Oral Answers to Questions
Kirsten Oswald Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Mr Baker
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right when he said that education is the closest thing we have in public policy to a silver bullet, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council has acknowledged that Northern Ireland is currently receiving the funding it needs through a combination of the Northern Ireland block grant, locally generated revenue and additional UK Government funding packages. Those additional packages amount to some £7 billion in additional funding since 2014. I am afraid that the reality for schools in Northern Ireland is that they are long overdue reform, and the cost of running a divided education system is considerable. We need to see much more integrated education and much more efficiency, to ensure that children get the education they richly deserve.
Kirsten Oswald
Recent analysis shows that Northern Ireland’s budget over the past three years has been cut by £2.3 billion in real terms. On top of that slow decline, the UK Government have withheld millions in funding, forcing budget cuts on Northern Ireland Departments. Why does the Minister think it is okay to punish the people of Northern Ireland for the political impasse of their representatives?
Mr Baker
It is not our view that the people are being punished for an impasse. The reality is that the budget situation is difficult for all the devolved nations. The hon. Lady will know that in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, difficult decisions have to be taken in order to live within our means. This Government are taking the necessary steps to assist the Executive in balancing the books.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with the families and friends of the four teenagers who died in a car accident in north Wales. I am sure we will touch on it later, but let me just say that we welcome the agreement reached overnight for a humanitarian pause in Gaza. This is something that we have pushed for consistently and is a crucial step towards ending the nightmare for the families of those taken hostage in Hamas’s terror attack and addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Kirsten Oswald
Today, the Prime Minister’s Government will say that disabled people have a duty to work from home or lose their benefits, as if a suitable job of this kind is something that can be conjured up at will. It should be obvious to anyone that this kind of punitive policy is not incentivising work; it is simply punishing disabled people who are already among the most marginalised in our communities. So can the Prime Minister do his duty and tell us now how many of the 137,000 jobs on the Department for Work and Pensions “Find a Job” website are roles that specify that you can work from home?
The Prime Minister
It would not be right to pre-empt the Chancellor’s autumn statement, but let me just say this: I am proud of the Government’s record in supporting those with disabilities. Not only have we closed the disability employment gap and increased the number of employers who are now disability confident, we are also making sure that we support those who are most vulnerable in our society, not least with the cost of living payments this year, which include £150 for all those on means-tested disability benefits.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kirsten Oswald Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman identifies, quite rightly, the importance of ensuring that there is no border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have accepted the sanitary and phytosanitary checks. We are working with the EU, and both the UK and EU have committed to that intensified process, as colleagues will have seen, and to resolving all outstanding issues with the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol, including securing the flexibilities that we need for trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
As I said, the discussions are ongoing. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to understand that I am limited in what I can say as I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions, but we continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive around the practical implications and operational delivery. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been working with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, and with industry, traders, representative bodies and local authorities to ensure that they are engaged, supported and ready for trading from January 2021. I encourage any business that has not already done so to sign up free with the Trader Support Service.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
The Secretary of State will know of the anger among Northern Irish businesspeople over the accusation by the ironically titled Minister for Efficiency and Transformation that they have their
“head stuck in the sand”
on Brexit. Only 30 days from the hard Brexit cliff edge, does the Secretary of State appreciate that most people will have far more sympathy with Northern Irish businessman, Stephen Kelly, who suggests that it is the Government who have their “head stuck somewhere else”? Is it not the case that Northern Ireland businesses have simply been an afterthought in his Government’s chaotic hard Brexit?
Brandon Lewis
If only the hon. Lady was talking to Northern Ireland businesses directly, as my team and I do regularly, most weeks. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), also engages with businesses in Northern Ireland, as we have been doing consistently throughout this process—including Stephen Kelly, who I do know. It is the information from businesses that fed into the Command Paper that we issued earlier in the year, as well as the guidance that we issued and the work that we are doing to ensure not just that we have unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to mainland Great Britain—I hope that she and other colleagues will support us in ensuring that it is in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to deliver unfettered access, which she claims in her question to support—but also that we get a good free flow of access to ensure that the whole UK internal market can work together, including Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kirsten Oswald Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Just like their counterparts in Kent and Scotland, Northern Irish businesses need clarity on the looming post-Brexit reality. The Secretary of State must know that the last-minute shambles of the Internal Market Bill delivers the exact opposite and fails to provide much-needed reassurance. Does he appreciate the damage that this lack of clarity is doing to Northern Irish businesses?
