Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th July 2022 Commons Chamber

It is worth stressing time and again that a majority of the MLAs and of the voters in Northern Ireland are at least pragmatic around the protocol, and that applies to the vast majority of businesses. Of course people recognise that there must be some degree of modification to the protocol to address the genuine concerns, but I have deep reservations if the Government twist that type of situation to say that there is justification for the Bill. We see opinion polls saying that 68% or 70% of people want to see the protocol modified or read that virtually all political parties recognise that there are changes, but that is a million miles away from any notion of majority support in Northern Ireland for this legislation. I fear that Parliament is proceeding on a false pretence to pass very dangerous and destructive legislation.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am now going to call Jim Shannon as the last contributor on this group, and then we will have two brief contributions from the Front Bench. We anticipate that two Divisions will follow.

[Jim Shannon]

I am very pleased to be called to speak, Mr Evans. The Minister referred to the democratic deficit and clause 13, and that is what I want to focus on. I want to focus on the effect it has on my constituents in Strangford. I thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for her significant contribution, too.

I have informed the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) that I intend to refer to some remarks that were made yesterday. Yesterday, I listened to him as he told hon. Members in the Chamber what conversations took place—he seemed to know better than I did—between me and Lakeland Dairies. To go on the record, let me be quite clear: I have been assured not that Lakeland Dairies is for or against the protocol; rather that it looks at the issue of the protocol and simply wants to know how we intend to deal with it in this place, so it has the information to move forward.

I refuse to allow others in this place to misrepresent me and my relationship with one of the largest employers in my constituency of Strangford. It is also noteworthy that meetings took place on a regular basis between myself and Lakeland Dairies staff, because they understand that I am up to the case and up to the job of helping them. I have had meetings with Lakeland Dairies directors, the Minister here and Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They were quite clear where they are on those issues. So that is where we are, on the record.

I want to see a way that works for Lakeland Dairies, but also for the seed farmers in my constituency, for the small business person, for the dog owner and for the pharmacist. Lakeland Dairies is not against that either. It has stated an opinion on how its business is currently operating and wants to know how to continue to grow its incredible global enterprise. That should not be twisted by any Member, whether it be the hon. Member for North Down or any other Member.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Clearly, Mr Speaker asked people today to use temperate language, with reference to “Erskine May”, and that stands not just for Prime Minister’s Question Time but for all debates. I know that this is an emotional, sensitive Bill, but people must be very careful with the language that they use at all times.

[Stephen Doughty]

This has been a very wide-ranging and thoughtful debate, albeit with passion at various points. The question of a democratic deficit is one of the key issues that we have discussed. I recognise the concerns of Unionist colleagues in the Chamber, but I find it odd that the Government are pursuing a Bill with parts that remove powers from this place and the Northern Ireland Assembly and give them to Ministers here. It strikes me that that is the real democratic deficit that we are dealing with.

I hope that the other place will look at these matters in great detail in the weeks to come. I indicate our support for amendments 12 and 49, if those are put to a separate decision, but I will withdraw amendment 38.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 21 stand part.

Amendment 50, in clause 22, page 11, line 16, at end insert—

“(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise any power to make regulations conferred by this Act unless a Legislative Consent Motion approving a draft of the regulations has been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

This amendment would prevent a Minister of the Crown seeking to use powers conferred by this Act to make regulations unless and until the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly to said regulations has been obtained.

Amendment 51, page 11, line 16, at end insert—

“(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise any power to make regulations conferred by this Act before a Minister of the Crown has presented a draft of the regulations to the UK-EU Joint Committee for discussion and has laid a full report setting out the details of those discussions before each House of Parliament and provided a copy to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

This amendment would prevent a Minister of the Crown seeking to use powers conferred by this Act to make regulations unless and until said regulations have been presented by a Minister to the UK-EU Joint Committee for a discussion and a report detailing those discussions had been laid before each House of Parliament and a copy provided to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Amendment 55, page 11, line 16, at end insert—

“(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise any power to make regulations conferred by this Act in contravention of views agreed by the North-South Ministerial Council on EU matters, including those regarding future policies, legislative proposals and programmes under consideration in the EU framework as provided for in Paragraph 17 of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement.”

