Northern Ireland Protocol: EU Negotiations

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)(Urgent Question)]

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the Northern Ireland protocol and negotiations with the European Union.

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

Let me begin by reaffirming the Government’s commitment to keeping both Houses of Parliament updated on the UK-EU relationship. We remain committed to doing just that. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Frost gave the House of Lords an update on EU relations last Wednesday, 10 November, in the form of an oral statement. Unfortunately, as this honourable House was in recess at the time, it could not be repeated here on the same day. The timing of that update was unavoidable, led by external international business. However, I recognise the importance of keeping both Houses duly informed.

[Mr Carmichael]

I think that that answer was more remarkable for what it did not say than for what it did, but I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question. It is a shame that it was necessary, and that the Government have not seen fit to offer the House a statement. At the very least, we would have liked to hear some commitment from the Government today that there would be no triggering of article 16 this side of Christmas. The disruption that that would cause would be catastrophic, but still we hear nothing from them. I hope that the Minister will address that point when he replies to my supplementary question.

Listening to the Minister today, and to his colleagues on the airwaves in recent weeks, one could almost believe that the terms of our agreement with the European Union and the Northern Ireland protocol were nothing to do with them: “it was a big boy that done it and ran away”. It is almost as if those matters were negotiated by someone else, and were voted through the House in the teeth of Conservative opposition. However, we know that the truth is very different.

Article 16 does not exist as a “get out of jail free card” for the Government when they do not like the deal that they have done. It is a mechanism that allows for the taking of unilateral “safeguard” measures if either the EU or the UK concludes that the deal is leading to serious practical problems or causing diversion of trade. To invoke it in the way of which Ministers speak would be seen as an act of bad faith on the part of the UK Government.

What people and businesses in Northern Ireland want and need is pragmatic solutions to be reached and implemented in good faith, not more posturing. Businesses in Northern Ireland are crying out for a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement which would remove at a stroke the vast majority of the disruption for people on either side of the Irish sea, and that is where the Government should be devoting their energy. Will the Minister please update the House on the negotiation of that and other agreements under the protocol? In respect of the question of the role of the European Court of Justice in supervising this agreement, can the Minister explain why the Government now identify that as a problem when it was clearly within the protocol when it was negotiated and signed?

The problems of which the Government now complain are all of their own making. They chose to take us out of the customs union and to put a border down the Irish sea. It was a remarkable choice for a supposedly Unionist party to make, but they made it, and we now have to live with it. This is the time for posturing to stop and for mature government to start. A recent Queens University survey found that 52% of people in Northern Ireland support the protocol; I am sure the Minister will agree that that is a significant figure. Will he now get on and make it work?

[Michael Ellis]

With regard to the latest on the UK-EU relationship, my noble Friend Lord Frost and Vice-President Šefčovič met in London on 12 November to consider the state of play in discussions relating to the Northern Ireland protocol. Lord Frost noted that there remain significant gaps to be bridged between the UK and EU positions. He noted that it remained the United Kingdom’s preference to find a consensual way forward, but I must say that article 16 safeguards were and are a legitimate part of the protocol’s provisions.

The noble Lord Frost also underlined the need to address the full range of issues that the United Kingdom had identified in the course of discussions if a comprehensive and durable solution was to be found that supported the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is in the best interests of Northern Ireland. In that context, although talks had so far been conducted in a constructive spirit, Lord Frost underlined that, to make progress, it was important to bring “new energy and impetus” to discussions. Accordingly, intensified talks are taking place this week between teams in Brussels on all issues, giving particular attention to medicines and customs issues.

This week, Lord Frost has also been in Belfast, talking to political, business and civil society leaders and will meet with Vice-President Šefčovič at the end of the week to consider progress. I will continue to keep Parliament informed.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

With respect to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who raised the urgent question, perhaps he does not know that, in line with what the Paymaster General was saying, Lord Frost appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee only a few weeks ago. We asked him questions about article 16 and the European Court of Justice and he answered them with great clarity.

It is quite clear that the EU has been intransigent. For example, it invoked article 16 with regard to the covid laws that it introduced some time ago, and disruption of trade has taken place. Regarding the European Court of Justice, we are more than entitled to ensure that we are not governed by it given the repeal in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We want a negotiated outcome, but we are willing to use article 16. There is no change in the position that my noble Friend Lord Frost gave to my hon. Friend’s Committee only a few days ago.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for tabling the UQ. It is simply unacceptable and quite insulting to the House that Lord Frost would wait for this place to have risen to make a statement in the other place and that the Government would have to be dragged to this place to be subject to proper and timely scrutiny.

I turn to Northern Ireland, which has become a key pressure point in UK-EU relations. I sincerely hope that the change in tone from Lord Frost may be a sign that progress can be made, because these are fractious, painful times for Northern Ireland and we are at an unsettling moment. Political disfunction has left power sharing in a fragile state. Trust in the UK Government in Northern Ireland—an essential foundation of peace—has fallen away across all communities. Trust is hard won and easy to lose.

I say to the Minister, in the sincere hope that he listens, that this is not the context in which any responsible Government would force another high stakes, divisive stand-off. With a cost of living crisis and growing instability, the last thing the country needs is a damaging trade dispute with our nearest trading partners. Does he agree that jobs, stability and livelihoods in Northern Ireland depend on the EU and UK finding a deal in the days and weeks ahead that lowers the barriers that the Prime Minister created? Does he agree that the evidence increasingly shows that communities want a solution, not a stand-off?

Labour has called all year for solutions that would lower the barriers down the Irish sea that the Prime Minister personally negotiated. That is precisely why we need a deal. Communities know that invoking article 16 would not solve the problems. It would not end the dispute; it would simply prolong it. Therefore, to find that agreement, the people of Northern Ireland must be brought in. Does the Minister agree that it is simply unsustainable for a Government whom few trust to be making huge decisions about the future while Northern Ireland is excluded entirely from the talks? Will he confirm today that the UK and the EU will bring Northern Ireland leaders and communities into the process to speak for themselves? That is the path to a sustainable solution.

The Minister should remember what is at stake in the days ahead, and remember that those who have the most to lose from another poisonous stand-off are the people and businesses of Northern Ireland. It is in those interests and the national interest that the Government should get a deal.

[Michael Ellis]

We did not wait. This House was in recess and a written ministerial statement was tabled yesterday.

On the hon. Lady’s substantive points, of course people are concerned about the cost of living, but the Northern Ireland protocol has real-life consequences for the cost of living. Businesses know that using article 16, should we have to do so, would alleviate pressure on the movement of goods. It is a safeguard mechanism to improve an unsatisfactory situation; it is there not to cause disruption but to do the exact opposite. It is a mechanism agreed to by both parties to the withdrawal agreement, and it is an active part of an agreement with multiple articles—it is one article among multiple others. Article 16 is perfectly valid and available to use. However, we want a negotiated outcome. Our policy remains the same: acting within the law at all times, we are willing to use article 16 should we need to do so.

My noble Friend Lord Frost was in Northern Ireland on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, and he met all sides. I am advised that he met representatives of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance party, the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party and Sinn Féin. He is, of course, keeping everyone fully informed, and he travels regularly to do so. The basis of our negotiations is contained in the July Command Paper, which this House has seen.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend reaffirm that the priority for Her Majesty’s Government remains upholding the Belfast agreement, even if the European Union appears to hold it so lightly? On the subject of bad faith, cited by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), what does my right hon. and learned Friend make of the fact that 20% of the European Union’s checks still occur in relation to goods going from GB to NI, despite Northern Ireland having the equivalent of 0.5% of the European Union’s population? Does he agree that the bad faith the European Union is exercising in this matter makes it absolutely essential that we continue to keep under consideration the rescinding of articles 5, 7, 8 and 10, as outlined by the July Command Paper?

[Michael Ellis]

My right hon. Friend is a former Northern Ireland Minister, so he speaks with authority in this House. He is right that it is of paramount importance, as I am sure all sides would agree, that the Belfast agreement is respected and protected. That is certainly the motivation of Her Majesty’s Government.

It is right to say that the Northern Ireland Executive estimate that, from January to March, about 20% of all EU checks were conducted in respect of Northern Ireland, even though Northern Ireland’s population is just 0.5% of the EU’s as a whole. That speaks for itself.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Notwithstanding recess dates, it took until 16 November even to get a written statement on this subject, and that turned out to be a copy-and-paste job from Lord Frost’s earlier statement. I am shocked and appalled that it has taken until today for a Minister to come to the House to do Members the courtesy of answering questions on behalf of the Government. I am sick and fed up of hearing excuses for why this Government allow others to hear the business of the Government and their thinking before they come here to explain it. How long can we be expected to tolerate this discourtesy?

We have yet another statement and yet another rattle of the sabre on article 16. Of course, the deployment of article 16 would simply invite an equal and opposite response from the European Union, and it would simply reconvene existing discussions in another forum. Whether or not Conservative Members want to hear it, the best way to eliminate friction from east-west trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is for Great Britain to come back into closer alignment with the single market and customs union. Will the Paymaster General assure the House that, whatever discussions lie ahead, the Government will not in any circumstances allow Northern Ireland to become subject to the same trade friction between north and south as they have allowed to creep into the relationship between Great Britain and the European Union?