Brandon Lewis
Northern Ireland businesses responded very positively to the Command Paper and the guidelines we set out earlier in the summer. The UK Internal Market Bill delivers on that and on the key objective of guaranteeing unfettered access. I think it is a bit rich for the hon. Lady to talk about this. We are delivering unfettered access—something the SNP wants to block by putting another border between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Kirsten Oswald Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
Let me get this right. My hon. Friend seems to be saying, “If somebody else does something wrong, it’s okay for us to do something wrong.” I am sorry, I do not agree with him on that point.
I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has taken every effort to ameliorate the impact of these clauses, and the Government have accepted and put down their own amendment. But, frankly, my view is that to the outside world, it makes no difference whether a decision to break international law is taken by a Minister or by this Parliament; it is still a decision to break international law. This can only weaken the UK in the eyes of the world. One of the great strengths we have as a country is our commitment to the rule of law, and this will have been damaged. Our reputation as a country that stands by its word will have been tarnished, and the willingness of other countries to trust the United Kingdom and its values will have been reduced. So much for global Britain!
In 2018, when Russian agents used a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury to attempt to murder Sergei and Yulia Skripal—a nerve agent that led to the death of Dawn Sturgess and affected her partner, Charlie Rowley—I led the action. I called on our friends and allies to stand alongside the United Kingdom, and I led the action that resulted in 29 countries expelling an unprecedented 153 Russian agents from their borders. We were able to do that because those countries had trust in the United Kingdom. Where will that trust be in the future if they see a United Kingdom willing to break its word and international law?
If we pass this Bill with clauses 41 to 45, and in so doing accede to the Government’s wish to break international law, I believe it will have a detrimental effect on people’s trust in the United Kingdom. As the United Kingdom negotiates trade deals around the rest of the world, why should anybody we are negotiating with believe that we will uphold what we sign up to in those agreements if we have said clearly, “If we don’t like it after we’ve signed up to it, we’ll break it”?
This is a country that upholds the rule of law. That is one of the things that makes us great; it is one of our characteristics. We propound and uphold the rule of law around the world. The Conservative party upholds the rule of law—it is one of our values and characteristics—yet we are being asked to tear up that principle and throw away that value. Why? I can only see, on the face of it, that it is because the Government did not really understand what they were signing up to when they signed the withdrawal agreement.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon described the Government’s action as unconscionable. As has been said, Lord Keen resigned because he said that he found it increasingly difficult to reconcile his obligations as a Law Officer with the Government’s policy intentions. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand how any Minister can go through the Lobby to support these clauses.
I consider that, in introducing clauses 41 to 45, the Government are acting recklessly and irresponsibly, with no thought to the long-term impact on the United Kingdom’s standing in the world. It will lead to untold damage to the United Kingdom’s reputation and puts its future at risk. As a result, with regret I have to tell the Minister that I cannot support this Bill.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a privilege to follow such a thoughtful and considered speech.
I rise to speak to amendments 31 and 32, in my name and the names of my colleagues. They require that the definition of terms used in clause 45 be determined only after an impact assessment of the UK Government’s obligations under international law has been carried out. I am also happy to speak in support of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends from the Alliance and the SDLP, and I look forward to further debate in Committee.
The SNP rejected the Bill on Second Reading because we will never support legislation that breaks international law—I am not actually sure why I have to say that. Our amendments seek to ensure that this Parliament understands the impact on its international obligations of any future decisions that it takes on the matters covered by the Bill. The UK Government have presented a Bill that not only threatens a breach of international law—a position that now seems to satisfy many Conservative Members—but was in itself a monumental act of bad faith that speaks volumes about their view of themselves and the world around them.
Last October, speaking about his withdrawal deal, the Prime Minister said:
“if we do this deal—if we pass this deal and the legislation that enables it—we can turn the page and allow this Parliament and this country to begin to heal and unite.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 826.]