Amendment 53, page 12, line 15, at end insert—

“(6A) A Minister may not exercise the power to make regulations under subsection (6) with respect to a devolved authority in Northern Ireland unless the exercise of any power by that devolved authority is approved by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly—

(a) on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive,

(b) following a resolution by the Northern Ireland Assembly,

or both.”

This amendment would prevent a Minister of the Crown seeking to use powers conferred by subsection (6) without the agreement of the First Minister and deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland acting jointly has been. The First Minister and deputy First Minister may be acting on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive and/or following a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Clause 22 stand part.

Amendment 19, in clause 23, page 12, line 25, leave out from “to” to “unless” in line 26 and insert “draft affirmative procedure”.

This probing amendment would apply “draft affirmative” procedure in place of regulations being subject to annulment.

Amendment 20, page 12, line 33, leave out “draft affirmative procedure” and insert

“super-affirmative procedure (see section (Super-affirmative resolution procedure: general provisions))”.

This probing amendment would replace draft affirmative procedure with super-affirmative procedure (see NC6).

Amendment 21, page 12, line 33, leave out from “procedure” to the end of line 37.

This probing amendment would prevent Henry VIII powers (amending Acts of Parliament by regulations) being made using the “made affirmative” procedure.

Amendment 22, page 12, line 38, leave out subsections (7) to (9).

This probing amendment would remove the “made affirmative” procedure.

Clauses 23 and 25 stand part.

Amendment 2, in clause 26, page 15, line 41, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—

“(2A) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.

(2B) The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.

(2C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2B) may not appoint a day for the commencement of any section unless—

(a) a Minister of the Crown has moved a motion in the House of Commons to the effect that a section or sections be commenced on or after a day specified in the motion (‘the specified day’),

(b) the motion has been approved by a resolution of that House,

(c) a motion to the effect that the House of Lords takes note of the specified day (or the day which is proposed to be the specified day) has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown, and

(d) the day appointed by the regulations is the same as or is after the specified day.

(2D) Regulations under subsection (2B) may—

(a) appoint different days for different purposes;

(b) make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act.”

The intention of this amendment, linked to Amendment 1 to clause 1, is to require parliamentary approval for bringing into force any provisions of this Act.

Amendment 33, page 15, line 42, after “section” insert

“, section [consistency with international law]”.

This consequential amendment would bring NC11 into force on the day the Act is passed.

Amendment 3, page 15, line 44, at beginning insert

“Provided that the Northern Ireland Assembly has first passed a resolution indicating support for this Act,”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 4, will make all operational aspects of the Bill dependent upon the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Amendment 4, page 15, line 45, at end insert—

“(3A) A motion for a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly referred to in subsection (3) must be tabled by either—

(a) the First Minister and Deputy First Minister jointly, or

(b) any Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

This amendment, together with Amendment 3, will make all operational aspects of the Bill dependent upon the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Amendment 47, page 15, line 45, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament, except that regulations under subsection (2) relating to tax or customs matters may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the House of Commons.”

This amendment would make all the commencement regulations subject to parliamentary approval.

Clause 26 stand part.

New clause 6—Super-affirmative resolution procedure: general provisions—

“(1) For the purposes of this Act the ‘super-affirmative resolution procedure’ in relation to the making of regulations subject to the super-affirmative resolution procedure is as follows.

(2) The Minister of the Crown must have regard to—

(a) any representations,

(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and

(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft regulations, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft regulations.

(3) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister of the Crown wishes to make regulations in the terms of the draft, the Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a statement—

(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (2)(a); and

(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.

(4) The Minister of the Crown may after the laying of such a statement make regulations in the terms of the draft if the regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft regulations may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (3) and before the draft regulations are approved by that House under subsection (4), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft regulations.

(6) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (5) in relation to draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft regulations in that House under subsection (4) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.

(7) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister of the Crown wishes to make regulations order consisting of a version of the draft regulations with material changes, the Minister of the Crown lay before Parliament—

(a) revised draft regulations; and

(b) a statement giving details of—

(i) any representations made under subsection (2)(a); and

(ii) the revisions proposed.

(8) The Minister of the Crown may after laying revised draft regulations and a statement under subsection (7) make regulations in the terms of the revised draft regulations if the revised draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(9) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the revised draft regulations may, at any time after the revised draft regulations are laid under subsection (7) and before the revised draft regulations are approved by that House under subsection (8), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations.