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong; the reality of the matter is that a written ministerial statement is informing the House, and it was laid yesterday. He makes a point about business. I think I am right in saying that in today’s Financial Times there is a report that Marks & Spencer says that the proposals by the EU would not cut red tape. It is important to bear in mind that negotiations are in progress; it is not the right forum, at this stage in delicate negotiations, to try to do that in this honourable House. What is right is that Lord Frost continues his discussions with vice-president Šefčovič, and that is exactly what he is doing.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on obtaining this important urgent question. May I take up a difference with him on one thing? Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General confirm that the triggering of article 16 should be based on circumstances and not on any particular date?

[Michael Ellis]

If the triggering of article 16 needs to occur, there are defined circumstances that would need to be ascertained—in my view, those circumstances are ascertained.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

There is a certain irony in Ministers telling France to respect the trade and co-operation agreement in full when it comes to fish while threatening to scrap the Northern Ireland protocol. I hope only that the change in tone that I think we detect in the past week or so is a sign that the Government realise that they need to step back from the brink—both sides do, because a trade war with the EU is in nobody’s interests.

The question I wish to put is about the European Court of Justice. We have heard what businesses in Northern Ireland have said about the impact of the protocol, but can the Minister tell us how many of them have raised with him the role of the ECJ, which of course the Government signed up to when they agreed the protocol in the first place?

[Michael Ellis]

The right hon. Gentleman should understand, and I am sure he does, that the activation of article 16 is not scrapping the protocol—it is a valid part of the agreement. He asks who has raised the issue of the Court of Justice of the European Union. What people raise regularly is the issue of sovereignty, and they say that they want their laws decided democratically by the people of this country. In my limited experience of the law, it is not normal, where there are two parties, for the courts of one party to resolve disputes between the two in an agreement. So this is not a normal situation. The European Union has shown, in the infraction proceedings that it has already brought—in my respectful submission, in a precipitate manner—when we had essential cause to take actions to protect food supply in Northern Ireland, that this is not just theoretical; this is something the EU is prepared to do, as it has shown. We therefore need to take sovereignty seriously. Those on our side of the House do take sovereignty seriously and will continue to do so.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the answers he has given thus far. Lord Frost is clearly involved in delicate negotiations, but they are placing great strain on the Northern Ireland Executive and the various different sections of the community in Northern Ireland. So how long are we going to allow these negotiations to go on for before we take action? Can we set a timetable for completing these negotiations, so that people can get back to running their businesses and leading their normal lives?

[Michael Ellis]

I understand my hon. Friend’s desire to set a finite date but, as I am sure he will appreciate, that is not conducive to good diplomatic negotiations. I have no doubt that everything is being done as expeditiously as is reasonable.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

A statement should have been made in this House at the earliest possible opportunity, but I welcome the point that has been made today as a result of this urgent question. Is the Paymaster General concerned that after the chiding the Government got for putting in place a protocol that has put a border down the Irish sea, we now appear to have a Joan of Arc-like stand-off, with the Opposition holding to the protocol as if it were something precious when it is destroying business and costing businesses in Northern Ireland £850 million? That is what is catastrophic: the friction of trade within the United Kingdom.

The Paymaster General mentioned sovereignty; I represent a constituency in the United Kingdom and so do all the Members in this House—we should not be doing Brussels’ work from these Benches. Brussels has destroyed part of the United Kingdom by insisting on the enforcement of a protocol in a disgraceful manner. I appeal to the Paymaster General, who knows that the Government’s Command Paper in July this year said that the conditions for invoking article 16 have been met: we are now in the jaws of December and those conditions remain met, so invoke article 16, and invoke it now. Stop dilly-dallying on this issue. Put businesses out of their misery in Northern Ireland.

[Michael Ellis]

I take this opportunity to apologise again for an oral statement not being made on Monday. I have mentioned that a written ministerial statement was made on Tuesday, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point on that issue.

On the hon. Gentleman’s substantive point, I agree that there is a major difficulty. The protocol is not delivering its core purpose and it is crucial that it has Unionist and nationalist party consent; otherwise, Northern Ireland cannot function, because of the power-sharing relationship with which the hon. Gentleman is extremely familiar. That is the foundation of the constitution and his point is understood.

On the business front, at least 200 companies in Great Britain no longer service the Northern Ireland market, so the hon. Gentleman’s point in that respect is perfectly valid. A significant number of medicines are still at risk of discontinuation. We saw recently in one of the national newspapers that even the trees for the Queen’s forthcoming platinum jubilee apparently cannot be supplied to Northern Ireland from Great Britain. There are problems with things that are, frankly, being shredded by the way the protocol is working.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Given that almost 100% of the roll-on roll-off lorry traffic from the EU to the Republic of Ireland goes through Great Britain—a lot of it past Kettering on the A14— would not a sensible negotiated agreement towards a comprehensive and durable settlement involve Her Majesty’s Government taking responsibility for the policing of goods that go across the Irish sea to the Republic, in return for the free passage of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland if those goods are to stay in Northern Ireland?

[Michael Ellis]

I shall resist the temptation to ask my hon. Friend to join the negotiating team but, as ever, he speaks powerfully for his constituency, which I think is the centre point of this country, geographically, and also a centre for the movement of goods. My hon. Friend speaks with some authority on the matter and I have noted what he said.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

This was all so predictable when, just under a year ago, we in this House voted for the agreement. Is it not the case, first, that the people of Northern Ireland want a compromise, and secondly, that in reality the Government just threw Northern Ireland under the bus when they went into negotiations in the name of Brexit?

[Michael Ellis]

Certainly not.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

To give him credit, the Paymaster General read his brief very well, but he knows very little about the sentiments of the people in Northern Ireland. Yesterday, Lord Frost held a meeting, among other meetings, with a group of people representing trade unions and civil society. They were from both loyalist and nationalist traditions and they told him very clearly, “Get on with making the protocol work.” The game and the rhetoric in which this Government are engaged in Northern Ireland is very dangerous. The Paymaster General has a duty to go back to the Prime Minister and tell him to tone down that rhetoric. It could be so disastrous that we should not even be thinking of going there.

[Michael Ellis]

I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the rhetoric. This is a negotiation. We want a settled solution. That is our preference and that is what the negotiations with Vice-President Šefčovič are currently doing, but we do have article 16 as a viable safeguard.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

What assessment have the Government made of the damage to the UK economy as a whole and our standing in the world were the Government to trigger article 16 and it result in a trade war with the EU?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

Article 16 is designed to alleviate problems, not cause them. It is a mechanism that was written in with the consent of both parties, so that it could alleviate and act as a safeguard. Threats that are emanating from other quarters about pulling out of the TCA and the like would, of course, do the exact opposite. They would cause disruption and that is not in the interests of the people of the province of Northern Ireland. It is this side that is seeking a negotiated preferential solution.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The Minister must know that the Tories are playing with fire. Threatening not to implement a deal signed 11 months ago would be outrageous. What does the Minister believe the people of Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK have to gain by showing the UK clearly to be an untrustworthy and dishonest negotiating partner while it simultaneously seeks to secure international trade deals?

[Michael Ellis]

We are not seeking to secure international trade deals; we are securing international trade deals. We have secured more than 60 of them so far with countries all around the world. We are a trading nation. We enjoy trading with others and we always have done. That is what we will continue to do. But I do need to repeat: article 16 is not a threat; it is a part of the agreement that was signed between the parties. It is available and ready to use.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

In any negotiation, it is best to have all parties round the table, so will the Government consider bringing in the locally elected Members in order to have a meaningful negotiation which really matches the sentiment, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), on the ground in Northern Ireland?

[Michael Ellis]

I am pleased to be able to confirm that, as I have already mentioned, Lord Frost has already engaged with the interested parties and even on Tuesday and Wednesday this week did so in Northern Ireland. All parties are being duly kept informed, including this honourable House and the other place.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

A consequence of Brexit was always that we needed to erect a trade border between Britain and the EU, and there are only two places where that could go—either in the Irish sea, or a land border on the island of Ireland. As the Government are now trying to reverse the agreement that puts the trade border in the Irish sea, what other option are they actively pursuing—a land border, or rejoining the single market for the whole of the UK, not just Northern Ireland?

[Michael Ellis]

We are pursuing a negotiation and the hon. Lady will have to wait and see.

[Mr Speaker]

Finally, but certainly not with the least of questions, I call Jim Shannon.

[Mr Speaker]

I like hearing from the hon. Gentleman, but his questions have to be shorter. If he wants to make speeches, I am sure that he will catch the eye of somebody in the Chair later.

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Gentleman is right, Mr Speaker; you have saved the best till last.

[Mr Speaker]

Or longest till last.

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Gentleman is right that Marks & Spencer makes a powerful point. Time is of the essence. Her Majesty’s Government will move to remove barriers if necessary. The article 16 application has already been met and we are alive to the time sensitivity involved.

UK Relationships with the European Union

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Written Statements

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

My noble Friend, the Minister of State in the Cabinet Office (the Rt Hon Lord Frost CMG), made the following ministerial statement on Wednesday 10 November:



My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now make a statement to update the House on various recent developments in our relationship with the European Union. The statement will also be made in the other place in due course by the Paymaster General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis).

As my Lords will know well, we have two principal agreements with the EU—the Trade and Co-operation Agreement and the Withdrawal Agreement. The first—the biggest and the broadest bilateral trade agreement in the world, freely agreed by both parties—is working well. Teething problems have largely been dealt with. Business has adjusted well to the new relationship and trade is getting back to normal. Both parties have agreed data adequacy. We are reaching complementary agreements, for example, the 17 bilateral aviation agreements that we have reached. The sub-structure of Specialised Committees is functioning: almost all the Committees have now met, the Trade Partnership Committee will meet on 16 November, and we expect a further Partnership Council in December.