The range of the amendments to this section of the Bill alone make it clear—not that we needed the clarity—that healing and unity can hardly be described as the highlights of his leadership.
In November 2019, the Prime Minister said:
“Northern Ireland has got a great deal. You keep free movement, you keep access to the single market”.
The Minister spoke about the Conservative manifesto, but it and the Conservative campaign boasted of the Prime Minister’s oven-ready deal. The Prime Minister was effusive in his support of the deal, calling it “very good”, “excellent”, “fantastic” and “wonderful”, but here we are, and he has changed his tune: far from his deal being oven-ready, it is now only fit for the cowp.
Ian Paisley
Is the hon. Lady telling us that she and her party believed the Prime Minister then?
Kirsten Oswald
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The short answer is no. Regrettably, I do not believe the Prime Minister, on this or other matters.
The Prime Minister said at that point:
“We have to protect the U.K. from that disaster”:
a disaster—and that is his word, not mine—that was negotiated by him and the same adviser as he has now. The Prime Minister visited Northern Ireland last month and talked of close co-operation between central and devolved Governments, but in the least surprising news of the day, certainly to viewers in Scotland, he did not engage with anyone outside Westminster in the development of his Bill. He excluded all of the devolved Administrations from the process of developing a so-called single market through the United Kingdom—plus ça change. Despite the clear relationship between this Bill and the peace process, as well as not engaging with the Northern Irish Executive, the Prime Minister failed to engage with the Irish Government. Despite the clear importance of doing so, he just breenged on regardless. We know why there was no engagement. It is because this shabby Bill—his shabby Bill—had to be put together out of sight of people that the Prime Minister could not control, people with respect for the rule of law and for accountability.
The SNP amendments would ensure that this Parliament would receive an assessment of the impact of any future action on these matters on the UK Government’s obligations under international law—a proper assessment, not the usual triumph of blustering bombast over good judgment by the Prime Minister. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better from the Conservative party, and our amendments recognise that. How can businesses and communities plan with any confidence when their future depends on the internal battles of a party that shows such scant regard for the rule of law?
Colum Eastwood
There has been a lot of talk in recent weeks about consent. The hon. Member rightly says that the devolved Administrations were not spoken to at all about this Bill. With all the talk about consent, it might be useful for the House to know that the Northern Ireland Assembly has just voted in favour of the withdrawal agreement—in favour of sticking to the agreement that the British Government have made with the European Union, and that includes the Northern Ireland protocol. It is the voice of Northern Ireland and it is saying very clearly that this Bill is wrong.
Kirsten Oswald
I thank my hon. Friend that intervention. That is a key point for us. How can anyone trust a Government who do not stand behind the agreements they negotiate—a Government who cannot even agree with themselves?
The Prime Minister’s approach has led to several senior legal figures making a sharp exit. Sir Jonathan Jones, the head of the Government’s legal department; Lord Keen, the UK Government’s most senior adviser on Scots law; and David Melding, Shadow Counsel General in the Welsh Senedd, have all walked away. We have heard about Lord Keen’s letter of resignation, but it was particularly telling in respect of the matters that are before us today. He said:
“I have endeavoured to identify a respectable argument for the provisions at clauses 42 to 45 of the bill, but it is now clear that this will not meet your policy intentions.”
That is a damning condemnation from a former chair of the Conservative party in Scotland. No Member representing a Scottish constituency can defend these clauses—or, in fact, this Bill—and expect to be taken seriously when they claim to stand up for Scotland in this place.
We have also heard that the Sir Declan Morgan, the Lord Chief Justice—Northern Ireland’s top judge—warned that when Governments break international law, that
“might undermine…the administration of justice.”
That should concern us all. Even the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who is a barrister, felt the need to resign as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religion. These are telling actions and words that should give the Prime Minister pause for thought and reflection. This Bill is a grubby power grab that we cannot and will not support, and this part, as it stands, hangs like a badge of dishonour around this Prime Minister’s term of office—however long or short that might be.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s approach is being propped up by those with somewhat flexible standards. The Attorney General’s take could most charitably be described as mince, and the Lord Chancellor says he will resign only if the Government break the rule of law in a way that is “unacceptable”, which obviously, for a Law Officer, prompts the question: what is an acceptable way to break the law?