(10) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (9) in relation to revised draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations in that House under subsection (8) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.

(11) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (8) regulations are made in the terms of draft regulations if the regulations contain no material changes to the provisions of the draft regulations.

(12) In this section the ‘60-day period’ means the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft regulations were laid before Parliament under section 23 of this Act.”

This new clause sets out the bi-cameral super-affirmative procedure regulations under the Act, except in relation to tax and customs matters.

New clause 11—Consistency with international law—

“(1) A Minister of the Crown must not make regulations under this Act unless both the conditions in subsections (2) and (5) have been satisfied.

(2) The condition in this subsection is that a Minister of the Crown has laid before both Houses of Parliament a consistency report from a qualified person in relation to the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol that are, in consequence of the regulations, to become excluded provision (‘the provisions at issue’).

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a ‘consistency report’ is a report as to whether, in the opinion of the qualified person, it is consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom for the provisions at issue to become excluded provision, and which—

(a) sets out the reasons for its conclusions;

(b) sets out the steps taken by the qualified person to obtain the views of persons appearing to the qualified person to have appropriate expertise in questions of international law; and

(c) attaches, or contains references to a publicly available version of, all materials considered by the qualified person in the course of preparing the report.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) a ‘qualified person’ is a judge or former judge of—

(a) the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom;

(b) the Court of Appeal of England and Wales;

(c) the Inner House of the Court of Session; or

(d) the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland.

(5) The condition in this subsection is that—

(a) the House of Commons has approved a resolution to take note of the consistency report on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown; and

(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the consistency report has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and—

(i) the House of Lords has approved a resolution to take note of the report, or

(ii) the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the first Lords sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in paragraph (a).”

This new clause would prevent any clause of the Bill (or regulations made under it) that create ‘excluded provision’ from coming into force until (a) an authoritative and independent legal expert presents a report to parliament as to whether it is consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom, and (b) the House of Commons has passed a motion noting that report, and the House of Lords has debated that report.

New clause 12—Adjudications of matters pertaining to international law—

“No later than two weeks after any finding by any international court, tribunal or arbitration panel that any provision of this Act, or any action taken by a Minister in exercise of powers granted by this Act, is inconsistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom, a Minister of the Crown must—

(a) report to each House of Parliament setting out the extent to which the relevant court, tribunal or arbitration panel has found that any provision of, or any exercise of power under, this Act is inconsistent with the international legal obligations of the United Kingdom; and

(b) set out what steps Ministers propose take in order to bring the United Kingdom into compliance with those international obligations.”

This new clause would provide that, if an international court, tribunal or arbitration panel found as a matter of fact that any actions taken by the government under the Bill were inconsistent with the UK’s international legal obligations, the Minister must report this finding to the House, and set out what steps the government will take to ensure the UK is in compliance with its international obligations.

New clause 16—Impact assessment—

“Within six months of a Minister of the Crown exercising any power conferred by this Act to make regulations, a Minister of the Crown must publish a full impact assessment of the effect of the regulations on businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland.”

This new clause would require a Minister of the Crown who has exercised any power conferred by this Act to make regulations to publish a full impact assessment of the effect of said regulations on businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland within six months.

New clause 17—Consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly—

“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise the powers to make regulations conferred by this Act before a Legislative Consent Motion approving a draft of the regulations has been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

(2) A Minister of the Crown must, at the end of the relevant period, seek a Legislative Consent Motion approving the continued application of regulations made under the powers conferred by this Act.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the ‘relevant period’ is—

(a) the period ending four years after the powers are exercised; or

(b) the period ending eight years after the powers are exercised where the original Legislative Consent Motion was approved by—

(i) the support of a majority of Members, a majority of designated Nationalists and a majority of Unionists,

(ii) the support of 60 per cent of Members, 40 per cent of designated Nationalists and 40 per cent of designated Unionists, or

(iii) the support of two thirds of Members.”

This new clause would require a Minister of the Crown to obtain the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly in order to exercise the power to make regulations conferred by this Act. It would also require a Minister of the Crown to obtain the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly for the continued application of the said regulations within the relevant period. The relevant period would be four years unless the vote passes with a majority in any of the ways described in Clause 3(b), in which case the relevant period is eight years.

