Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
John Hayes Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). I personally believe that, faced with the most severe challenge for any Government since the second world war, this Chancellor and his Budget are entirely realistic. We are and must remain the party of sound Budgets, and we must return to borrowing only to pay for investment. That is our long-term aim, but faced with this pandemic, we have to make accommodations.
Although I commend the Chancellor for his Budget, the most important thing, of course, is to get the economy moving again and get us out of lockdown. The success of the vaccine roll-out, which will get the economy moving, has been absolutely staggering. Only this morning, I went to Lord’s cricket ground—probably the only time I shall ever be invited there, to the executive suite—for my second jab. I was in and out literally within 10 minutes. Like all the wars we fight, perhaps we do not perform very well at first, but we exit well; we have exited this war against the virus more effectively than any other country in Europe, and that is down to this Government and this Prime Minister.
As with all Budgets, we have to be realistic. I may make some gentle criticism, but I fully accept that the Chancellor has been faced today with an impossible task.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
In making those gentle criticisms, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will challenge the Government on the issue of small businesses that now have to pay VAT when dealing with the European Union. They can reclaim it, but there is a delay, which brings cash-flow problems. I am mindful particularly of the heritage craft sector, from blacksmiths to silversmiths and so on; they do so much for our economy and employ nearly 200,000 people.
Sir Edward Leigh
My right hon. Friend makes an entirely valid point. One of the points that I want to make in my short contribution is that we have to accept that the high street and small businesses have moved on. The truth is that we have a very unequal tax system. Giants such as Amazon are paying an infinitely small proportion of their profits and turnover in business rates, and are driving small businesses and shops out of the high street. I personally think that there is something to be said for abolishing business rates all together. How would we pay for that? We could actually pay for it through a 3% increase on VAT on all businesses. That, of course, would hit the very large businesses such as Amazon, which pay derisory levels of tax, very hard indeed. My right hon. Friend makes a very fair point.
May I repeat what I say in every Budget? Perhaps I am a bit of a broken record on this, but I do believe in transparency, and I believe that ultimately we should try to reform our whole tax system. The TaxPayers’ Alliance has counted 1,651 tax changes since May 2010, including: 58 changes to air passenger duty; 130 changes to national insurance; 68 changes to stamp duty; 256 changes to VAT; 53 changes to tobacco duty; and 258 changes to vehicle excise duty. Our tax code is 17,000 pages long—or it was in 2015; it is even longer now. We should compare that with the tax code of an enterprise economy such as Hong Kong, which is only 350 pages long.
As things get easier next year, my plea to the Chancellor is to make our taxes clear, simple and fair. Tax complexity creates a structural bias in favour of the very rich and the big corporations, and that is not fair. Global giants can hire entire departments of tax advisers. I therefore agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings: let us look after middle-class people, who pay PAYE and bear the brunt of all tax increases, and let us direct tax increases at those who can pay, namely the digital giants.
Covid-19
John Hayes Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [V]
Millions of Britons live in remote rural places, including here in Lincolnshire. The Prime Minister will know that isolation fuels fear, which exacerbates disadvantage, and that only vaccination will bring the safety that assuages those fears. Will he reassure my constituents that local doctors’ surgeries will be equipped and supplied so that they are able to vaccinate the vulnerable not later, but sooner?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it is our intention that doctors’ surgeries, which clearly play a crucial part in the vaccination programme, will be equipped as fast as possible with supplies of the vaccine—as plentiful, I hope, as the copies of “Wisden” that adorn my right hon. Friend’s shelf. That is what we intend to do. And may I say how delightful it was to see his wife Susan briefly in the background?
Public Health
John Hayes Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman, who is also from Merseyside, makes an important point. It is undoubtedly clear that the best way to preserve life among those who suffer from diseases that are not covid is to keep covid under control. Everybody who works in an NHS hospital will confirm that, because the pressures on the NHS from covid make it harder to treat cancer. In this second outbreak we have successfully managed to keep cancer services going—going at over 100% of their normal last year in many areas—thanks to the hard work of the NHS.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is, of course, right to say that measured controls and restrictions are necessary to defeat this disease, but will he confirm that these tiers are not set in stone? Will he confirm that the review in December will, in the words of a letter he sent to me today, mean that areas will be considered within counties, on their “merits”, and that action will be taken accordingly to ease those restrictions, where possible?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out earlier what happens if an area meets the five criteria. We have set out those five criteria: the pressures on the NHS, which we were just discussing; the case rates; the case rates in the over-60s—this is because of the direct impact that has on hospital admissions; the direction of travel of those case rates—this is because if it is rising fast, that is more dangerous; and the positivity. If an area meets the five criteria, of course we will seek to reduce the tier on that basis, and we will do that on the basis of the most localised geography that it is epidemiologically relevant to act in. This is about the human geographies that the Prime Minister spoke about with such eloquence earlier.
Let me turn to some of the many speeches that have been made, as I want to highlight a few. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) gave a wise speech, talking about how there is no alternative. This phrase—“There is no alternative”—came up again, for example, from my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) talked of the uncertainty in decision making, which was meant not as a criticism but as a description. That is something that I and those of us with the burden of decision making in this pandemic know only too well. But, as he said, there are facts, including about the power of vaccination, and on that he is absolutely right.
