absence of legislation for the common frameworks—the Minister mentioned this—amendment 12 seeks a wider set of exclusions for market access principles. The reason for that is very simple. In the absence of common frameworks, the market access principles apply with very narrow exclusions—on human, animal and plant health, I think—so if the Government are not willing to agree on the common frameworks, another way forward would be to have broader exclusions that allowed the devolved nations to uphold their powers. This is very important. It is about whether powers that have been devolved over 20 years are effective or ineffective, and whether this Parliament can simply override them without a voice for the devolved nations. These are deeply serious issues, and I think that their importance is recognised by Conservatives such as Lord Dunlop. 

Let us be absolutely clear what will happen if the old version of the Bill is restored and passed into law—this is a sort of prediction, but I am afraid that this is what will happen: this is a recipe for a constitutional punch-up within a very short period of the Bill’s becoming law. Frankly, if that does not happen naturally, it will be provoked by those who wish to have the punch-up. The Government will find themselves accused, rightly, of undermining the devolution settlement, and it would be a disaster for those who believe in the United Kingdom—and I think that includes the Government. The most generous interpretation is that the Government have been cavalier and have blundered into this. [Interruption.] Yes, that may be too generous. I hope that they will put it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

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

“changing how decisions are taken”,

it says:

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

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

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

[Ian Paisley]

I make this point very genuinely. Fidelity to devolution is now being expressed from the Dispatch Box, but Members from Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly ask: where that was six, eight or 12 months ago? The Labour party was prepared to ride roughshod over the views of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of abortion, and to impose laws on Northern Ireland that are there forever, even though the Northern Ireland Assembly has a completely different view from this House on those matters. This fidelity to devolution rings very hollow tonight in many houses in Northern Ireland.

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman and I have known each other a long time, and if one looks at the record of Labour Members on the devolution settlement, and at everything that has happened over the past 20 years, I think we have absolutely shown fidelity to that devolution settlement in what we have done. [Interruption.] I will conclude because lots of Members wish to speak.

This not just a technical discussion about the Lords amendments; it is about a much deeper set of issues to do with what kind of country we want to be. We must be a country that is confident of our place in the world, and in working with others on the basis of shared democratic principles. We must be a country that stands up for the rule of law, and that recognises that we will be better governed if we share and devolve power, and do not hoard it at Westminster. The Bill achieves none of those things. Indeed, it undermines them. I am afraid that is a mark of cavalier government—cavalier with our international standing, cavalier with the law, and cavalier with the United Kingdom. Labour Members will fight for the values that our country needs, and I hope that as the Bill proceeds back—and, I suspect, forth—from the other place, the Government will listen and work with us in the national interest.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We will now have a time limit of five minutes.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I appreciate that the Minister was as brief as he could be, given that he took interventions, but I think we will have to start with a time limit of four minutes rather than five minutes.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I will try to be as brief as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to say to the Minister that we should note the progress made in the removal of the law-breaking clauses from part 5. What has essentially happened here is that the Joint Committee set up to deal with the outstanding issues on the Northern Ireland protocol has dealt with the issues on the Northern Ireland protocol. We are in a slightly through-the-looking-glass world here. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this week described Maroš Šefčovič, the Vice President of the Commission, and his team as displaying

“pragmatism, collaborative spirit and determination to get a deal done that would work for both sides.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 847.]

These are the same people the Prime Minister described in his Second Reading speech in September as being

“willing to go to extreme and unreasonable lengths”.—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 42.]

He also said that they had engaged in an “extraordinary threat” and refused to take the “revolver off the table”.

There are two conclusions we can draw from this sequence of events. The first is that Mr Šefčovič has changed his whole character, attitude and personality in three months; the other is the Prime Minister has a man who will make up any old nonsense for political advantage. I tend to the latter view.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

I am going to make some progress; lots of people want to speak and there is not much time.

With the law-breaking powers that undermined our reputation in the world gone, we are left with the legal but, I believe, deeply flawed proposals for undermining our shared governance at home. I am glad that the other place has, by large majorities, stuck with the insistence on upholding the devolution settlement, particularly in respect of common frameworks. I say to the Minister that this is absolutely critical to the kind of country we want to build post Brexit. We want a functioning UK internal market, but we believe that can be achieved in a way that upholds high standards and allows devolved Governments both to have a voice in setting those standards and to make choices in devolved areas appropriate for each nation. The principle is clear: we have a system of governance based not any more on power hoarded at Westminster but on power shared. That should be respected.

All of that brings me to Lords amendments 1B, 1C and 1D. I hope that in the course of the coming days the Minister, with his colleagues, will reflect on this: the Government say that they support common frameworks, that they are a great innovation and that they are proud of them—and they are a good innovation in many senses—so why not give them legislative backing?

This is quite an arcane debate, so I wish to make it as simple as I can and return the example of single-use plastics, which I mentioned on Monday, to show the difference between the common frameworks approach proposed by Lord Hope and others and the Government’s approach. Environmental policy, including on plastics, is a devolved question. Under the EU rules we currently have, the Welsh Government, for example, could ban the production and sale of single-use plastics in Wales; under the Bill as it stood when it went to the other place, the Government of Wales would not be able to ban their sale because the UK Government do not propose to ban such plastics themselves. Because of the market access principle and the way it is implemented, the lowest standard in one Parliament will be the standard for all, which means that Welsh shops will have to stock these plastics. I do not believe that that respects the devolution principle. The power may be formally devolved, but in essence it is rendered ineffective by the approach taken in the Bill, which takes control back to Westminster. If the Minister can explain why it does respect devolution, perhaps he should do so, but I have not heard a good explanation.