New clause 19—Expiry—

“(1) The powers conferred by this Act upon a Minister of the Crown will expire if the Northern Ireland Assembly passes a resolution pursuant to Article 18 of the Northern Ireland Protocol (Democratic Consent in Northern Ireland).

(2) A resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly under subsection (1) can only pass with one or more of the following measures of representational support—

(a) the support of a majority of Members, a majority of designated Nationalists and a majority of Unionists,

(b) the support of 60 per cent of Members, 40 per cent of designated Nationalists and 40 per cent of designated Unionists, or

(c) the support of two thirds of Members.”

This new clause provides a sunset clause whereby the powers expire if the Northern Ireland Assembly does not vote to approve the continued application of the Northern Protocol in 2024 in the vote required by Article 18 of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

[Michael Ellis]

Let me, for the last time, thank hon. Members who have spoken in the previous Committee stage debates. I remind hon. Members that, although the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed with the best of intentions, it is causing real problems for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, and this legislation will fix those practical problems.

Let me turn to the clauses under scrutiny this afternoon. Clause 19 gives powers to Ministers to implement a new agreement with the European Union as soon as one can be reached. A negotiated agreement with the EU remains the preferred outcome of this Government and this clause demonstrates that very commitment.

Clause 21 allows for preparatory spending undertaken to support the aims of the Bill to be made proper in the eyes of this place. This ensures that the Government can get on with delivering the new regime as soon as possible for the businesses and people of Northern Ireland.

Clause 22 sets out the general scope and nature of the powers contained in the Bill. This will ensure that the powers have the appropriate scope to implement the aims of the Bill, including setting out that regulations made under the Bill can make any provision that can be made by an Act of Parliament.

Regulations under this Bill may not create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which feature at the border either physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls that did not exist before exit day. I know that some Members are concerned about the possibility of border checks on the island of Ireland. This is the clearest possible way to show that this Government will not do that.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 7, page 5, line 5 insert—

“(1A) This section applies only if the following conditions have been met.

(1B) The first condition is that a Minister of the Crown has consulted appropriately with representatives of Northern Ireland business organisations on the option to choose between dual routes.

(1C) The second condition is that a Minister of the Crown has reached an agreement with the European Union on the option to choose between dual routes.

(1D) The third condition is that the Northern Ireland Assembly has approved by resolution the option to choose between dual routes.”

This amendment would impose conditions before the option to choose between dual routes could be implemented.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Amendment 45, in clause 8, page 5, line 24, at end insert—

“only if the conditions in subsection 7(1A) to (1D) have been met.”

This amendment is linked to Amendment 44.

Clause 8 stand part.

Amendment 36, in clause 9, page 5, line 27, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.

This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.

Amendment 28, page 5, line 34, at end insert—

“(3) Before making regulations under this section, a Minister of the Crown must carry out an economic impact assessment of the proposed regulations, and conduct a consultation on the proposed regulations with any stakeholders whom the Minister of the Crown considers appropriate.

(4) The Minister of the Crown making regulations under this section must lay before each House of Parliament with a copy or draft of the regulations a copy of the relevant economic impact assessment and a report of the relevant consultation.”

This amendment would require an economic impact assessment to be carried out before a Minister could make any provisions for the dual regulatory regime.

Clause 9 stand part.

Clauses 10 and 11 stand part.

New clause 13—Report on dual access—

“A Minister of the Crown must, at least once in every three months from the day on which this Act is passed, lay before each House of Parliament a report stating what, if any, steps are being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to promote, uphold, support and facilitate dual access to the British market and European markets for Northern Ireland businesses either as a consequence of the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act or by alternative means.”

This new clause requires a Minister of the Crown to lay a report before each House of Parliament stating what, if any, steps the Government is taking to promote, uphold, support and facilitate access to both British and European markets for Northern Ireland businesses, pursuant to the powers conferred by this Act and any other powers.