There were a number of excellent speeches from Members across the House both in favour of and against this action. I understand that reasonable people have different views on what are very difficult decisions. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) talked about the lesser of evils, and many talked about the decisions ahead of us not being easy because none is straightforward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said, it is about choosing the least damaging course to take.
I pay particular tribute to some of the newer Members of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), who made impassioned pleas in support of the Government. They said that it is not about doing what will win short-term popularity, but doing what is right, and that is the approach that we seek to take. Others asked about the publication of more data in real time. The challenge is that we publish data on the day that it comes to us, but it takes a few days to get all the results in and therefore to know the true trajectory of the disease, so there is a natural and unavoidable gap between getting the full data and the time that we are in now. That is why we look at the data from up to four days ago, because after that date, it can increase.
Many Members made points about the hospitality sector. My heart goes out to those in the hospitality sector. The Prime Minister has set out more support for wet pubs, and rightly so. The hospitality sector has benefited from more support from this Government in the pandemic than any other sector. Overall, the economic support provided by this Government has been set out by the International Monetary Fund as being one of the most generous packages in the world. We cannot support and protect all jobs, but we seek to protect as many jobs as we can, because we can protect jobs as well as protecting lives—that is the goal. We cannot protect all lives, and we cannot protect all jobs, but we seek to protect them both.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) said that we have the right to do not what we please but what is right. In a pandemic, that is true of us all—it is true of every individual who has to choose how they act. The restrictions in these measures are not what everybody should push the boundaries of, but the limits up to which we should go, because we all have within ourselves the ability to stop the passing on of this virus to others. She made that point clearly struggling with the restrictions on liberty on which we vote tonight, but coming to the view that they are a lesser restriction than those we live under today, and they are a necessary restriction in order to protect life.
The consequences of inaction would be far worse than the consequences of these actions. Voting against these restrictions tonight is, in fact, a vote to allow the entire system to lapse tomorrow. I know that every Member of this House wants to control the virus, and no one wants to see the NHS overwhelmed, so support the motion to protect the NHS. Support the motion to back the nurses who we all clapped in the spring. Support the motion to back the doctors working on our wards every night. Support the motion to back the teachers who are working so hard to keep our schools open and to back the care workers looking after the most vulnerable. Support this motion to back the businesses that do not want another national lockdown, because that would be the only alternative. By voting for this motion, Members are supporting all those people and the public, who want to see us act together.
I can honestly say that from all my experience this terrible year, this proposal draws on all the lessons and all the learnings from our experience.
We have come so far in our fight against the virus. We are on the cusp of the scientific breakthroughs, the vaccines and the community testing that will let us cast aside the curbs that it demands. The end is in sight. The measures are temporary and time-limited, but no less necessary for that. The return of our freedoms is on the horizon. The virus is back under control. The NHS has been protected. Let us not throw it all away now. We must have the resolve, not to do what is easy, but what is right. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
John Hayes Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Colum Eastwood
This withdrawal agreement took a long time to negotiate. The British Government and this Prime Minister signed up to it, and it was called a fantastic deal. It was to protect us from a hard border in Ireland. We spent 30 years trying to get rid of hard borders and division and trying to bring people together to allow local people to work together to make decisions on behalf of local communities.
I cannot understand how anybody who is supposed to be a devolutionist and whose party is in government—even though the right hon. Gentleman is sometimes at odds with the leadership of his party—would want any Minister based in Whitehall to make decisions over the heads of the Democratic Unionist party, Sinn Féin, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance party or the Ulster Unionist party. This Bill would allow a Whitehall Minister to override the wishes and very strong views of people in Northern Ireland on issues such as fracking and water charges. Who wants to see that happen in our devolved areas?
More than any policy risk, the Bill creates even more instability in our system, and we cannot afford that. Just look at what has happened over the past number of years. Alongside the attack on the protocol and the risk of a hard border in Ireland, the Bill rides a coach and horses through the Good Friday agreement in so many ways. If this Government, as they profess, support the Good Friday agreement and devolution and want local people to work together, spilling their sweat and not their blood, to bring about economic progress and change how society works, they will take away the risk of the Bill, because causes 46 and 47 would override, undercut and undermine all that progress.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
At the heart of the purpose of politics is a marriage between the common good and the national interest, and trade is at the heart of both. This Bill—in particular, clauses 46 and 47—makes that principle real, yet the supporters of these amendments seem either unaware or unwilling to accept that trade is a national policy and has to be determined in the interests of the whole kingdom. Of course, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said, co-operation and collaboration are necessary with the constituent parts of that kingdom, but in the end trade deals are negotiated by the Government as a whole.
The idea vested in the amendments in this group—notably, amendment 33—that Ministers should act only with the permission of people in those constituent parts is preposterous, as anyone on either side of the House who has served as a Minister knows. Of course, collaboration requires a relationship between those in the devolved Assemblies and Ministers here, but that relationship is one in which the devolved Minister knows that the buck starts and stops with the national Government.