What of the effect of the Bill on the UK and Northern Ireland? In October last year, when he was still trying to convince us that he had negotiated a great deal, the Prime Minister said of his withdrawal agreement Bill:
“For those who share my belief in the transformative power of free trade…a new deal, enabled by this Bill, will allow us to sign free trade agreements around the world.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 830.]
By using this Bill to trash that deal, the Prime Minister has again exposed the ethical vacuum at the heart of his Government and undermined trust around the world—and all the time he has singularly failed to deliver what is needed by Northern Ireland. As Professor Katy Hayward of Queen’s University Belfast put it,
“the one thing most hoped for from this bill—certainty—has become an even more distant prospect.”
Sir William Cash
There are many essential reasons, in our national interest and on constitutional and legal grounds, and grounds of practical necessity, for the clear, unambiguous “notwithstanding” clauses in the Bill that have been discussed in the context of clauses 42 to 45.
I mentioned in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) that this was a question not just of whether the Euro pot was calling the British kettle black, but of whether, in the United Kingdom, we had ourselves overridden clear treaties. There are too many—they are far too numerous—to mention in this short debate. Of course, there is also an enormous number of examples of international law breaches by foreign states—not only, in Europe, by member states but by the EU itself, egregiously. Furthermore, there are examples of other countries, every one of them democratically elected, having done so. This question of values and reputation, and the issues that have arisen, has to be weighed against that context.
Of course, there are many international treaties, and there are many aspects—
Sir William Cash
In a moment. There are many aspects of international law that are sacrosanct—those in respect of torture, genocide and the rest, for example—and it is the fact that international law comes in many shapes, sizes and degrees, as I am sure we all know.
Basically, the point is that where the sovereignty of a nation is involved—the Vienna convention addresses this question—and where we are at the highest end of where the national interest lies, other considerations come into play. It is absolutely clear that in many instances, democratically elected civilisations—countries—have themselves broken these treaties.
This Bill does not, in my view, breach international law, but our rule of law must be based on our Parliament making our laws for our people based on our sovereignty, not judges. Indeed, Parliament itself voted for section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, without a single vote or even a voice raised in opposition, as far as I am aware, in either House on Second Reading. That Bill passed its Second Reading by as many as 124 votes.
The famous Lord Bingham clearly demonstrated this in chapter 12 of his book, “The Rule of Law”. He said clearly, with respect to the fact that it is our Parliament, not judges, that makes laws for our people based on sovereignty, that he had come across a number of judgments that had breached that principle. Wise judges do not want to make political decisions. His unimpeachable principles turn on their head the exaggerated claims with respect to the breaking of international law that has not taken place.
As I said, the German Federal Constitutional Court stated in December 2015:
“International law leaves it to each state…to give precedence to national law”.
Laying a Bill is not a breach of international law and is privileged. If a treaty is entered into on the reasonable assumption that a state of affairs would exist, but that does not transpire, the treaty is voidable. The agreement was written on the basis of the EU recognising our sovereignty, which has not happened.
International law is broken by democratic countries throughout the world and the EU, in their own interests. The list is long, but I will give a few examples. Western Sahara is one case. Another is migrants sent back to north Africa and Turkey. In 2010, when the EU broke the Lisbon treaty, Madame Lagarde said,
“We violated all the rules”
about the Greek and Irish bail-outs. The EU is unilaterally changing the bilateral channel tunnel treaty without our being able to prevent it. The EU threatened to use the WTO’s most favoured nation principle against the UK contrary to state practice, core principles of world trade and requirements negotiated in good faith.
I have another stack of examples, which I mentioned, where UK statute has overridden international treaties. There is no argument about it; it is there in black and white in the treaties and in the sections of various enactments that have overtaken and overridden international law.
It is understandable that some are bothered about this to a degree, but the fact is—
Sir William Cash
I said, “to a degree”. Within the framework of international law, it is entirely a question of whether the degree to which it is done is commensurate with what is being proposed. The case of sovereignty goes to the heart of the extent to which we are entitled to take the action that we do.