What is the alternative to that? The alternative is the common frameworks approach, which provides a different way forward by attempting to find consensus for high standards among the four nations while respecting devolved powers and the ability to diverge through agreement. That is what Lord Hope’s amendments seek to do, which is why we support those amendments and will, indeed, seek a vote on them.

Lords amendments 8L, 13 and 56 also seek to preserve the ability for there to be higher standards in different nations, where they can be justified. Again, this is about our vision for the future. Instead of a race to the bottom, we want to see a race to the top on standards. We have seen this over the course of devolution: on the smoking ban, plastic bags and a whole range of issues, we have seen experimentation in different nations drive up standards. I say to the Minister that both sets of amendments are the right thing to do to respect the devolution principle, and I believe they are consistent with the internal market that we want to see.

I turn briefly to Lords amendments 48B and 48C, which would oblige agreement with the devolved Administrations before there was spending in devolved areas. If anything, this is a clearer and more simple test of the Government’s real intentions. They say that they believe in devolution. The city deals are worked out jointly with the devolved Administrations; the Government are taking enormously wide powers in the Bill on spending in devolved areas. If this is not about hoarding power to Westminster, the Government can surely agree to the proposal that such spending should have the consent of devolved Administrations. This is about the principle of shared governance. I make the point that that was certainly the case in relation to EU structural funds. The Minister set out some proposals on the shared prosperity fund, but the Bill proposes much wider powers in relation to spending in devolved areas. If this is not a power grab and is not about hoarding power to Westminster, surely it is possible to say, “Yes, this spending should be agreed with the devolved nations.” If the Government refuse to accept the amendment, they slightly give the game away.

I think there is a big picture here, which is that, as I said on Monday, all of us who believe in the United Kingdom must, I believe, go the extra mile to protect devolution. I think it is incredibly important. It is the key to keeping our United Kingdom together, in my view. While we welcome the removal of the offending parts of part 5, this Bill just does a bad job of doing that, I am afraid, and I think the other place is telling the Government that loud and clear. I am very struck, by the way, that the Conservatives who voted for the amendments yesterday—Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Dunlop, to take two examples—are people who are steeped in this issue as Conservatives and are incredibly keen to protect both the devolution settlements and the Union.

I say to the Minister that we want the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to reach the statute book. It must happen, however, in a way that does not ride roughshod over the way we are governed. I hope very much, for the sake of the United Kingdom and for the sake of respecting the devolution settlements, that the Government will reflect on this over the coming days.

[Sir William Cash]

In a nutshell, I am concerned about the fact that the Government have not insisted on this disagreement with respect to the notwithstanding clauses. I do not have time to go into all the detail, but I would simply say this. They remain needed, and I have put down amendments this afternoon to the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill for next week for the same reason.

The first thing is that this is to do with sovereignty and with judicial powers. It is to do with the fact that the notwithstanding clauses, with the use of the words “notwithstanding” and “whatsoever”, actually deal with the job effectively, and we should not take them away when we do not even know what the text from the Joint Committee is and we have just in effect been told that decisions are taken. There is this new clause talking about guidance. Guidance on what—on what agreement? We have not seen it, and we do not know what it means. I shall therefore almost certainly abstain on that at the very least.

The second thing is the question of what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said yesterday—he knew perfectly well when he used the word “Factortame” what he meant. It is what I have been talking about in respect of, for example, the quashing of Acts of Parliament: the ability of the courts under the rubric of European law to be able to take action to strike down UK law. Those principles may be retained—indeed, I believe it is more than possible that that would actually happen. There is a necessity to ensure that it does not happen when we have had a referendum, we have had Acts of Parliament and we have had section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Act) passed, all of which enables us to be able to provide for these notwithstanding clauses.

We should not remove these clauses on the basis of a jeu d’esprit or leave them out on the basis that everything is now all right in respect of these absurd allegations over breaches of international law, which are complete nonsense. Nobody has put forward a single argument in the House of Lords to substantiate the allegation that there is a breach of international law. In fact, the reality is that article 46 of the Vienna convention deals with these matters, and it is therefore perfectly proper for us to keep the clauses. I believe that we need to retain them not just as a safety net or as belt and braces, but because it may well turn out to be necessary to avoid, for example, either the House of Lords or the courts, in extremis, taking action the effect of which would be to undermine the Brexit process. That is the key issue. It is about sovereignty, which the British people have made clear is what they want—the same applies to the red wall seats, as the Labour party knows only too well.

The bottom line, therefore, is that I want an assurance from the Minister that measures will be taken in legislation—in primary legislation—to restore those notwithstanding clauses. I have discussed this with our team in the Whips Office today. I hope the Minister will simply say, “Yes, we will take note of what my hon. Friend has said, and indeed will give effect to it if we find that, at the end of this weekend, it is necessary to return those clauses to the taxation Bill and also, if necessary, to this Bill,” but without prejudicing the safety of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill in its entirety as it stands at the moment.