Alan Brown
I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has read clause 46 or the amendment correctly. Clause 46 says:
“A Minister of the Crown may…provide financial assistance”
in respect of matters of devolved interest. It is not about trade; it is about the UK Government being able to take decisions on behalf of the devolved nations on matters that are otherwise devolved. Why is it so objectionable to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations on matters that should be devolved anyway?
Sir John Hayes
The problem at the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s proposition—this was reflected in the opening speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central—is that the Scottish National party, the Scottish separatists, believe that the relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the people of Scotland should be devised and delivered only through the prism of them and their friends. The truth of the matter is that the United Kingdom Government have a relationship with Scotland irrespective of the SNP and its friends.
Sir John Hayes
No. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I am conscious of your strictures, Dame Eleanor, that we should not stray into the realms of loquaciousness. Many other Members on both sides of the Chamber wish to contribute, so I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have shared many arguments and, indeed, many agreements over a considerable period of time. I suspect that we are not going to agree about this.
Sir John Hayes
I am not going to give way. I have made that clear.
Although it is true that the vast majority of the people of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland may not be gripped every waking moment by the minutiae of British politics, millions of patriotic Britons across all parts of our kingdom, in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—small business owners, farmers, fishermen, employers, workers; everyone from trade unionists to tree surgeons—expect this Government to get Brexit done and to strike trade deals in the national interest and for the common good. It is as straightforward as that. Anything that provides an impediment to that desire is not only unacceptable but directly contradicts the will of the people. This sovereign Parliament’s mission—its duty—is to embody the will of the people, to respect it and to deliver on it. I am afraid the amendments before us would impede that process, whether that is their intent or not. I will be generous and make it clear that I am not alleging that that is their intent, but it would certainly be their effect.
Perhaps saddest of all are the amendments in the group tabled in the name of the official Opposition. I see sat at the Dispatch Box the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), an old friend, looking as sorrowful as I am when I have to make that charge. The official Opposition is a Unionist party, yet it is clear from the amendments in their name that they have gone along with the idea that Ministers of the Crown should be required—yes, required—to seek and gain the consent of devolved Ministers before proceeding with what they believe is in the national interest. I have to say, I am disappointed about that, and it is another reason why we should vote against the amendments in the entire group and support the Bill unamended.
The shared interest of the people of Britain—the common good, as I described it—has been endangered; indeed, it has been diluted, year after year, through our relationship with the European Union, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) set out earlier in his excellent speech. Taking back control is in the people’s interest, because it will allow us to develop policies that are pertinent to that interest in every part of the United Kingdom.
The debate we are having about the Bill is to some degree rather recherché. It reminds me of the debates we have had in recent times between those who wanted to honour the people’s will, expressed in the referendum, and those who were unreconstructed remainers. Many who campaigned to stay in the European Union have accepted the result and gone along with it, because they believe it was a once-and-for-all decision that should be honoured, but there are those—we have seen them persistently in recent times—who did not accept it. Perhaps, tied to their kind of bourgeois, liberal, doubt-filled, guilt-ridden perspective on world affairs, they were unwilling to recognise that that is a world apart from the view of working-class Britons, as the referendum and the general election showed. That is, in large part, an explanation for why my party seized power in constituencies across the country, particularly in the midlands and north, that it had never represented before. Those people in those places have woken up to the fact that that elite had no understanding and no care for their sentiments or their interests and could not really grasp why they believed that it was right that our trade policies, our policies on migration and other matters should be determined by this sovereign Parliament speaking for those very people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes
I will give way one more time. As I have given way to a Scottish separatist already, I will give way to the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) as a matter of courtesy.
Colum Eastwood
Can I ask the right hon. Gentleman a simple question? How many seats did his party win in Northern Ireland?
Sir John Hayes
I am sorry, but I did not catch what the hon. Gentleman said—forgive me.
Colum Eastwood
The right hon. Gentleman spoke a lot about the last election and about how many seats the Conservative party won. Can I just ask him how many seats the Conservative party won in Northern Ireland?
Sir John Hayes
The Northern Irish political dynamic is a subject that I will not stray into, Dame Eleanor, because you would not permit me to do so.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The right hon. Gentleman is correct: I will not permit it. This is Committee stage of the Bill and not a general debate, and we will stick to the point, which he was doing admirably.
Sir John Hayes
I am very grateful, Dame Eleanor. Any time the hon. Gentleman wants to debate Northern Irish psephology with me over a glass of Irish whiskey, I would be happy to do so.
The essence of the debate this evening—I mean this afternoon, but I am anticipating a long debate, as you can tell—is really not about whether the devolution settlement is as the SNP would want it to be or as it actually is, which is a productive relationship, I think, between those in the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers with the United Kingdom Government. Certainly, that was how it was when I was a Minister—I had a very positive relationship with my friends in Scotland and Wales and throughout our kingdom. It is not really about that. It is about whether we believe that the Government’s hands should be tied in the negotiations as they go forward and try to strike the best possible deal with the European Union. No responsible Member of this Parliament should want to dilute the strength of our position in those negotiations in what is, inevitably, a challenging process with a very wily European Union. Whatever one thinks about the faults and frailties of the EU, and I could speak at great length about them, no one would deny that it is experienced, determined and wily in its attempts to defend the EU’s interests. We must be as united and strong as we can be in backing those who are fighting for Britain, as our Prime Minister is, has and will continue to do.