This is less about breaking international law than about breaking the conditions in respect of state aid and in respect of the manner in which the Northern Ireland protocol would operate in the UK with respect to breaking the issues of contract and of the manner in which people work in this country. We are faced with a critical problem, the effect of which is that if we were not to pass these clear and unambiguous clauses, we would find that we were subjected to EU laws—that we were subjugated to them—in a way that would ensure that we would not be able to compete effectively throughout the world or support the workers of this country, particularly in the context of covid.
Section 38 was passed by every single person in this House and by the House of Lords. There is no doubt about that. The notwithstanding provision is inviolate; it is in an Act of Parliament. These enactments do the necessary job to ensure the future prosperity and competitiveness of this country, and the opportunity for its people to move forward in an enterprise society to enable future generations after Brexit to guarantee their jobs, their businesses and their future.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I apologise to my right hon. Friend. His name was in my mind because it was on the monitor before the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth spoke.
It is important to see these clauses in the wider context. My heart sank when I picked up the first draft of the agreement, because this was not the departure from the European Union that I had expected to see expressed in the text of the agreement; it was the same oppressive, impenetrable text with endless references to the treaties as they exist. The withdrawal agreement was clearly a concerted attempt by the European Union to continue its influence, even through the direct applicability and direct effect of European Union law on the United Kingdom.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
No, I am not going to give way. I am going to be very brief.
The important perspective is to ask ourselves how this debate is going to be regarded in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time. These controversies will be seen as the growing pains of the re-establishment of our national sovereign independence as a national democracy. I dare say that none of us has studied the debates on the Great Reform Act of 1832, but I bet they went through exactly the same kind of painful introspection that we have seen in the Chamber this evening. Today we look upon the 1832 Reform Act as a great stride towards the democratisation of our constitution, and history will look back at these debates in the same way and see this moment in our history as the time that we decided to take back control of our own constitutional arrangements and our own national democracy.
I would go further than that. There is no doubt that this Bill will get through this House intact, but some people are suggesting that there will be more of a problem in the other place. There will be those who continue to resist the consequences of leaving the European Union and the consequences of having signed a highly unsatisfactory agreement that attempts to sustain the influence of the European Union far beyond any legitimate role it has in making the laws of our country. That is what we are talking about, in relieving ourselves of these clauses. However, I can assure the House that, in the long run, nothing is going to stand in the way of the British people re-establishing and reclaiming our independence, and if the other place chooses to stand in our way in that respect, I suspect that in the longer term this House, as the democratic House, will prevail.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
In rising to support the Bill, I want to speak about clauses 40 to 45. I start by quoting from the manifesto that I proudly stood on. It brought not just me to the House, but so many of my colleagues. That manifesto said clearly:
“We will ensure that Northern Ireland’s businesses and producers enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK and that in the implementation of our Brexit deal, we maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market.”
Antony Higginbotham
I will not, because I am short on time. The clauses we are talking about today do exactly what we said in the manifesto. Clause 40 deals with Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market. Clause 41 deals with unfettered access. Those should be uncontroversial clauses and they should be uncontroversial because they are explicitly referenced in the protocol itself, which states that
“nothing in this Protocol prevents the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom’s internal market”.
As we have heard today, the protocol goes on to set out in high-level terms how we avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, something that I am as committed to today as I was the day I voted for Brexit. We heard eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) why that is so important. The protocol also sets out that it is for the Joint Committee to reach agreement on some of the specifics. It delegates decision making to that committee to finesse the detail and act in a way that is consistent with the protocol. The protocol requires both sides to negotiate in good faith, protect the Good Friday agreement and reach a free trade deal, because ultimately that free trade deal is what will prevent a hard border. That is what we are striving for, and that is what the clauses help to do.
However, given the short time before the end of the transition and that no free trade agreement has yet been agreed, we have to give thought to what happens if the EU takes an approach that is not in good faith. What if it takes a maximalist approach to what goods are considered high risk or a maximalist approach to what would constitute state aid that impacts the European Union? The outcome of that decision would not only be a major impediment to Great Britain and Northern Irish trade, but would threaten our own integrity and the Good Friday agreement. Are some seriously suggesting that in that scenario there should not be a means for the UK to respond? Are they suggesting we should look at such a situation, shrug our shoulders and say international law means we must surrender parts of our country?