There are, however, two problem areas within the TCA. The first is fisheries and the second is Union programmes, notably the Horizon science research programme.

On fisheries, since we received the necessary applications back in June, we have been engaged in technical discussions about licensing with the Commission, involving also the Governments of Guernsey and Jersey and the French Government.

As is known, we have granted 98% of applications from EU vessels to fish in UK waters, nearly 1,800 licences in total. The remaining 2% have not provided the data needed to access our six to 12 nautical mile zone.

As we have said consistently, we are ready to consider any new evidence to support the remaining licence applications. Indeed, we granted three more licences on 14 October because the Commission sent new evidence, then another on 26 October. We set out the full latest figures to Parliament on 3 November.

Licences for Jersey and Guernsey waters are assessed by the relevant authorities in Jersey and Guernsey, not the UK Government. However, we support the approach they have been taking, which has been entirely in line with the provisions of the TCA.

We have therefore been disappointed that, faced with these facts, the French Government felt it necessary to make threats which were disproportionate, unjustified, and would have been a breach of the Trade and Co-operation Agreement. I welcome France’s deferral of the implementation of these measures. I hope they will take them off the table permanently. I spoke yesterday to my friend Clément Beaune in the French Government following our talks in Paris on 4 November. We obviously have different views on the fisheries question but it is certainly our intention to keep working to get to an outcome which is fair to those who are genuinely entitled to fish in our waters.

The second difficulty I mentioned is that of the Horizon science research programme, and some other related programmes. We agreed that we would participate in this in the TCA, and we agreed to pay a contribution, which is likely to be £15 billion over seven years. The TCA is clear that the UK, and I quote, “shall” participate and the relevant Protocol, I quote again, “shall” be adopted. That is an obligation. If it were to become clear that the EU did not intend to deliver upon that obligation—and it has not done so so far—or simply to delay sine die, we would of course regard the EU as in breach of Article 710 of the TCA. We would of course put together a domestic research programme for our own scientists and universities in its place. But it is in neither ours nor the EU’s interests to get to that point, and much the best way forward is for the EU instead to finalise our participation as a matter of urgency.

My Lords, I now turn to the other agreement, the withdrawal agreement, which of course includes the Northern Ireland protocol.

We have been in discussions with the Commission on the changes needed to the protocol since we published our Command Paper in July. Our position was set out then in full and remains unchanged now.

On 13 October, the EU published four non-papers with proposals on: medicines, customs, sanitary and phytosanitary (or SPS) and the engagement of Northern Ireland stakeholders in the operation of the Protocol. Around the same time, we transmitted a new legal text to them, operationalising the proposals set out in the Command Paper in legal form.

Our immediate view of those non-papers was that while the EU’s proposals did not go as far as our Command Paper, nor cover all of the areas that we believe needed to be addressed, in particular the Protocol’s untenable governance arrangements, they were worth discussing. We were keen to see if their proposals would at least reduce trade friction in the way they claimed.

Since then we have been in intense discussions with the European Commission. I have met Vice President Šefcovic every week for the last three weeks in Brussels and London, and we will meet again on Friday as part of this week’s talks. The aim has been to assess whether it is possible to close the substantial gap between our positions and secure a consensual, negotiated resolution.

So far that has not been possible. This is, at least in part, because the Commission’s proposals would not do enough to make the Protocol sustainable for the future, or even indeed deliver what they have claimed. I have heard that view also expressed by many businesses I have spoken to, in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. If these talks do in the end fail, we will of course publish in full our assessment of the EU’s proposals and set out why they fall short of a durable settlement, but we will not do this until we have exhausted all the negotiating possibilities. For now, I wish to preserve the integrity of negotiations and to remain positive.

Accordingly, we continue to work to see whether the EU position on these issues can yet develop further, and whether it is possible to find a way to deal with the other important matters that are necessary to put the Protocol onto a sustainable footing, such as the interlinked issues of the imposition of EU law and the Court of Justice, state aid, VAT, goods standards, and so on. That work will continue in the talks underway this week.

My Lords, in my view, this process of negotiations has not reached its end. Although we have been talking for nearly four weeks now, there remain possibilities that the talks have not yet seriously examined, including many approaches that have been suggested by the UK. So there is more to do and I certainly will not give up on this process unless and until it is abundantly clear that nothing more can be done. We are certainly not at that point yet.

If, however, we do in due course reach that point, the Article 16 safeguards will be our only option. We have been abundantly clear about this since July, when we made clear that the tests for using Article 16 were already passed. Nothing that has happened since has changed that. I can of course reassure noble Lords that if Article 16 were to be used, we would set out our case with confidence and we would spell out why it was wholly consistent with our legal obligations. We would also be ready to explain that case to any interested party, not just the signatories to the Treaty, but to those with a broader interest in relations with the EU and the UK.

The EU, however, seems to be arguing something different at the moment. It seems to be claiming that it would be entirely unreasonable for the British Government, uniquely, to use these wholly legitimate safeguard provisions within the Treaty, designed precisely to deal with situations like the current one. It is also suggesting that we can only take that action at the price of massive and disproportionate retaliation.

My Lords, I gently suggest that our European friends should stay calm and keep things in proportion. They might remind themselves that no Government and no country has a greater interest in stability and security in Northern Ireland, and in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, than this Government. We are hardly likely to proceed in a way that puts all that at risk. If the EU were to choose to react in a disproportionate way, and decide to aggravate the problems in Northern Ireland rather than reduce them, that is of course a matter for it. At that point, of course, we would be entitled to come to our own judgement about how much value we could attach to their commitment to supporting the peace process and the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland, as against protecting their own interests.

My Lords, this Government will always proceed in the best interests of Northern Ireland and indeed of the whole of our country. That means, one way or another, working towards a balanced arrangement in Northern Ireland which supports the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement rather than undermining it. We would much rather others joined us on that journey rather than making it more difficult. I do hope that, in the short number of weeks before us, the Commission and the EU member states will look at what we have in common; will look at our collective strategic interests as Western countries; and help us find a stable and sustainable solution so that we can all move on. There is still a real opportunity to turn away from confrontation, to move beyond these current difficulties, and put in place a new, and better, equilibrium. I urge everyone to take that road—the road not of confrontation but of opportunity—for the sake of everyone in Northern Ireland and beyond.

[HCWS395]

Trade and Co-operation Agreement: Engagement with Civil Society and Business Organisations

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Written Statements

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

My noble Friend, the Minister of State in the Cabinet Office (the right hon. Lord Frost CMG), has today made the following written statement:



As the trade and co-operation agreement (TCA) is a broad agreement that touches on the lives of people across the UK, the Government ran a public consultation on Government engagement with business and civil society groups on implementation of the TCA. The consultation was open for seven weeks from 9 August 2021 to 21 September 2021.



It focused on how to best use the domestic advisory group and civil society forum, the two formal engagement channels provided for in the TCA.



Today, after considering comments received from various stakeholders, including business associations and civil society groups, the Government are publishing their official response to the consultation in Parliament and on www.gov.uk.



The Government have also launched an expression of interest campaign to determine membership of the domestic advisory group and civil society forum. The expression of interest, published today on www.gov.uk, will run until 9 November.



We are preparing for the domestic advisory group to meet for the first time this year, shortly after the closure of the expression of interest campaign. The Government are in discussions with the European Commission to finalise the date for the first civil society forum. We are prepared for the forum to meet at the end of this year but acknowledge that it can take place in February 2022 if both parties agree.

[HCWS328]

Infected Blood Compensation Framework Study: Terms of Reference

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Written Statements

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

On 20 May my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), announced the appointment of Sir Robert Francis QC to carry out an independent study to look at options for a framework for compensation for victims of infected blood. The study will make recommendations for compensation, before the infected blood inquiry reports. Terms of reference of the study were to be finalised following consultation between Sir Robert and those infected and affected. The consultation period concluded in August, and Sir Robert wrote to my predecessor with his recommendations.

Sir Robert’s consultation received a positive response from the infected and affected community. A total of 447 formal responses were submitted (including from many of the legal representatives of infected and affected core participants of the inquiry), along with over 150 further representations, primarily personal accounts from the infected and affected on how this tragedy has affected their lives. These accounts were of great assistance to Sir Robert in reviewing the draft terms of reference. Sir Robert wishes to express his gratitude to the many individuals who contributed to the consultation, in many cases having to relive the awful experiences they have suffered over so many years, and I would like to echo his gratitude.