In drawing my remarks to a conclusion, Dame Eleanor —I know that you will be pleased that I am about to, although disappointed simultaneously—let me say this. It is absolutely true that, in gauging both trade policy and infrastructural investment, we need to be mindful of the particularities of the needs and wants of people across the kingdom, and of course different circumstances prevail in different parts of the UK. Good Governments and good Ministers have always done so, but, in the end, it is for the national Government—it is for the Queen’s Ministers—to make decisions on these matters, and however much that may trouble those who have moved the bulk of these amendments, I have to tell them that it is how it is and how it is going to be. We will back Britain. We will back Boris and in doing so we will get the best possible deal.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I stand here after three of the most bizarre years of constitutional contortions, when parliamentary conventions were stretched to their very limits. However, on Monday we topped them all when Government Members voted to breach the very same withdrawal agreement they voted for just months ago. We have to wonder what the point is of making law and entering international agreement when just months later the Government seek to overturn it. The same Members who voted to breach the withdrawal agreement had hailed the Prime Minister’s renegotiation of it as a masterstroke and then campaigned for it and voted to enact it.
I cannot compete with my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in making the Prime Minister look like a petulant child, so I will not try, but I will try to make Members opposite think about the damage they are doing to our international standing, to their individual reputations and to the fabric of our Union, and to a Bill which could render the Good Friday agreement asunder.
I have some interest in constitutional law; I know the power it has to create new opportunities, to spread power to the people, and to have decisions made closer to where people live, but this Bill is about putting the foot down on the accelerator and driving the constitutional settlement off a cliff with the Union as its trailer. Clause 46 breaks the settled will of the devolved nations, so allow me to outline some of the problems with this Bill.
First, there is the Executive power grab: the Bill has enabling clauses that enable a Minister to make unilateral regulations. Secondly, there is the breach of existing law: the enabling clauses allow a Minister to create regulations regardless of whether those regulations are in breach of domestic and international law. Let that sink in for a second before I carry on: we are giving Ministers the power to break the law.
Clause 46 allows pork barrelling, a US practice allowing for Government spending for local projects to help a politician in their constituency. It allows pork barrelling by ministerial diktat and over the heads of devolved bodies. The Bill not only creates a situation where the Government are in breach of the UK’s obligations under the withdrawal agreement, but it would provide the statutory basis for new regulations to be made by Ministers that are also in breach of UK and international law.
This does have recent precedent. The Coronavirus Act 2020 gave the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care similar powers, which we saw implemented this week when the new health regulations were published allegedly 28 minutes before they came into force. So 29 minutes later, a family of three meeting a family of four could have been in breach of the law, after a flick of the Secretary of State’s pen, with no warning. So, soon we will have two laws, covering coronavirus and Brexit, where Ministers can create law by diktat, and in the case of Brexit break already agreed international law. We must therefore ask whether Parliament’s only purpose will be to provide a body of personnel to fill the Executive and oversee some functions as a law-making body. This means that when it comes to devolved bodies having to make spending and funding decisions, clause 46 will take it over their heads, and they will be denuded of their powers.
Far from bringing sovereignty to our shores, this Government are stripping our sovereign Parliament of its powers piece by piece, and doing the same to the devolved bodies. The Government’s real purpose is a power grab: they are using a difficult situation as a subterfuge to hoodwink the public. The checks and balances are being eroded—[Interruption.] Yes, they are; Government Members are shaking their heads. Those who are meant to safeguard are brought into the pretence and belittle their own office: the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Lord Chancellor. The Advocate General for Scotland has at least shown proper respect for the law by resigning—or at least attempting to resign by tendering his resignation—and the Northern Ireland Secretary himself admitted this Bill breaks the law
“in a very specific and limited way.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]
However, a breach of the law is a breach the law, so any breaking of the law in a very specific and limited way is no defence in court: the law does not discriminate on specificity.
Even the need for this Bill has been ridiculed by more constitutional experts than I could possibly name. The Government argue that the powers are needed in case they need to rapidly implement safeguards under article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol, but Professor Mark Elliott, chair of the Faculty of Law at Cambridge University, argues that clauses 42 and 43—I know that we are not debating those today; I will come to the point about those later—
“bear little relation to the matters with which Article 16 is concerned”.
Stephen Crabb
It is a privilege to speak so early in the debate. I rise in support of clauses 46 and 47 and to put on the record my support for the general principles of the Bill.
The Bill is an essential building block of a successful and orderly Brexit and of a successful economy. People who say that they believe in those things need to back the Bill very strongly. People who say that they believe in getting on with Brexit should support the Bill. People who say that they support the Union and recognise the importance of a seamless internal market for the whole United Kingdom need to support the Bill.
The Labour party says that it is in favour of all those things, yet on Second Reading on Monday night, again yesterday and again today, they have found reasons not to give the Bill their support. That is very telling. Here we are in 2020 and it is just like 2017, 2018 and 2019, with the Labour party finding every excuse—using every trick in the book—to try to water down and get in the way of the successful delivery of Brexit and the successful safeguarding of the whole UK internal market.