I heard the concerns from Members on both sides of the Committee about international law, but let us be clear on what we are not doing. I do not think that the language has been helpful. We have heard references to rogue states, to the Novichok poisoning on UK streets and to Hong Kong citizens, but we are not breaking international criminal law. We are not breaking an international treaty on global security. We are not breaking a free trade agreement. We are saying that, having signed up to an agreement to fulfil a democratic mandate to the people of this country, which one side appears to be using to undermine our constitutional integrity, we will stand resolutely as one country in pushing back.
We have values as a country, and yes, those include standing up for an international rules-based system, the rule of law and democratic sovereignty, but when conflict arises, which it can do from time to time, Parliament remains sovereign, and this Parliament will act in the interests of our Union. That position was reaffirmed in our own EU withdrawal Act, which recognised the sovereignty of Parliament. If this Parliament is sovereign, we must act for the constitutional integrity of our country, and for that reason, I will be supporting this Bill.
Northern Ireland Protocol: UK Legal Obligations
Kirsten Oswald Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brandon Lewis
We have worked with the EU in a spirit of good faith, and both sides continue to work in that spirit to implement the arrangements that uphold the fundamental principles that lie behind the protocol. Of course, our first priority continues to be to secure agreement on the protocol on the Joint Committee and on the wider free trade agreement, but the withdrawal agreement and protocol are not like any other treaty. They were written on the assumption that subsequent agreements could be reached between us and the EU on the detail—that is the entire purpose of the specialised Joint Committee—and we continue to believe that that is possible, but as a responsible Government we cannot allow our businesses not to have certainty for January. The reality is that the UK internal market Bill and the Finance Bill are the last legislative opportunities we have to give the people and businesses of Northern Ireland the confidence and certainty that we will deliver what we agreed in the protocol, what we outlined in our manifesto and what we set out in the Command Paper.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister referred to Northern Ireland and said, “This is a good deal”, when he struck it last year. Now he seems to disagree with himself. There are U-turns everywhere, but this is something else. No wonder it is reported today that the head of the UK Government Legal Department has just quit because of the rowing back in respect of the withdrawal agreement and Northern Ireland. The internal market Bill is taking a wrecking ball to devolution. The Government are hellbent on a poor deal or no-deal Brexit—and hang the implications—but using the Bill to renege on parts of the withdrawal agreement is extraordinary and dangerous.
Can the Minister explain what discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues about the impact of these plans on Northern Irish businesses and the Good Friday agreement? What advance discussions did he have with the Northern Irish Executive? I suspect the answer is: precious few. We have all seen the Government’s wilful disregard for devolution and their own international reputation. Who will want to do business with a Government who cannot stick to an agreement with themselves, never mind anyone else, and who make it up as they go along, as we heard just now and as people in Scotland are only too aware?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady and I have a distinct difference of opinion, because whereas the SNP want to hand powers straight back to Brussels, we, the UK Government and the Conservative party, have been clear that we want to take back those powers for the residents and citizens of the United Kingdom, and indeed we will be devolving power to the devolved authorities, as we have outlined in our discussions with those authorities, including the First Minister of Scotland just this week. This is about taking back power from the EU, as people voted for, and giving it back to the people of the UK, including the Scottish Parliament. I am just sorry that the SNP does not share the desire to see democracy exercised here in the UK.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kirsten Oswald Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brandon Lewis
I did say that notes for guidance will be available from 1 November this year. We are very clear that we are one single market—we are one customs union within the United Kingdom—and that is why we are very clear about the fact that we want unfettered access and we will deliver unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to Great Britain. We have already said that there will be some limited checks from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We have announced the trader support scheme. The guidance that we issued just before the recess was warmly welcomed by Northern Ireland businesses. We continue to work with them so that, as we develop our processes, we ensure that there is good, smooth, fast, efficient delivery, as the protocol outlines, that does not disrupt the lives of people in Northern Ireland, in a way that works for business as well as the people of Northern Ireland.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
On 7 August the Cabinet Secretary flew into Northern Ireland to announce a business package of £335 million. That money is apparently designed to alleviate the costs of border checks and Brexit red tape that the Prime Minister has repeatedly said does not exist. As a signed-up member of the Brexit Cabinet, can the Secretary of State assure Scottish businesses that the same level of financial support will be put in place to meet all the costs of Scotland being dragged out of the European single market?