Sir Robert’s recommendations identify the key issues that the study should consider. They offer assurance to the infected and affected communities that the matters of most concern to them will be considered by the study. I am therefore happy to accept Sir Robert’s recommendations in full, and I am today publishing the following terms of reference without amendment:

Rationale for compensation

To consider the rationale for compensation as a matter of general principle and in relation to any particular classes of compensation, recognising that it is not for the study to pre-empt the determination by the infected blood inquiry as to what, if any, rationale is supported by the evidence it has received;

Independent advice to the Government

Give independent advice to the Government regarding the design of a workable and fair framework for compensation for individuals infected and affected across the UK to achieve parity between those eligible for compensation regardless of where in the UK the relevant treatment occurred or place of residence. While the study is to take into account differences in current practice and/or law in the devolved Administrations, it is not asked to consider whether delivery of that framework should be managed centrally or individually by the devolved Administrations;

Scope of compensation

To consider the scope of eligibility for such compensation (including the appropriateness or otherwise of any conditions such as “cut-off” dates), and whether it should be extended beyond infected individuals and their partners, to include for example affected parents and children, the wider affected family (e.g. siblings), and significant non-family carers and others affected, either because of the impact of caring responsibilities or the effects of bereavement or some other impact; to include consideration of former and new partnerships/marriages; and whether the estate of any individual who has died should be eligible for compensation;

Categories of injury and loss

To consider the injuries, loss and detriments that compensation should address, in relation to the past, present and future, including:

(a) the physical impact and consequences of infections (including the effect of any treatment, and potential future adverse effects);

(b) infections that cleared naturally; and the risk of any significant or long-term side effects of treatment (such as liver damage, increased risk of cancer) even if they are yet to materialise;

(c) the mental health, social and financial impacts (including access to financial services)—both actual and in terms of loss of opportunities—suffered by both the infected and affected; and

(d) other types of loss if appropriate;

Types of award and method of assessment

To consider:

(a) the extent to which any framework should offer compensation on the basis of an individualised assessment and/or fixed sums or a combination of these (including consideration of the position of an individual who was both infected, and affected by another individual’s infection);

(b) whether awards should be by way of final lump sums, periodical payments or both;

(c) whether an individual should be required to prove matters (if so what types of matters, by what means, and to what standard);

(d) whether there should be any limitation by way of time or other bar on entitlement or claim, and whether any existing time bars should be maintained;

(e) the extent to which compensation should be limited to matters currently recognised by the law (taking into account any differences in the law across the UK) on damages and evidence as recoverable for the purposes of compensation, or, if not, the basis on which broader matters should be taken into account;

Measures for compensation

To consider the measures for compensation, looking at other national schemes (for example, the compensation tribunal established in the Republic of Ireland) to examine their merits or otherwise, and experiences, both as to form (i.e. administration/process) and the substance of compensation;

Relationship with current schemes

To consider the relationship between a compensation framework and other receipts and payments by individuals, including: (a) the pre-existing financial support schemes; (b) legal claims; (c) welfare benefits and tax;

Options for administering the scheme

To consider options for administering the scheme (including but not limited to what bodies, organisations or tribunals might need to be established to facilitate such administration); what principles, aims or criteria etc might underpin the development of an appropriate scheme; and any ancillary matters which should be considered such as interim payments, publicity of the scheme, outreach to potential claimants, and support;

Other issues

To consider other issues that, in the course of his investigations, Sir Robert considers relevant; and

Reporting to Government by February 2022

To submit to the Government its report and recommendations as quickly as possible and no later than the end of February 2022, to provide the Government with advice on potential options for compensation framework design.

Sir Robert and his team will now begin the more detailed conversations and analysis to look into the detail of the issues raised by the infected and affected community. This will allow him to produce a set of comprehensive recommendations to the complex issues involved.

I, like my predecessor, am deeply committed to ensuring that Sir Brian Langstaff’s independent public inquiry has all the resources it needs to complete its work; in Sir Brian’s words, “as quickly as thoroughness permits”. The infected blood scandal continues to claim the lives of infected people, and those directly affected have waited too long for answers, and for justice.

[HCWS305]

Brexit: Opportunities

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement, which is also being made in the other place, on the opportunities the country has now that we have left the European Union.

While we were a member of the EU some of the most difficult issues that Governments of both main parties faced were to do with regulations, such as services directives, REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—reforms of agricultural policy, and very many pieces of financial services legislation. Often such laws reflected unsatisfactory compromises with the other EU members. We knew that if we did not rescue something from the legislative sausage machine, as it were, we would be voted down and get nothing. These laws were designed to lock every country, no matter its strengths or weaknesses, into the same uniform structures, and they were often overly detailed and prescriptive. Moreover, the results usually either had direct legal effect in the United Kingdom or were passed into our law through secondary legislation; either way, that involves very limited genuine democratic scrutiny. This Government were elected to get Brexit done and to change this situation, and that is exactly what we will do.

Much has already been changed of course but, given the extent of EU influence over nearly half a century, the task is a mammoth one. To begin it, we asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) to lead a team to examine our existing laws and future opportunities. They reported back earlier this year and since then my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my noble Friend Lord Frost have been considering that taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform—TIGRR—report in some depth. Lord Frost is today writing to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green with our formal response to his report and, more importantly, our plans to act on the basis of his report. Lord Frost is sharing the Government’s formal response with Committee Chairs and will deposit it in the Libraries of both Houses; it will also be available shortly on gov.uk. I will now highlight some of the most important elements of our plans.

First, we will conduct a review of so-called retained EU law; by this, I mean the many pieces of legislation that we took on to our own statute book through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. We must now revisit this huge but anomalous category of law, and we have two purposes in mind. First, we intend to remove the special status of retained EU law so that it is no longer a distinct category of UK domestic law but is normalised within our law with a clear legislative status. Unless we do that, we risk giving undue precedence to laws derived from EU legislation over laws made properly by this Parliament. The review also involves ensuring that all courts in this country have the full ability to depart from EU case law according to the normal rules. In so doing, we will continue restoring this sovereign Parliament and our courts to their proper constitutional positions, and indeed finalise that process.

Our second goal is to review comprehensively the substantive content of retained EU law. Some of that is already under way—for example, our plans to reform inherited procurement rules and the plan announced last autumn by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to review much financial services legislation. But we will make this a comprehensive exercise, and I want to make it clear that our intention is eventually to amend, replace or repeal all retained EU law that is not right for the UK. That is a legislative problem, and accordingly the solution is also likely to be legislative. We will consider all the options for taking this forward, and in particular look at developing a tailored mechanism for accelerating the repeal or amendment of retained EU law in a way that reflects the fact that laws agreed elsewhere have intrinsically less democratic legitimacy than laws initiated by the Government of this country.

We also intend to begin a new series of reforms of the legislation we have inherited on EU exit, in many cases as recommended by the TIGRR report. Let me give some examples. We intend to create a pro-growth trusted data rights regime that is more proportionate and less burdensome than the EU’s GDPR—general data protection regulation—and the previous Culture Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), on 10 September announced a consultation that is the first stage in putting new rules in place.

We intend to review the inherited approach to genetically modified organisms—GMOs—which is too restrictive and not based on sound science. My right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary will also shortly set out plans to reform the regulation of gene-edited organisms. We will use the provisions of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 to overhaul our clinical trial frameworks, which are based on outdated EU legislation, giving a major boost to the UK’s world-class research and development sector and getting patients access to new life-saving medicines more quickly. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is already reforming the medical devices regulations to create a world-leading regime in this area.

We will also unleash Britain’s potential as a world leader in the future of transport. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will next week set out ambitious plans including modernising outdated EU vehicle standards and unlocking the full range of new transport technologies. We also intend to repeal the EU’s court services regulations, a good example of a regulation that was geared heavily towards EU interests and frankly never worked for the UK. We will drive forward our work on artificial intelligence, where the UK is already at the forefront of driving global progress. We will shortly publish the UK’s first national AI strategy, setting out our plans to supercharge the UK’s AI ecosystem and set standards which will be world leading.

As recommended by TIGRR and the Penrose review and promised in the current consultation on reforming the better regulation framework, we will put in place much more rigorous tests within Government before taking the decision to regulate. Now that we have control over all our laws, not just a subset of them, we will consider the reintroduction of a one in, two out system, which has been shown internationally to make a significant difference.

Finally, Brexit was about once again giving everyone in this country a say in how it is run, and that is true in this area, too; we aim to tap into everyone’s ideas. Accordingly, we will create a new standing commission under visible and energetic leadership to receive ideas from any British citizen on how to repeal or improve regulations. The commission’s job will be to consider such ideas and make recommendations for change, but it will only be able to make recommendations to us in one way: in the direction of reducing or eliminating burdens. I hope in this way we will tap into the collective wisdom of the British people and begin to remove the dominance of the arbitrary rule of unknown origin over people’s day-to-day lives.

Let me finish by being clear that this is just the beginning of our ambitious plans. I will return to this House regularly to update Members on our progress and, more importantly, to set out further intentions. Brexit was about taking back control: the ability to remove the distortions created by EU membership and to do things differently in ways that work better for this country and promote growth, productivity and prosperity. That is what we intend to do.

I recognise Brexit was not a choice originally supported by all in this country, or even by some in this House, but Brexit is now a fact. This country has now embarked upon a great voyage. We each have the opportunity to make this new journey a success—to make us more contented, more prosperous and more united—and I hope everyone will join us in achieving that. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The questions I want to ask are these. First, why do the Government believe that signing a veterinary agreement with the EU is incompatible with their ambitions to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Secondly, if the answer is that joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership requires them to diverge from EU standards in relation to food safety, which is the only logical explanation for the comments that Lord Frost has made, can the Paymaster General tell us which specific standards they plan to diverge from?

I urge the Paymaster General, in his first appearance in his new position, to come out of the fantasy world that his predecessors have been living in together with Lord Frost and join us in the real world, together with Britain’s business community—the world of delays and shortages, red tape and bureaucracy, lost business and lost trade. It is a world that demands sensible answers and practical action from the Cabinet Office, not just another Minister addicted to dogma and wishful thinking.