At the heart of the Bill are borders and barriers. The Bill respects the borders that exist within our United Kingdom—it reflects the fact that we are a family of different nations within our United Kingdom—but it takes steps to avoid those borders becoming barriers to trade and prosperity for all parts of the United Kingdom. As a Unionist, I come at these issues from a position fundamentally different from that of, say, a nationalist such as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who eloquently started this debate. We come at these issues from fundamentally different perspectives. The problem I have this afternoon is with the Labour position, because it says that it is a Unionist party and in favour of getting on with Brexit, and yet the position this afternoon suggests something different.
I am a Member of Parliament in Wales, and I worry about Welsh politics when I see the Welsh Labour party continuing its slide towards becoming a branch of the nationalist movement. We are talking this afternoon, with the clauses and amendments that are on the table, about limits to UK authority and legitimacy in all parts of the United Kingdom. It is about putting up barriers to stop this Parliament and the elected UK Government having authority and legitimacy in every part of the United Kingdom. I completely respect the position of Plaid Cymru and SNP friends, because they see the world through a fundamentally different prism.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point that is well illustrated by the official Opposition’s amendment 16, which says that any moneys spent in the devolved nations must be “subject to allocation” by those Parliaments. The preposterous idea proposed by the Labour party is that Ministers of the Crown—this Government—cannot spend money in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland without the devolved Assemblies allocating that money or choosing not to.
Stephen Crabb
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, but let me be absolutely clear: I believe in devolution. Other Conservative Members may have different views, but I believe in devolution. When I was Secretary of State for Wales, I was charged with translating the Silk commission into a workable plan to devolve whole suites of new powers to the Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay, and I did that happily, because I believe in seeing devolution become stronger for Wales. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) succeeded me as Welsh Secretary, he continued in that vein. We are part of a Government that have devolved powers to the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government.
However, the response from the Welsh Labour Government every step of the way—I had a running joke with the former First Minister Carwyn Jones about this in our Monday morning meetings in his office in Cardiff Bay—would be, “This is a rollback of the devolution settlement.” It does not matter what new powers we give to the Welsh Government, the response will always be, “This is a rollback. This is a power grab.”
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
John Hayes ExcerptsMonday 14th September 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 View all United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 11 September 2020 - (14 Sep 2020)
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The majority of the Bill is sensible and necessary for an effective United Kingdom single market when we are no longer subject to EU rules. My issue, as for others, is clauses 42, 43 and 45, which take what was agreed less than a year ago about the primacy of the withdrawal agreement over domestic law and reverse it. They are not a clarification but a contradiction of that agreement, and the Government are very clear about this: doing that would be breaking international law.
I agree that it is possible to break international law without automatically breaking domestic law. It is also true that Parliament is sovereign, and it can choose to break international law if it wants to, but the fact that an international law breach is not a domestic law breach and is not unconstitutional does not make it a good idea. The blatant and unilateral breach of a treaty commitment could be justified only in the most extreme and persuasive circumstances. The Government say that such circumstances are those in which no ongoing trade arrangement is made with the EU and where the Joint Committee established under the withdrawal agreement to resolve problems of interpretation is unable to do so, leaving the UK in an impossible position.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
That is the nub of the argument, is it not? These are exceptional circumstances. We are about to negotiate by far the most important agreement that this country has reached for the last 40 years. In those highly dynamic circumstances it is right that this Parliament should give the Government sufficient flexibility to get the best possible deal for Britain. That is what this is about, and that is why we should support the Bill.
Jeremy Wright
If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will address exactly that point and what the Government could be doing instead of what they are proposing to do. Let me say first that the possibility of reaching no trade agreement and of deadlock in the Joint Committee was foreseeable yet when the withdrawal agreement was signed, and again when it was legislated for, the Government did not say that the risk of the outcomes they rely upon now undermined the deal on offer; they said then and they say now that this was a good deal. So what has changed?
That leads to the argument to which my right hon. Friend refers: that, unexpectedly, the European Union is now adopting an interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol so outrageous and so far from a rational reading of that protocol that we could not have seen it coming and we could not possibly accept it, leaving no option but to abrogate ourselves the relevant parts of the protocol. But the withdrawal agreement sets out a mechanism for resolving disputes about interpretation, involving binding independent arbitration and penalties including the suspension of obligations under the agreement. If the EU’s new approach is so far from what the agreement intended, why would the Government not succeed in using that mechanism?
John Lamont
I am grateful for that point and completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill not only protects jobs but strengthens the bonds of the Union that ties the United Kingdom together. As well as remembering the history, we must understand what devolution is in the United Kingdom. It is a means of giving people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the freedom to craft policies and take decisions on matters that affect them, while continuing to derive all the benefits of membership of a unitary United Kingdom. Right from the very beginning, it has been a central assumption of devolution that matters essential to the operation of the United Kingdom would be decided at UK level.
This Parliament is the democratic embodiment of the United Kingdom, and it contains Members who have been elected on an equal basis and who represent every square inch of the United Kingdom. It is here that decisions affecting the UK as a whole should be taken, just as those that affect the whole of the European Union are taken in Brussels—a fact with which very few Opposition Members had any problems at the time. That inconsistency speaks volumes, especially when the net effect of Brexit will be a massive increase in devolved powers, including those on air quality, energy efficiency and elements of employment law. It is a further irony that SNP policy is to hand those new powers straight back to Brussels at the first available opportunity.