Brandon Lewis
The support package that we put in place, which is £155 million for the IT systems we have outlined and £200 million for the Treasury support scheme, is in order to recognise the unique situation of Northern Ireland—one that Scotland has a rather different position to. I am very clear that one of the things we will be looking to deliver as we go forward is the ability for Northern Ireland to trade prosperously as part of the whole of the United Kingdom—something I am sure that Scotland will benefit from as well.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kirsten Oswald Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brandon Lewis
As I said, we are working with Northern Ireland businesses and the Executive to support preparations for the end of the transition period at the end of this year. As we engage, including through the business engagement forum that we have already established, we will set out further details to help businesses to prepare for the end of the transition period at the earliest appropriate moment. I assure my hon. Friend that further guidance will be published this summer to make sure that people and businesses know what they need to do to prepare for the end of the transition period, which will be at the end of December this year.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
An HMRC whistleblower recently warned that the new customs declaration service system is not only delayed but does not talk to other HMRC systems, some of which are 20 years old. With criminal organisations and smugglers ready to take advantage of any gaps in systems, how confident is the Secretary of State that this IT solution will work and provide proper controls to prevent businesses and the Treasury from losing millions of pounds in tax?
Brandon Lewis
I am very confident that HMRC will be able to provide the support and the work that business needs to be ready for when we leave the European Union’s transition period at the end of December this year.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kirsten Oswald Excerpts(3 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is hugely important that we are ready, as we come out of lockdown, to not just recover from the economic situation with coronavirus but then turbocharge the economy across the United Kingdom, and particularly in Northern Ireland to see the economy flourish and grow. We have given £1.2 billion to the Northern Ireland Executive through the Barnett consequentials. That is on top of the UK-wide schemes, such as the job retention scheme. The Treasury and the Chancellor continue to look at everything we need to do to support businesses, people and every part of the United Kingdom as we come through this, and to ensure that we come out of it in a way that will allow our economy to re-flourish and grow in the future.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
With covid-19 consuming so much effort internationally, does the Secretary of State agree that the EU simply will not indulge further UK Government brinkmanship on transition? The resulting cliff edge will be a step too far for many Northern Irish businesses, so why are his Government pushing ahead with their reckless timetable, despite widespread support across the political divide for an extension?
Brandon Lewis
I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s reference to widespread support. The position of the British public, restated in December last year, is very clear—they want to see things done, so that we as a country can move forward. It is in both our interests and the EU’s interests to be ready to move forward in January 2021. The best certainty we can give business, which we are focused on, is unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the rest of the UK, and we will do that through the Northern Ireland protocol.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kirsten Oswald Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brandon Lewis
Obviously I talk regularly to the Northern Ireland Executive, particularly the First and Deputy First Minister. I currently speak to them several times a week on a range of issues. We have discussed the protocol, but we will also be discussing it with the European special committee. We are determined to deliver on the protocol in a manner that ensures that there is no border down the Irish sea, and that there is unfettered access for the whole United Kingdom.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I know the Secretary of State will agree that the coronavirus crisis is causing deep and genuine concern to businesses, communities and individuals across Northern Ireland. Given that burden and the current real uncertainty, does he not also agree that now is not the right time to impose new customs and trading arrangements in Northern Ireland, and that the Brexit transition phase must now be extended well beyond the end of this year?
Brandon Lewis
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave a few moments ago. The British public want to see us deliver on our promises, and the Prime Minister is rightly determined to ensure that we do that. The best certainty that we can give businesses in Northern Ireland is that, as part of the United Kingdom, they will continue to have unfettered access, and to benefit from the trade deals that we seek to establish around the world.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kirsten Oswald Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that all the welcome financial assistance being made available to the new Northern Ireland Executive will be subject to the Barnett formula? Will he also say what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter?
Julian Smith
I think that the hon. Lady knows that this package is a unique package for Northern Ireland, and is not subject to the Barnett consequentials. She also knows that there is a very, very good Secretary of State for Scotland, who enjoys working positively with her and her colleagues.