[Michael Ellis]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her welcome and her kind words. I have now been Attorney General, Solicitor General and Paymaster General in the last seven days, so I think I ought to have a uniform. Her opening remarks were very welcome.

The right hon. Lady is quite right, of course, that everything will be considered carefully, and that is why we are asking the British people to assist us in this regard, but she should welcome the opportunities that Brexit has afforded this country. The Labour party’s relentless—may I say poisonous?—negativity about the opportunities of Brexit really is a sight to behold. What about the wonderful positions of this country now that we are free from the shackles of the regulation and bureaucracy, and the burdensome arrangements, that were applied carte blanche to all member states of the European Union?

I urge the right hon. Lady to look at the positives—the fact, for example, that this country is now the No. 1 country in the G7 for economic growth on the GDP front, and that we have a million job opportunities for our constituents and the people of this country. Those are positives. Those are things that have been delivered post Brexit, and work is in progress—negotiations and discussions. She knows well that the matters that she raises are at the forefront of the priorities of this Government and are being worked on keenly.

The right hon. Lady spoke of Lord Frost and his comments about ambition. Of course, Lord Frost and I share—as do the whole Government—the ambition of this country. If only the Labour party shared that ambition, I think that she would find greater support.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s statement. Our report was put together independently, taking full evidence from various areas of industry, services and so on. It represents their views about how best to resolve this issue. They include many who were strong remainers at the time of the debate, as well as those who voted for Brexit. There was no delineation. They all recognise where we are now and how we take advantage of it. I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to that and I thank my noble Friend Lord Frost for being so serious about implementation. One recommendation that I think is vital, and which the Bank of England was very clear it would like to see to help it in its heavy lifting, is to have a committee in the House that reports back on regulation/deregulation to follow up on all this. It should have the powers that, say, the Treasury Committee has, to dig into where the regulators go and whether they are getting the balance of economic advantage right in those regulations. May I ask him and the Government to think again? They have got rid of one regulatory committee, but there is definitely the need for another here to provide trust in the way we regulate.

[Michael Ellis]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for the very able work he and his team did in this regard. I have taken note of his point about the Bank of England and a committee. I can say that, even though I have only been in office for a few hours, I have already touched on that with Lord Frost. Further discussions will ensue.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

I thank the Paymaster General for his just-in-time approach to giving me foresight of his statement. Will he confirm he recognises that Scots law and the Scots legal framework is protected by the Act of Union, and that they should be treated appropriately during this exercise? I have to say that I very much doubt the majority of Scots will be rushing to do away with new protections enshrined in Scots law and protected by the Scottish Parliament. I am very concerned that this statement comes out at a time when we were expecting some real progress on helping our exporters get through the continuing muddle of exporting to the EU. National Farmers Union Scotland and Scotland Food and Drink are in bits trying to sort out what is happening, so can we have further explanation of what is actually being done in that regard?

[Michael Ellis]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I can, of course, confirm that. I know about Scots law, having held the Law Officer roles in this country. We have the greatest respect for Scots law. She is quite right that since 1707 the Act of Union has respected that position and will continue to do so. That is without question. On the point she makes about exports, she knows that these issues are occurring around the world at the moment for myriad reasons. We are working in that regard to improve the situation.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I welcome the generalissimo to his place on the Front Bench. May I say what a pleasure it is to have been part of this project and to put on record our thanks to the civil servants in the Cabinet Office, led magnificently by Will Hayter? The team did a huge amount of work for us. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are three big messages from this? First, those who have insisted that there is not regulatory dividend from Brexit, other than rushing to the bottom and slashing standards, could not be more wrong. The approach we have set out here is that, liberated from an inevitably bureaucratic and slow-moving European framework, Britain can lead in setting the standards in clinical trials, AI and other fast-emerging sectors. I say that as a former Minister with responsibility for life sciences and the future of transport, and a former remainer. If we are going to go through this, as we are, let us make it an opportunity where we liberate our entrepreneurs and our innovators.

Secondly, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, crucially, there is a big message for levelling up? If we unlock those new sectors, it is not all about growth in Cambridge and Oxford. In nutraceuticals, functional foods, satellites, robotics and AI there are clusters around the country, including in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. That strengthens the United Kingdom as a centre of innovation.

Thirdly, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, crucially, we need to make sure that this links to international trade; Britain putting in variable tariffs around our standards so that we use our aid, trade and security to fly the flag for the best food, AI and technology, and to make Britain a global hub of innovation?

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend could not be more right, if I can put it that way. Those who were naysayers and gainsayers, those who were so relentlessly negative, are clearly wrong. They now know they are in the wrong. They were saying that nothing could be done to improve this country’s position post Brexit. That is clearly wrong. Britain can lead the world. It is leading the world in many areas and will continue to do so under this Government. We are liberated and we are continuing to liberate our industries, trade and services from the shackles of bureaucracy. We will continue to do that, while at the same time, as he ably says, levelling up the whole of this country.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I listened carefully to the Paymaster General’s statement. A significant amount of legislation has come from Europe to protects workers, whether it is health and safety, workers’ rights or equalities legislation. Will he guarantee that under this new bonfire of regulation he will not diminish any of those workers’ rights, which have been hard-fought for by working people across Europe?

[Michael Ellis]

Of course, this is not about negatively affecting health and safety. This is about supporting workers. This is about supporting business. It is about making life easier for people and building the economy of this country. That is what it will do.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

The huge success of the recovery trial for covid treatments and the development, authorisation and delivery of the covid vaccination programme show just some of what we can achieve in Brexit Britain. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give priority to repealing and replacing the clinical trials directive, and replace it with a modern regulatory framework that can lead the world in this important area of health and the economy?

[Michael Ellis]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point and we will certainly be looking at that as a priority.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

“Brexit: Opportunities” seems to me very much a contradiction in terms, but I have listened carefully to the exchanges this afternoon. People recognise that we have now left the European Union. Whether we were a leaver or a remainer, that is the reality. I welcome that pragmatism. I urge the Government also to be pragmatic about what happens on the ground. Not everything is as well as it has sometimes been painted. My constituency of Bath is a global tourist destination. Several businesses are now operating shortened hours because of severe staff shortages caused by Brexit and the new immigration system. What are the Government doing in the next 12 months to address these lost economic opportunities in the hospitality sector?

[Michael Ellis]

I know the hon. Lady’s constituency well enough to know how beautiful it is. She talks, quite rightly, about its tourism value. The fact of the matter is that tourism has been very negatively affected, tragically, because of the covid-19 pandemic. It is nothing to do with Brexit. The reality is that, of course, we are pragmatic. We will be pragmatic and we listen to all. That is why we want to listen to the British people about how to reduce regulations.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

I welcome the scale, scope and ambition of the impressive list of intentions that began the Minister’s statement. May I press him on one point, which he mentioned later on? It is a shared point between my report on competition policy, which he kindly mentioned, and the TIGRR report, which is about process ongoing to ensure that we do not return to a pro-regulatory ratchet. The difficulty we all face here is that the entire culture of this place and Whitehall more generally is to invent more rules. That is how we make our bones in this place. We need to have a really robust process that prevents that and puts it into reverse. The one in, two out—with no exceptions and no exemptions—is absolutely essential. I hope he will be able to firm that up and commit to it irrevocably as soon as possible.

[Michael Ellis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this area. I agree about the almost inevitable direction of travel, unless there is an intercession, which is what the Government wish and intend to do with my statement today and the announcement that we are going forward with. I repeat my thanks for his work and assure him of our best intentions in regard to fulfilling his wishes.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Paymaster General is right—Brexit is now a fact—but clearly, the Government see advantage in keeping the grievance going. The EU remains our most important trading partner. It is hugely significant for businesses up and down the country, so instead of turning up the Brexit rhetoric, does he not think that the Government’s priority should be to listen to the problems raised by British business? Will he commit to looking at the recommendations highlighted in relation to those problems in the UK Trade and Business Commission’s report to be published on Monday?

[Michael Ellis]

I am happy to confirm that my party is the party of business. We do listen to business, and business prospers in this country under Conservative Governments and will continue to do so. Of course, our ears are open and always will be to views from all sides. That includes and, in fact, specifically in relation to regulations, will include businesses.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. and learned Friend and his team on their excellent TIGRR report and on his very welcome statement. If he needs a uniform, I am sure Gieves & Hawkes will be happy to oblige him, for a reasonable fee. He said in his statement that we will establish a commission “to receive ideas from any British citizen on how to repeal or improve regulations”. I urge him to go further and include EU citizens—in particular, Michel Barnier, the former chief negotiator, who is now running to be President of France and has developed very strong views about repealing EU legislation that affects France. If he does not want to live under its laws any more, can we ask him to suggest which of its heritage laws we should junk as well? And as the Government will want to get on with it, can we remind Mr Barnier that the clock is now ticking?

[Michael Ellis]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good, apposite point. We will certainly take that back.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

As the Government look to consult on reform to personal data protection policy, concerns have been raised about the potential removal of article 22, which guarantees that people can seek a human review of an artificial intelligence-made decision, creating cause for concern for data protection campaigners. Will the Paymaster General confirm whether the Government have assessed the impact of this potential removal in relation to negotiating trade deals with other countries?