Sir John Hayes
As my hon. Friend knows, this Parliament is the guarantor of people’s freedoms. That is not about international arrangements or foreign Governments; this sovereign Parliament guarantees people’s freedoms in this country, and guarantees that the will of the people is expressed here and honoured. That seems to be lost on many critics of the Bill, and I hope that, like me, my hon. Friend will support it with enthusiasm.
John Lamont
I absolutely will support the Bill with enthusiasm. It protects the 500,000 jobs in Scotland that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) mentioned earlier. This is about protecting the Union, and we should not forget that this Parliament is sovereign and a protector of the rule of law.
The Bill is about making the UK work as a fully integrated, seamless internal market. It is in the interests of every business trading across the United Kingdom, and of everyone who wants to make devolution work. It should be of no surprise that it is so hated by those whose sole political purpose is to destroy devolution by ripping Scotland out of this most important single United Kingdom market.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Hayes Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I do not know quite what the hon. Lady means by excluding EU workers, since there are record numbers of EU workers currently in this country, and indeed more can come until the end of the year, when they can register. I have every confidence that we will solve the issue of social care. We will be bringing forward plans very shortly, which I hope will attract cross-party support, to ensure that everybody gets the dignity that they need in old age and nobody is forced to sell their home.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has, with righteous zeal, acted to curb the early release of terrorist prisoners, but he must know that those plans will be put at risk by malign, bourgeois-liberal judicial activists, so will he, in the spirit of our wonderful new Attorney General, agree an urgent review of the legislative means they use to do their work and to put our people at risk and the Government’s plan to tackle that in jeopardy?
The Prime Minister
It is certainly true that people have been let out far too early, far too often. That is why we are not only looking into stopping the early release of serious sexual and violent offenders, but have already produced legislation to stop the early release of terrorist offenders.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
John Hayes ExcerptsFriday 20th December 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir William Cash
I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said. For me, this has been a long journey. My first amendment on the question of sovereignty was in June 1986 during the Single European Act. I was not even allowed to debate it. I was cut off at the knees by one of your predecessors, Mr Deputy Speaker, for daring to suggest that the matter should be debated. The fact is that we then moved on to the Maastricht treaty, and I had the honour and privilege to help run and then lead the rebellion that was needed to stop European government, which is what that treaty was all about. Then we moved on to Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon.
As I survey the landscape of the enormous change that is taking place today, I see exhausted volcanos of former Prime Ministers who have been constantly in the media telling us that we got Brexit wrong. No, we did not. Furthermore, not only did we get it right, but the British people 100% know that this is one of the great moments in British history. We have been shackled by the European Union. Yes, we will continue to trade with it. Yes, we will have global trading. Yes, we will have our democracy and our sovereignty back. This is a great moment in our history. I can only say that, as far as I am concerned, the most important clauses in this Bill are 29 and 38. One gives the right to the European Scrutiny Committee to determine whether matters of national vital interest need to be protected from legislation, which may well be brought in against us by the European Union from behind closed doors during the transition period. For example, the ports regulation, which was imposed on us only a few years ago, was objected to and absolutely resisted not only by Members of the Committee but by all the trade unions and port employers.
Sir William Cash
And by the former Minister as well. We were overridden by Europe. This Parliament was treated with contempt. The regulation was imposed despite the fact that we were completely against it.
The other important clause relates to parliamentary sovereignty. I am glad to note that the wording in that clause is identical in certain respects to that which I put forward in June 1986. Perhaps this long journey has been proved to be worthwhile.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on what he has achieved, and, above all else, I congratulate the voters of this country, particularly those in former Labour seats, for their decision. I was brought up in Sheffield and saw the destruction of the steel industry and the destruction of the coal industry. [Interruption.] No, it was done—[Interruption.] Look, I will not take any lessons from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). I voted against the closure of the coal pits. I was one of the very few people—[Interruption.] I am just telling you that it was the European coal and steel community that was at the root of the problem. As vice-chair of the coal communities all-party group, I can tell you that I worked with Labour Members of Parliament on these issues.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Welcome to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that it is going to be a delight to serve under your enlightened chairmanship for many years.
Listening to this debate, I drew a contrast between the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and that of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who both campaigned for remain in the 2016 referendum. One has accepted the result but the other remains in denial. The debate in this House before the election was characterised by that contrast between the acceptance of the democratic will of the people and the perpetual denial of those who campaigned for remain but who cannot come to terms with the result.
The election result finally settles the matter. The Prime Minister, at some risk to himself and, indeed, to many of us, put his reputation on the line by saying to the British people, “Do you or don’t you trust me to deliver this?” The British people have delivered their verdict. They want us to deliver Brexit, not necessarily because they wanted to leave in the first place, but simply because they want the matter settled. They want to deliver the certainty that is critical for British business and for the integrity of our democracy. To have continued to frustrate the will of the people would have done untold harm to the very spirit that should imbue this place and that gives life and health to democratic legitimacy. That is why, beyond all else, I will vote for the Bill today.