New clause 14—UK-EU Joint Committee: duty to give primary regard to North-South proposals—

“A Minister of the Crown must respect, reflect and support in UK-EU Joint Committee meeting proposals relating to the regulation of goods made by the North-South Ministerial Council and other North-South Implementation bodies to the Specialised Committee on the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland pursuant to Article 14(b) of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”

This new clause seeks to require a Minister of the Crown representing the United Kingdom in UK-EU Joint Committee meetings to respect, reflect and support proposals made by the Strand Two Belfast/Good Friday Agreement bodies acting in their capacity as set out in Article 14(b) of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

New clause 15—UK-EU Joint Committee: report to Parliament—

“(1) When the UK-EU Joint Committee has discussed regulation of goods in connection with the Northern Ireland Protocol, a Minister of the Crown must lay a report before each House of Parliament detailing those discussions within 21 days of the meeting of the UK-EU Joint Committee at which those matters were discussed.

(2) Each such report must include information on how UK representatives adhered to and sought agreement with representatives of the European Union on relevant proposals—

(a) agreed by the Northern Ireland Executive or endorsed by the Northern Ireland Assembly, or both, and promoted by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly, or

(b) agreed by the North-South Ministerial Council or North-South Implementation bodies and made to the Specialised Committee, pursuant to Article 14 (b) of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”

This new clause would require a Minister of the Crown to report to each House of Parliament on meetings between the UK and EU in the Joint Committee within 21 days of each meeting and to include information on the regard afforded to any submissions from the Strand One and Strand Two institutions of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement by UK and EU respectively.

[Stephen Farry]

Earlier in the debate on this Bill, we discussed solutions on which I think it is fair to say that there was some common ground, such as the idea of red and green channels. The problem was the means of getting there: threats or unilateral action from the Government, versus building trust and using negotiation. Never mind the means, however; dual regulation is fundamentally a very bad idea. The business community in Northern Ireland has expressed significant concerns about this aspect of the Bill. Notably, this includes the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association, the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association, and Manufacturing Northern Ireland.

There are many motivations behind the Bill. However, the claim that it responds to the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland or the interests of the business community in Northern Ireland does not stand up to scrutiny. I remain very critical of the so-called engagement process from both the Foreign and Commonwealth and Development Office and the Northern Ireland Office. They have sought an echo chamber to reinforce their own agenda rather than consulting widely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I should just put on the record that I represent one of the largest farming constituencies in Northern Ireland; I was previously the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Agriculture and Rural Development Committee in Stormont; I have been one of the longest serving members of the British Veterinary Association in Northern Ireland; and, for the record, my son-in-law is one of Northern Ireland’s largest dairy farmers, so I have some knowledge of the agricultural sector.

The hon. Member has touched on the issue of veterinary products for Northern Ireland. Is it not the case that the European Union has strategically blocked the sales and advantage that would come to Northern Ireland as a result of Brexit, because it does not want Northern Ireland agriculture to be a success? Northern Ireland agricultural businesses are in direct competition with businesses in the Irish Republic, and up to 40% to 50% of all agri-medicines for veterinary products, agricultural use and pet use will be blocked at the end of this year, because the European Union wants to block it. The EU is not interested in talking or making a deal with Britain on this matter. In fact, the representative agency, the National Office of Animal Health, has said that more time is no longer required. We need this Bill to solve these matters with regard to veterinary science.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I want to establish right from the outset that interventions should be brief by their very nature, not speeches in themselves. Mr Paisley, that was longer than some of the speeches I have made in this place.

[Stephen Farry]

I will briefly respond, and then hopefully I will make some progress. What the hon. Member has said is utter nonsense. The notion that there is some sort of conspiracy or plot to undermine the Northern Ireland agriculture sector is for the birds. The threat actually comes from this Bill and from Brexit. It does not come from the protocol; it comes from the notion of scrapping some provisions in the protocol, which are working on behalf of the sector. The sector is diverse and some people may have a different perspective on it, but I urge Members to listen to the representative business organisations that reflect the views of their members. The Dairy Council is adamant and very vocal in this regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

This is just nonsense—this is bureaucracy at its worst.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. The same noise is coming from the same mouth, as well—let us stop that, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Just to remind everybody, if you were not here from the very beginning I am afraid you cannot make an independent speech, but you are able to intervene on others. We have a list of everybody who is here. Just before I call Mr Ellis, can I ask hon. Members who wish to contribute on this first group to indicate their intention by standing up, so we can get a general idea? Thank you very much. That will be very useful.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

I begin by thanking hon. Members for their participation in the debate so far. I remind them that, while the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed with the best of intentions, it is causing real problems for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, and this legislation will fix the practical problems that the protocol has created.