[Michael Ellis]

Of course, the whole area of AI will open up myriad issues such as the one that the hon. Lady referred to. The Government are alive to those points and will take all those issues into careful consideration.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to his place and, as Chair of the Justice Committee, thank him for and pay tribute to the admirable way in which he exercised his duties as a Law Officer of the Crown, which he did impeccably. He will know from those previous posts, better than most, the level of complexity that surrounds retained EU law and that removing it will be no less complex. We need to ensure that we do so in a way that does not create legal uncertainty or disadvantage the United Kingdom financial markets, for example, in relation to ongoing, long-term contractual arrangements or financial instruments. Will he make sure that we do this with great care, perhaps working with experts such as TheCityUK and the Financial Markets Law Committee, and that we structure that in such a way that enables financial and legal services to benefit from access to new markets that we may be able to open up as a result of free trade agreements?

[Michael Ellis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for his kind remarks earlier in the House. He is right about legal—as well as financial—services, and this is an opportunity. The legal community that I and he both know in this country is a world leader. We have first-class people who support our legal prowess around the world based right here. We want to do everything we can to further build on that and he is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of that sector. It is important economically, morally and in our leadership around the world, and we will continue to work to support it.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I am glad to hear that the Paymaster General is looking at new export markets and opportunities, but the problem here and now, and what businesses in my constituency are concerned about, is the increased barriers that have occurred with our biggest trading partner across Europe. Will he undertake to listen to and address those concerns and perhaps outline what impact the changes that he has made today will have in supporting businesses to resolve this situation? Ultimately, it is costing more money for those businesses and costing jobs.

[Michael Ellis]

Of course, we are always listening to business. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is one that we are focusing on. He will also recognise that there are issues around Europe and, indeed, in countries around the world of a similar nature. We are all faced with issues following the pandemic and other circumstances that have arisen and we will continue to support business in all the areas we can.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I welcome the Paymaster General to his position and wish him well. I remind him of his comments when he referred to eliminating the Brexit burden for the United Kingdom, especially for Northern Ireland. Can he outline what steps are being taken to address the disgraceful Northern Ireland protocol regulations, which see empty shelves, increased cost for every Northern Ireland citizen and disregard for the constitutional position of Northern Ireland? I remind him of the petition with 100,000-plus names that came to this House. Will he take the readily available opportunity to resolve this issue and trigger article 16?

[Michael Ellis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. If I may make a personal remark, my mother was born in Northern Ireland and I understand the issues that he refers to. His support for his constituents and the people of Northern Ireland is something that everyone in this House recognises. The Government recognise the importance of our Union and of Northern Ireland and everything will be done that needs to be done to continue to support Northern Ireland.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to his new role and thank him for his statement. It is absolutely right that we review retained EU law and do what is right, in the interests of this country, but does he share my concern that there will be some, I suspect even in this House—I know that will shock you, Madam Deputy Speaker—who will see this review as an opportunity to continue the referendum debate and to continue the divisions? Does he share my view that we should now accept that we have left the EU and unite together to not only face some of the challenges that we inevitably face, but grasp the opportunities for the benefit of our whole country?

[Michael Ellis]

I agree completely.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

Northern Ireland did not seek Brexit and it has been very destabilising for the region, but from the Social Democratic and Labour party’s pragmatic perspective, we are trying to make lemonade out of the lemons that we have been handed. It is disappointing that Northern Ireland’s unique dual market access is not among the opportunities that the Paymaster General has identified. The fact is that, under the protocol, being at the hinge of the UK and EU single markets is the first unique economic selling point that Northern Ireland has had after decades of sluggishness and low productivity. Will he commit his Government to working with all parties and with the business community in Northern Ireland to allow Northern Ireland to try to make the best of the hand that we have been dealt, in the interests of people and businesses of all communities, by promoting that unique dual market access to businesses in the UK and overseas?

[Michael Ellis]

I disagree with the hon. Lady on one thing: I do not think that Northern Ireland has only one unique selling point. I think it has multiple selling points and the people of Northern Ireland are an integral part of this kingdom. Of course, tourism is one element of Northern Ireland that is also a substantial prowess. She does recognise, I know, that in this House, this party and this Government have always focused on supporting the people throughout the United Kingdom, which is why we are pushing the levelling-up agenda that she has been hearing so much about. She will find that that will continue to support her constituents and the people of the whole Province of Northern Ireland.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Paymaster General to his place, and, obviously, I warmly welcome the statement.

One of the many reasons the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke—over 70%—voted to leave the European Union was their wish to see us take back control of our borders. As we are being asked to feed in some ideas, may I feed one idea to the Paymaster General? Let us get out of the European convention on human rights, and then let us scrap the Human Rights Act in this country, so that foreign criminals who are taking advantage of the current system, and economic migrants who are crossing the English channel and entering this country illegally, can be deported very much more quickly than they are now.

[Michael Ellis]

I hear my hon. Friend’s points and of course he knows that we are now taking back control of our borders.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

I, too, warmly welcome the announcement from the new Paymaster General. It means that laws in this country will be made here in this Parliament, which is something that residents throughout Burnley and Padiham very much want to see. Will the Paymaster General confirm that this new approach will go hand in hand with our new free trade agreement policy, ensuring that our absolute focus is on supporting the small and medium-sized enterprises that are the backbone of this country?

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend is, of course, quite right. With the establishment of the points-based immigration system that I have just mentioned, and the bilateral trade agreements that my hon. Friend has just mentioned—agreements with over 60 countries in addition to the EU, accounting for £889 billion of UK bilateral trade in 2019—things are looking up, and will continue to do so.

Christmas Adjournment

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown]

The woman Health Minister I met has read the women’s testimonies I presented to her, and she was horrified by them, as the House has been when I have read them out on previous occasions. She and I are very clear that this is about choice—informed choice—and about making sure that women get what they need, rather than what is cheapest. I do not want to put words in her mouth, but I think we are both on the same page, and it was a very happy meeting. I therefore have only three, not four, issues that I want to raise today.

First, NewVIc—Newham Sixth Form College—is a great further education institution that regularly sends more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to university, including to Russell Group universities and Oxbridge, than any other sixth-form college in England. Newham is a massively deprived area, and research tells us that 13 out of 20 children in Newham live in poverty, and that it is currently second worst of all local authorities in England for social mobility. The fact that our young people are doing massively well at our FE institution is therefore testimony to them, their teachers and their parents. However, NewVIc’s budget has been cut by £770 per student, and that includes £200 per student from the deprivation allocation. How on earth can that be justified?

I would be very grateful to the Minister if he liaised with the Department for Education on my behalf to secure a meeting about this with NewVIc and me so that we can help NewVIc to continue to be a much-needed engine of social mobility in my community and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

indicated assent.

[Lyn Brown]

I have had a nod.

My second issue concerns a mental health condition called depersonalisation disorder. At least one of my constituents is a sufferer, and she has asked me to share her story with the House. Since she was 18, my constituent has lived for years in a continuous state of detachment. The world and her own life do not feel real. She lives in a dream, performing actions on autopilot, and she sometimes does not even recognise herself in the mirror. It is terrifying.

The disorder is under-researched and very poorly understood, and it can take eight to 12 years to get the right diagnosis. The consequences of a misdiagnosis can be dreadful, because anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety or antidepressant medications do not help and can make the condition markedly worse. As one sufferer, Sarah, has explained:

“Relationships…lose their essential quality… You know you love your family, but you know it academically—rather than feeling it in the normal way.”

I would genuinely find it very difficult to live if I had this disorder; I know I could not do so.

With swift diagnosis and specialist treatment, patients can have a real hope of remission, but existing NHS provision is woefully inadequate. There is only one specialist unit, based at the Maudsley Hospital, and many patients wait years for funding to attend it, while others are refused funding. The service is anyway only for adults, even though the condition typically begins in a person’s early teens. May I ask the Minister for a meeting with the Department of Health to discuss this further? Again, I would be very grateful to him if he helped that request on its way.

Finally, I wish to mention fixed odds betting terminals. As we have established in this debate, without any contradiction, Newham is a borough with high levels of deprivation, yet it also has one of the highest numbers of betting shops in any borough, with 81 in operation, and 12 on one street alone. Newham Council estimates that £20 million of residents’ money was lost to fixed odds betting terminals in just one year. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) have called for a reduction of the maximum stake to £2, and I welcome the Government’s consultation on that issue, which rightly suggests that a £2 limit will help to stop problem gambling. Such a limit would be a great, if belated, Christmas present to the children of Newham.

In conclusion, I thank the staff of the House for their unfailing kindness, professionalism, and service to us all. I know I will not be the only person in the Chamber today who is thinking of our Deputy Speaker and sending him our love and prayers. I am also thinking of the family of Jo Cox, Brendan and the children, and about the family of our own PC Keith Palmer, as they face their first Christmas without him. We all know that that will be massively hard.

I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members, the happiest of Christmases, and the very best of new years.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

The hon. Lady’s speech was going so well until that last point; I really do not think that that is likely to happen.

I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments. She started by mentioning how many Ministers from Her Majesty’s Government were abroad in Poland at the moment. May I assure the House—and you, Mr Speaker—that I am not the only one left, as you can see from the Front Bench? I think the stock markets may still be open, so I do not want to alarm them. I am not in charge.

[Bob Blackman]

Shame!

[Michael Ellis]

I hear shouts of “Shame” from behind me. They will no doubt be kindly noted.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke as passionately as ever about his constituency. Before doing so, he made reference to the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle), who is the Chairman of Ways and Means and Deputy Speaker of this House, and the tragedy that has befallen him. Our hearts go out to the right hon. Gentleman—our friend—at this time of tragedy.