But that is not the only reason. I have opposed the European Union consistently throughout my political career—indeed, stretching back into my boyhood, which was something like 40 years ago. I know it seems surprising and unlikely, but it was 40 years ago that I was a boy. I first advocated withdrawal from the European Union when I was a student at Nottingham University back in the late 1970s.
I did so because the European Union is regulatory. I remember countless occasions when civil servants would come to me and say, “It’s bad news from Europe, Minister. We’re looking at ways we can get around it, dilute it, avoid it.” I would say, “Well, do all you can,” as I did in respect of the ports directive referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). Yet I can never remember them saying, “Great news from Europe, Minister. This is going to be really beneficial for the British people.” The regulatory burden that has emanated from the European Union has been immensely unhelpful to Britain and the British economy, time after time.
I also oppose the European Union because it is costly. The latest House of Commons Library figures suggest that the net cost of our membership of this very expensive club is £8.9 billion. Indeed, we have been net contributors in every year since we joined in 1973 except, interestingly enough, 1975.
Sir John Hayes
That was the year of the referendum. In that one single year, we were a net beneficiary to the tune of £395 million. In every other year, we have been paying dear to bear this regulatory burden.
In addition to those reasons for my opposition to the European Union and all its excesses, I have a more fundamental reason. It is this: when power is exercised detached from the people it affects, it first becomes careless and ultimately becomes capricious. When people lose the ability to hold to account those who make decisions for them, democracy is undermined. That, in the end, is the reason why I campaigned with such vigour to leave the European Union in the referendum and have consistently argued so from my boyhood into my middle age, which I am now about to enjoy.
The denial that I described earlier is a test of character for Opposition Members. The test of character in victory is humility and the test of character in defeat is wisdom. The test for those who have adopted the position to vote against the Bill today—many of whom I respect, by the way, as individual Members of this House—is whether they will exercise such wisdom, for to vote against this Bill is not merely implausible; it is fundamentally unwise.
You will be glad to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that brings me to my concluding remarks. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I know that that will disappoint more Members than it pleases. None the less, I must make room for others to contribute. G. K. Chesterton wrote:
“How you think when you lose determines how long it will be until you win.”
I simply say to Opposition Members that how they behave now will determine how they are thought of now and into the future.
Let me finish on this note. I have spoken about my consistent position. There are critics of me—here and more broadly. [Hon. Members: “No!”] Not many, I acknowledge, but there are critics. However, one thing I cannot be criticised for is inconsistency. C. S. Lewis said that consistency is the mark of greatness. I just hope that if I remain consistent, one day I might be great, too.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
I join the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) in welcoming new Members to the House, and in reflecting on the positive tone of the debate, which is in marked contrast with debates in the previous Parliament. I also join him in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), a new mum returning to make her valued contribution to this House.
The general election delivered a clear instruction to this House that we should leave the European Union. Parliament must now reflect the will of the country and make good on that democratic decision by backing this Bill. The Bill is not a victory for one side over another. The time has come to discard the old labels, to move from the past divisions and to come together as one United Kingdom.
Our country produced a mandate to leave the EU in 2016, but the previous Parliament rejected it time and again. It has taken a second vote to ensure that the mandate to leave is finally honoured. It is clear that the people did know in 2016 what they were voting for after all. Despite the efforts of those determined not to accept the referendum result, the House now has the opportunity to end the delay and to forge a new relationship, both with our neighbours in Europe and, indeed, within this House. In reflecting that spirit, I very much welcomed the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who said that she would support the Bill in the Lobby today.
Before I turn to the substance of the Bill, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) on her very impressive maiden speech? She showed that she will contribute greatly to the work of the House, and her point about reconciliation was timely. The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) also made an excellent maiden speech, as indeed did the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who spoke powerfully of his opposition to Brexit, albeit after leaving an EU institution to come here. He has started his own Brexit as we vote on the Bill.
The Bill delivers certainty for our citizens living in Europe, and EU citizens living here in the UK, by guaranteeing their rights as set out in part 3, including through an independent monitoring authority, which will rightly hold the Government to account. There will be a grace period to ensure that nobody is left behind in registering for the EU settlement scheme. The Bill also protects frontier workers. It recognises professional qualifications and, indeed, provides for fair rights of appeal. That is because we value the contribution of EU citizens who have built their lives in our country, and the Bill will guarantee their right to continue to do so.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the value that has been given to this country by those who have travelled here, but the point about that, as he said when he spoke of accountability, is that such decisions should be made by this Parliament, which is accountable to the British people. That is why I anticipate our policies on migration, which we will now have a chance to effect as a result of the passage of this Bill.
Stephen Barclay
My right hon. Friend has always been a champion of the sovereignty of the House, and I will come on to how the Bill indeed champions the very sovereignty that I know he cares so passionately about.