My hon. Friend referred to his work on the Homelessness Reduction Act, which is soon to come into force; it will do so on, I think, 1 April next year. He mentioned that it is the longest and most expensive private Member’s Bill ever, which is impressive, but what is important is what he has achieved, and that wonderful achievement recognises that we all have an interest in reducing homelessness.

My hon. Friend also spoke about events in his constituency and organisations such as Mencap, the body encouraging children and young people to work on computer code and the charity Crisis. I know that he is referred to by the Hindu community in his constituency as Bobbhai, a term of affection, and he is recognised throughout his constituency of Harrow East as a representative of all his constituents.

The hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) spoke about the train service, or the lack thereof, on Boxing day. He also spoke about his sports teams; he wished them well, and we join him in doing so. A number of constituency Members will no doubt recognise the issue of the absence of train services on Boxing day, and I am sure he will pursue it. He finished by mentioning a horse race in his constituency, the King George VI chase, which takes place on that day. He will no doubt be there to enjoy that race; at least, I am making such an assumption.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) made a passionate speech about the HPV vaccination for boys as well as for girls. He clearly speaks with considerable expertise, given his dental background, and he made a powerful case. I have no doubt that he will want to raise this matter with the Health Secretary. What he said was clearly well informed. I can say that, since 2010, survival rates for cancer have increased year on year, and it is true that the statisticians have calculated that some 7,000 people are alive today who would not have been alive without those year-on-year increases. There is, however, much more work still to do.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) spoke about the importance of broadband in his constituency in Scotland. I have to say that, since 2014, the Scottish Government have had the funding, but have not started on this important matter and Scotland has fallen behind England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As a consequence, the next generation of broadband funding will not be going through the Scottish Government. On the local full-fibre networks programme and the 5G programme, the United Kingdom Government will work directly with local councils, because it is very important for broadband to be provided to his constituents and those throughout Scotland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke about settlement funding. He spoke very passionately about the efficiency of Bromley Council, which clearly has a powerful advocate in him. Other organisations, such as our armed forces, also have a very powerful advocate in my hon. and gallant Friend. He is a powerful advocate for his constituency, and he spoke about the efficient running of his local authority. I have no doubt that the Department for Communities and Local Government will have heard what he said.

The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) spoke about HS2 and the Park Royal area in her constituency. She was clear about the value of small businesses, so I know she will want to congratulate the Government on the fact that the United Kingdom has, for the first time, been ranked first in Forbes’s annual survey of the best countries for business. I have looked into the matter she raised about the compensation for small businesses in her area, and I understand that the first date under law for such compensation is 10 January 2018—I have been told that it is on time—and that there are discretionary payments of up to £250,000 to help with cash flow. I have also been told that the Minister for Rail, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), has written to her. The letter has been posted today, so I hope she will receive it soon.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) spoke, as he has done previously, about the painful condition of endometriosis. I know that he will continue to highlight that painful condition that affects hundreds of thousands of people around the world, including many in the United Kingdom. He also spoke about Volunteering-on-Sea, an organisation in his constituency that looks after 10 to 20-year-old disadvantaged young people. He said that he had attended an event with a number of centenarians. He still has a long way to go before he becomes a member of that particular club, but I know how well he looks after people of all ages in his constituency. I know he is still keen to see Southend declared a city. He mentioned the pending royal wedding, and it would be remiss of me not to offer congratulations to His Royal Highness Prince Harry, and wish him well. As to whether Southend will be a city by that date—well, my hon. Friend will have to consult people other than myself.

I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) had a productive meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), about the painful condition on which she has been passionately campaigning for so long. She has support from across the House on that subject, and I am pleased that the meeting with the Under-Secretary of State went well. She also spoke about the fixed odds betting terminals and machines that are a feature of this day and age, and she will no doubt be pleased that a consultation has been launched by the Government on that issue.

The hon. Lady also focused on depersonalisation disorder, and she knows an individual in her constituency who suffers from that. There will no doubt be many others, and sometimes diagnosis is very slow for that condition. She wishes to meet a Minister from the Department for Health. I am sure that we can help to arrange such a meeting, and if she writes to me we will certainly help in any way we can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) spoke about volunteering in his constituency. He said that we have seen a prevalence of intolerance in British politics that he thinks is not acceptable—I think we would all agree. As he said, and as I can confirm, most Members across the House are able to chat and disagree professionally, while still getting on well and socialising, and all Members will agree that abuse, threatening behaviour, insulting conduct, leaving coffins outside the offices of MPs, and the like, is to be deprecated in the strongest possible terms. My hon. Friend said that he is proud of the Conservative party. May I just say that the party is proud of him?

The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) spoke about people in the European Union, and elsewhere around the world, who lose their power to vote once they have lived outside the United Kingdom for 15 years. I am pleased that he is in favour of reforming that, but I think it was a previous Labour Government who reduced the level from 20 years to 15 years. I am pleased that he is speaking about the rights of UK citizens living in EU countries, and I have certainly heard Conservative Members speak about that subject repeatedly. As has been agreed, the intention is to scrap that rule before the next scheduled general election in 2022.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) can claim a personal success in his campaign on the hospital in his area, which I know he worked on a great deal. He spoke about the NHS, and like all of us he is so proud of the national health service. According to the Commonwealth Fund, the NHS has been rated the best health service among the 11 developed countries, and that is something of which the NHS, and all its staff, can be very proud. My hon. Friend wants—as do we all—the best possible Brexit deal for this country, and no doubt he and many others will join me in expressing great confidence that the Prime Minister will deliver just that. He also spoke, as he often does and will continue to do, on humanitarian work and the 4 million displaced people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) made allegations that she will no doubt want to raise in the proper place. Members are open to considerable scrutiny and I invite her to declare any information she may have on that subject to the appropriate authorities.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has been a passionate campaigner on the contaminated blood issue. She is to be commended and congratulated on her work. She said that she was grateful to Her Majesty’s Government because in the summer the Prime Minister agreed to hold a public inquiry. There is more to be done. I understand that today’s written ministerial statement indicated that it would be a judge-led inquiry, and that there would be a further statement in the new year regarding the name of the judge and the fuller composition of the inquiry.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) spoke about a particular jobcentre issue in his constituency, which was concerning to hear about. I suggest that, if he has not already done so—I suspect he has—he should raise it with the relevant Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions. He made a powerful case, as he often does.

On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), Her Majesty’s Government are dedicating over £1 billion to 2020 to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, and to support the Homelessness Reduction Act. I am running out of time, but if I may I will just say that 1.1 million additional homes have been delivered since 2010—over 357,000 affordable homes, with 217,000 last year. That is the highest for all but one of the last 30 years. There is more work to do—there always is—but housebuilding starts have increased by more than three quarters since 2009. Over 432,000 households have been helped into home ownership through Government schemes such as Help to Buy and right to buy.

We finished with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke of the true meaning of Christmas. I remember him doing so last year at this time. I thank him for and congratulate him on his work. He spoke passionately about volunteers and the giving mentality, which I know he himself has. He spoke of the wonderful people of Northern Ireland and his constituency. I can absolutely agree with him about that, not least—I should declare an interest—because my mother was born in Northern Ireland. He is a doughty champion in this place for the disadvantaged and dispossessed around the world at this time of year. He is a powerful advocate for those good causes. He spoke of Mr Speaker as the champion of the Back Benchers and I know Back Benchers would certainly agree with that.

May I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and the staff of this House for the work they do all year round? I thank not only those who protect the security of this House and serve it in myriad ways, but those who protect the country here in the United Kingdom and around the world. Her Majesty’s armed forces serve around the world, so many will not be with their families over the festive period. I take this opportunity to thank them from the Dispatch Box for their service to this country. I thank everyone here and wish them all a very merry Christmas.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House, the shadow Deputy Leader and all colleagues for their speeches this afternoon and, in particular, for their expressions of gratitude to my colleagues who sit in the Chair and, above all, to all those who serve us in various capacities with great ability and commitment in this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

draft Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Devolved Tax) (Wild fisheries) Order 2017

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2017 General Committees

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Devolved Tax) (Wild Fisheries) Order 2017.

The purpose of the draft order is to provide the Scottish Government with a limited and specific power to raise a levy on wild freshwater fisheries for the purposes of the management, conservation and sustainable development of those fisheries. The order stems from reforms being undertaken by Scottish Ministers to ensure that effective measures are in place to manage and conserve wild fisheries in Scotland.

An independent review of wild fisheries in Scotland was commissioned by the Scottish Government in 2014. Among the recommendations of the review was that the Scottish Government should have the power to adopt appropriate management tools, including the flexibility to change the way in which income is raised for fisheries management, which is currently done through a fisheries assessment levy applied to salmon fisheries at a local level.

The draft order will give Scottish Ministers the power to make regulations imposing a levy on the owners, occupiers or users of wild fisheries, or the owners or occupiers of the right to fish in wild fisheries. The Scottish Government intend to use the power by introducing provisions related to their wild fisheries (Scotland) Bill, which will provide Scottish Ministers with the flexibility to set, collect and retain fishery assessment levies in circumstances where they do not approve the fishery management plan developed at a local level.

The levies in question are considered by Her Majesty’s Treasury to be taxes, and therefore outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. In order to introduce a Bill into the Scottish Parliament with provisions on tax, the Scottish Government require an amendment to be made to part 4A of the Scotland Act 1998. An Order in Council under section 80B of the Act is the mechanism through which Her Majesty may by Order in Council amend part 4A so as to specify an additional devolved tax.

Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom have agreed to the devolution of the power to raise a levy on the basis that it will only be applied to a levy in respect of the conservation and management of freshwater fisheries. The devolution of such levy powers to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers is not thought to have a significant impact on businesses in other parts of the United Kingdom, but is considered to be conducive to the United Kingdom Government meeting their international conservation commitments.

I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I rise briefly only to ask the Minister this detail: have the Government assessed whether the new tax is likely to improve the situation of the conservation and management of salmon fisheries?

[Michael Ellis]

The matter has been considered carefully and the levy is considered to be conducive to the conservation and management of freshwater fisheries, yes.

[Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

How does the draft order fall into place with the Tweed Act and cross-border levy collection?

[Michael Ellis]

As far as the River Tweed is concerned, where it crosses over the border into England, this order will not apply; it will apply to the River Tweed in Scotland. Where the river crosses the border will be the demarcation point for the order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

On the first point, I of course welcome the position of the Scottish National party in welcoming this order. The order will come into force the day after Her Majesty approves it in Council. It can only go before Her Majesty in Council when it has gone through the legislative processes of this House, so a date has not been fixed for that, but it is not anticipated to be particularly far in the future. The activation of the order would be the day after Her Majesty approved it in Council, should Her Majesty do so.

On the exact legal ramifications relating to the River Tweed, I have said that the levies attracted by the Scottish Government will of course only apply within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Government. I can say no more than that at this point, but if there are any questions in particular about the exact specifics, we can certainly write to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Jack]

Does that also apply to the Border Esk?

[Michael Ellis]

As I have said, I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with more detail about that matter, but that is all the information I have on this order at the moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before the Committee begins, I would like to declare for the record that I sit on the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the motion, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Mr William Lifford to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years with effect from 11 January 2018.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Gillan. The appointment, which will end on 10 January 2023, is to fill a vacancy that has arisen because the term of Anne Whitaker is coming to an end.

The Speaker’s Committee has produced a report—its first of 2017—in relation to the motion, and it may help if I set out briefly its key points. Members of the board of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority are appointed under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, under which the Speaker is responsible for overseeing the selection of candidates for appointment to IPSA, and the names of any candidates must be approved by the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA. The Act further states:

“At least one of the members of the IPSA must be a person who has held (but no longer holds) high judicial office (within the meaning of Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c. 4))…At least one of the members of the IPSA must be a person who is qualified under Schedule 3 to the National Audit Act 1983 (c. 44) to be an auditor for the National Audit Office…One of the members of the IPSA…must be a person who has been (but is no longer) a member of the House of Commons.”

On this occasion, the vacancy is for the auditor member of the board of IPSA, a role currently filled by Anne Whitaker, whose term will end on 10 January 2018.

The Speaker of the House of Commons is not regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in making this appointment, but chooses to follow its recommended best practice in his supervision of appointments. As is normal for such appointments, Mr Speaker appointed a panel to conduct the shortlisting and interviewing of candidates. The panel was chaired by Mark Addison, a former civil service commissioner. Its other members were Ruth Evans, the chair of IPSA; Shrinivas Honap, a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA; Meg Munn, a former Member of Parliament for Sheffield Heeley; and Michael Whitehouse, former chief operating officer of the National Audit Office.

The candidate recommended by the appointment board is Mr William Lifford, a former partner at Grant Thornton who has substantial experience chairing audit committees. He also has strong experience as a non-executive director, including with Yorkshire Housing, Martin House children’s hospice and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. As required under the 2009 Act, the appointment was approved by the Speaker’s Committee at its meeting on 7 November. If the appointment is made, Mr Lifford will serve on IPSA for five years and will chair its audit and risk committee.

I hope that the Committee, and ultimately the House, will support Mr Lifford’s appointment. I wish him well in his new post.

Draft Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2017

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2017 General Committees

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2017.

The draft order was laid before the House on 13 September 2017. It will enable the full delivery of the policy set out in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 8 December 2015, with commencement now due on 25 January 2018.

The 2016 Act stems from a review of criminal justice in Scotland by the then Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Carloway, which reported in November 2011. The review, which arose from a decision of the UK Supreme Court that gave suspects a right to legal advice before questioning by police in Scotland, culminated in a series of recommendations aimed at modernising and enhancing the efficiency of the Scottish criminal justice system. Provisions of the Act developed from the review’s recommendations include reforms of arrest and custody laws, designed to provide flexibility for police in conducting investigations while ensuring fairness for suspects. The Act will build on 2010 reforms to allow suspects access to a lawyer regardless of whether they are to be interviewed by the police. It states specifically that the police have a duty not to deprive people of their liberty unnecessarily.

Many of the reforms that the 2016 Act will introduce give rise to the need to amend the law elsewhere in the United Kingdom, or to make provision in relation to Scotland where they apply to reserved matters. As neither activity is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, the draft order is needed. It has been drafted using the UK Government’s powers under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 to make legislative changes that are

“necessary or expedient in consequence of…any Act of the Scottish Parliament”.

The draft order makes provisions about arrests effected both within and outside Scotland in connection with crimes committed in Scotland, the investigation of Scots law crimes and extradition matters in Scotland. Schedule 1 will ensure that cross-border enforcement and assistance continue to work effectively; for example, when a Scottish warrant is executed in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, provisions in the 2016 Act on arrest procedure and rights of suspects will apply. Schedule 2 covers the effects of the Act on reserved forces—the Ministry of Defence police, the British Transport police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. Schedule 3 relates to the impact of the Act on immigration, officers of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, designated customs officers and the National Crime Agency. Schedule 4 covers the application of the Act to persons subject to service law, and schedule 5 makes provision in regard to a person arrested in connection with extradition proceedings.

Reserved forces exercising the powers and privileges of a police constable in Scotland will be bound by a stop and search code of practice issued under section 73 of the 2016 Act. The draft order will amend the Act to ensure that UK Government and reserved bodies subject to the terms of the code are fully consulted when any amendments to the code are considered. It also makes reference to a code of practice that will apply to investigative bodies reporting criminal offences in Scotland to the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service.

The draft order is a wide-ranging and complex instrument that has required close working between Ministers and officials of the UK and Scottish Governments. It is a good example of the two Governments working together to make the devolution settlement work. I commend it to the Committee.

Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Insolvency Functions) Order 2017

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2017 General Committees

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Insolvency Functions) Order 2017.

The draft order, which was laid before the House on 20 September 2017, is part of a package of measures aimed at updating and modernising corporate insolvency in Scotland, particularly the insolvency rules that apply to the winding up of companies. It follows on from the recent modernisation of company insolvency rules in England and Wales that culminated in the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.

To briefly give some background, I should explain that the law on corporate insolvency in Scotland and the division of legislative responsibilities between the Scottish and UK Parliaments and Governments is complex, particularly in relation to winding up. For business associations, for example, the general legal effect of winding up is reserved, but the process of winding up is excepted from the reservation. In practice, it is not always clear whether a winding-up matter relates to a reserved aspect or a devolved aspect.

In an effort to facilitate the efficient, effective and user-friendly modernisation of Scotland’s insolvency rules, particularly those that relate to companies, both Governments have therefore agreed that it would be of benefit to lawmakers and practitioners alike if the complicated exercise of assessing which rules relate to a reserved matter, and which do not, could be avoided. Accordingly, both Governments have agreed to the preparation of a combined order under sections 63 and 108 of the Scotland Act 1998. Section 63 enables an order to

“provide for any functions…exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in or as regards Scotland, to be exercisable…by the Scottish Ministers concurrently with the Minister of the Crown”.

Conversely, section 108 enables an order to

“provide for any functions exercisable by a member of the Scottish Government to be exercisable…by a Minister of the Crown concurrently with the member of the Scottish Government.”

The draft order will allow for the mutual conferring of functions on Scottish Ministers and a Minister of the Crown so that both have the power to introduce, as appropriate, rules or regulations on winding up for companies, incorporated friendly societies and limited liability partnerships in Scotland, irrespective of whether those rules or regulations relate to reserved matters under schedule 5 to the 1998 Act.

Under the draft order, a Minister of the Crown and the Scottish Government Ministers must reach agreement before either can make rules or regulations on the winding up of companies, incorporated friendly societies and limited liability partnerships under the functions that it confers. That approach will enable each Administration to make provision on winding-up matters without any doubt being cast on the scope of the relevant enabling powers. Users of winding-up legislation will also benefit, because the draft order furthers our aim that the rules on the winding up of companies in Scotland be contained in a single instrument rather than split between two. The immediate intention is that the Scottish Government, with the consent of the UK Government, will introduce an instrument to make provision for both the reserved and devolved aspects of winding up, as part of the current project to replace the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986 with updated and modernised rules.

I hope the Committee agrees that this is a sensible approach that will enable the modernisation of corporate insolvency in Scotland to move forward in an effective manner. I believe it provides an excellent example of our two Governments working together to make the Scottish devolution settlement work for people and industry in Scotland.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his excellent explanation of the draft order. Has a procedure been envisaged to deal with disagreement between Ministers in Westminster and in Holyrood?

[Michael Ellis]

All these matters are carefully considered. It is anticipated that whatever happens, the process enabled by the draft order will be preferable to the current situation, which is clearly rather confused.

I commend the draft order to the Committee.