The Bill also unlocks confidence for our businesses by ending dither and delay, which in turn will unlock huge new investment in our economy, ensuring more and better jobs. As my right hon. Friend has just reflected, the Bill provides control for our Parliament. Clause 1 reinforces the repeal of the Act, which brought European law into the UK. The Bill ensures parliamentary scrutiny through the European Scrutiny Committee in clause 29 and asserts parliamentary sovereignty through clause 38. The whole House will recognise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on this and on so many other issues reflected in the Bill. The very essence of Brexit is that we will no longer outsource our decisions to others in Brussels.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Hayes Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend; he has campaigned very much on that issue. The Government of course have fulfilled their promise to introduce legislation on the matter, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has had productive meetings with representatives from victim and survivor groups. But the most powerful way to address this issue, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, will be if we can all work together to get the Stormont Executive back up and running to deal with the matter themselves.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
There will never be, because there could never be, a more eloquent and articulate Speaker than you, Mr Speaker; we will miss your style and your remarkable, encyclopaedic grasp of detail—and I will miss the literary references by the way, Mr Speaker.
Marcel Proust said the only—[Interruption.]
Sir John Hayes
Marcel Proust said:
“The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes”.
Hard-working British patriots who voted to leave the European Union with fresh eyes have in their sights the bourgeois liberal elite who are trying to steal Brexit from them. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as he is broadcast on the wireless and elsewhere and actually meets people in real life too in the coming days and weeks, simply evangelise this plain and straightforward message: back Brexit, back Britain, back Boris?
The Prime Minister
There is only one way to take this country forward, and that is to get Brexit done. My right hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for people in his constituency and across the country, and if our Government are returned, as I hope we will be—and I will work very hard to ensure that we are—the people of this country will be seeing record investment in their NHS, they will be seeing improvements in their wages through the biggest expansion of the living wage in memory, and they will be seeing reductions in the cost of living, because it is one nation Conservative policies that can be relied on to take this country forward—and the Labour party would take us backwards.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
John Hayes ExcerptsTuesday 22nd October 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill 2019-19 View all European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill 2019-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I have struggled against the excesses of the European project for as long as I can remember—perhaps even as long as you can remember, Mr Speaker, and, given that you can remember everything, that is a bold claim. As it metamorphosised, if not in the eyes of its architects, then certainly in the perception of the British people, from a common market to a political union through successive treaties that I opposed in this House, I recognised that the British people were becoming less and less impressed with this project so beloved of the privileged classes.
Why did I struggle in that way? It was because this is essentially about a single matter, and no more than that—from where power is exercised, and how it is held to account. When power is detached from its effect, it first becomes careless and ultimately opens itself up to corruption.
As I have watched these matters being debated in this place, I have considered the two misassumptions that prevail among those who take a different view from my own. The first is about sovereignty. It is the Crown that is sovereign, not this Parliament, and the Ministers of the Crown have a mission to govern. Parliament’s job is to legislate and to hold those Ministers to account, but it is not this House’s purpose or role to govern, yet we have been constantly told, over the course of the consideration of this matter, that Parliament should do just that.
Secondly, there is a misassumption among the unreconstructed remainers about the character of allegiance. Pan-Europeanism may have a certain appeal to elements of the bourgeoisie, but it is no substitute for the shared sense of patriotic belonging that nourishes individual purpose and nurtures national pride.
Our legitimacy here depends upon the electors’ faith in the bond between those they choose to represent them and the people. Rejecting this deal risks breaching the trust on which that faith is founded. To face our democratic duty and to face down the alliance of nitpickers and doom-mongers is critical to maintain popular faith in the character of our democratic system of government.
There are some who agonise about the details of this deal who, frankly, would accept nothing that was negotiated: nothing would ever be quite good enough. No detail would ever be entirely perfect or well formed enough for those critics. Their endeavours are at best mischievous, and, at worse, malign.
Time and tide wait for no man, and the tidal wave of popular discontent about what this Parliament has done must not be resisted. G. K. Chesterton spoke of the people who had “not spoken yet”. Now their voices ring loud and clear. They are tired of waiting. They want Brexit, and they want it now.
Debate on the Address
John Hayes Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right on that, and I congratulate him on everything he is doing to advance the cause of Scottish fishing, in stark contrast to his opponents on the Scottish National party Benches. As I never tire of pointing out, their whole policy is to hand back control of Scottish fishing to Brussels.
Brexit will bring all sorts of commercial, economic and also humanitarian objectives. It is very relevant to the concerns of this country that we will be able, for the first time, to ban the exports of live animals, which have offended people in this country for so long. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Islington North has even considered that. Those are among the things we can get done once we get Brexit done, but even before we get Brexit done, let us get on—
The Prime Minister
But I am going to give way, before I come to a juddering conclusion, to my right hon. Friend.
Sir John Hayes
I hesitate to intervene on the Prime Minister and spoil his splendid peroration, except to say this: Brexit gives the opportunity for us to revisit the issue of the common agricultural policy, which has disadvantaged our farmers and growers for years. Does he agree that we need to make more of our food in this country and so we need to back our farmers?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend has spoken with his customary wisdom and he is entirely right: that is one of the opportunities Brexit gives us. But even before we have achieved it and even before we have got Brexit done, let us get on with the measures announced in this Queen’s Speech. Let us get on with our vision for a Britain where fairness and balance are at the heart of what we do, a Britain where we fight crime and demand justice for the victims, but where we also insist—I agree with the right hon. Member for Islington North on this point—on rehabilitation of offenders and education in prison.