On the clauses under scrutiny today, clause 7 makes it clear that businesses will have a choice which regulatory route to follow when supplying goods to the market in Northern Ireland. It introduces a dual regulatory regime in Northern Ireland for regulated classes of goods to which any provision of annexe 2 to the protocol applies. That will create a new option to meet UK rules, compared with the existing protocol arrangements, whereby goods are required to comply with the relevant EU rules. Where the relevant requirements allow, it will also be possible for the same product to simultaneously comply with both UK and EU sets of requirements. Current traders have no choice but to meet EU rules when supplying goods in or to Northern Ireland. This obviously deters some companies, especially those trading exclusively within the United Kingdom. We have seen numerous examples of that already. It deters them from serving Northern Ireland due to the costs and administrative burdens of meeting this EU law such as retesting, re-marking and relabelling of goods, all of which are expensive, as well as the appointment of a representative to undertake administrative duties. All that bureaucracy comes at a cost, which is unnecessary for goods that are to remain on the UK’s market.

The dual regulatory regime provides businesses across the United Kingdom with choice. If a Northern Ireland business trades north-south in the island of Ireland, it can continue to follow EU rules if it wishes and sell its products in the EU and across the UK, because the Government have a commitment to unfettered access. However, if the model of a business is UK-focused, it can choose to follow UK rules and avoid the additional cost and burden currently applied to intra-UK trade.

Contaminated Blood Scandal: Interim Payments for Victims

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Thank you for granting this urgent question today, Mr Speaker. The response from the Paymaster General is yet again wholly inadequate and insulting to those who have suffered so much over so many years. With over 3,000 people dead and over 419 of them dying in the five years since the public inquiry was called, and with one person dying every four days on average, people cannot wait a day longer than necessary.

As the Paymaster General set out at length, to avoid further delays the Government asked Sir Robert Francis QC in May 2021to undertake a parallel in-depth review of financial compensation ahead of the overall public inquiry concluding. Sir Robert found a “compelling case” for interim payments of at least £100,000 to those affected. Ministers have had these recommendations since March but they refused to publish them, saying that they wanted to publish their response at the same time. We waited and waited, then the review was leaked to The Sunday Times newspaper and the Government finally published in early June but not with their promised Government response. Last week, as the Paymaster General said, Sir Robert gave oral evidence at the public inquiry on 11 and 12 July, making the case again for interim payments.

The Government have already, rightly, granted £30 million of interim compensation for the Post Office Horizon IT scandal long before its public inquiry concludes, as well as interim payments for the Windrush scandal, but not for infected blood. Given the undoubted urgency, on 15 July Sir Brian Langstaff QC started a 10-day consultation on using his own powers to recommend interim payments ahead of his final report to which the Government will need to respond. Its 25 July deadline comes after the House enters the summer recess. As Mr Speaker has repeatedly said, this House should hear announcements first.

After decades of cover-up and appalling treatment, what exactly is preventing the Minister from announcing today, before the summer recess, that the interim payments recommended by the Government’s own independent reviewer will be paid? If not now, when? What is the timetable for the announcement on interim payments and on a response to the wider review? Will the Paymaster General tell me when we will see the Government’s submission, which I am sure his officials are preparing, to the independent inquiry on interim payments that Sir Brian has set up?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I gave the right hon. Lady some injury time there because the Minister overran, but I remind everybody that it is normally three minutes and two minutes.

[Michael Ellis]

I am conscious of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker’s admonitions about speed, so I will be brief. The Government will need to reflect carefully on the very detailed evidence that Sir Robert gave only last week in two days of evidence. That forensic detail included issues such as scope, the types of benefit, the legal issues and the legislative issues. There is a great deal of complexity and interconnectedness in this matter, and we want to get it right. We will act, as we have done, as a responsible Government throughout this process. We will continue to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I cannot commit to that. I am not aware of the detail of the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. I have seen no evidence of officials giving deliberately incorrect information, but I will look into the matter.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her urgent question, and the Minister for responding for just over half an hour.

Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I am proud to stand up on behalf of the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke and express confidence in this Conservative Government. Why is that? It is not just because the 73% who voted to leave the European Union finally had their wishes commanded, despite the Brexit-blockers on the Opposition Benches continually trying to find every way to dodge delivering the mandate those people gave. It is not just because of the fantastic furlough scheme, which meant that people kept their jobs during the biggest global pandemic in 100 years. And it is not just because we had the fastest vaccine roll-out. It is because of what we see if we look at the local story.

In Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke, we have £56 million of levelling-up fund money, which is bringing masses of regeneration and unlocking hundreds of millions more in private sector investment. We are seeing heritage buildings such as Tunstall library and baths regenerated for future generations, adding to the Conservative-led council’s regeneration and revitalisation of Tunstall town hall, which the Labour party was all too happy to allow to sit and rot for 30 years. In addition, we have the £17.6 million Kidsgrove town deal, which is meaning that we are bringing up to 1,700 new jobs to Chatterley Valley West, reinvesting in our high streets in the town of Kidsgrove and making sure we reopen Kidsgrove sports centre, which was shut because the Labour party, which ran the council at the time, could not be bothered to send a single pound coin to save it. We are refurbishing and reopening it, and letting a local community group run it, because they are local people who champion that cause.

On top of that, we have brought in 500 new jobs through the Home Office coming to our great city; we have £29 million from the transforming cities fund; and we have £31.7 million from Bus Back Better, which will see bus fares cut by 33% with the new £3.50 a day flat fare, create new routes and make sure that people can get around and travel—one third of people in the city do not have access to a motor vehicle. We also have the money to look at opening the Stoke to Leek line.

The litany of success goes on and on and on. We have the £7.5 million for Middlehurst School to become a new special educational needs and disability school, there are the family hubs that we successfully got, and there will be fantastic investment going forward.

Let us also have a look at Labour’s dismal, abysmal and unforgivable local record. Let us not forgot that it was a Labour council that spent £60 million on white elephant projects like a new council office, rather than investing in Burslem indoor market, the Wedgwood Institute and the Queen’s Theatre in the mother town of Burslem, which would have brought regeneration to that fantastic town of our city of Stoke-on-Trent.

Let us look at the fact that jobs were leaving the ceramics sector and going overseas to China, and the Labour party did absolutely nothing to prevent it. Let us have a look at the fact that Labour went on strike for more than 70 years, withdrawing their labour and failing to represent the people on Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke because they believe that they have some God-given right to have that seat and the people should get in line. They sneer, snarl and they arrogantly look down and talk down to the people. That is that attitude the Labour party has always had towards the working people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.

Labour Members believe that borders are racist and anyone who wants border control is a bigot, which is why, despite the fact that we on this side of the House support the Rwanda deal, those in the party opposite snarl at it. That is why when I introduced the Desecration of War Memorials Bill, the party opposite said, “Oh, it is statues you’re trying to protect.” No, it is war memorials to our glorious dead. It is about time the Labour party stood up for our flag and for our country.

I introduced a new law to increase the fines on rogue and absent landlords who allow our high streets and our heritage to rot. At the last minute, my Labour predecessor was standing with a placard pretending to care, despite having had four and a half years to do something about it. Within two years I changed the law and we are taking those rogue and absent landlords to court. It was the Labour party that was found to be institutionally antisemitic and failed to defend my predecessor, despite the abuse she got. The Labour party—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Alex Cunningham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Come on. Stop the shouting, please. We do not need it. Let everybody make their contribution in silence, please.

[Anna Firth]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a fact that over the past 12 years of Conservative rule, NHS funding has been increased by 42% in real terms. We are now spending £177 billion on our health service. We will be spending an additional £22 billion per year by the end of this Conservative-led Parliament—the highest amount spent on the NHS by any Government ever. Let us not forget that every single one of those funding increases was opposed by the Labour party. Only recently, it voted against providing our NHS with an additional £36 billion of funding—money that is now being used to treat our most sick and vulnerable people.

The Conservative Government have also made us feel safer. Thanks to 12 years of Conservative Government, Britain as a whole, and Southend West in particular, is healthier, wealthier and especially safer.

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

To say that I have no confidence in this Government or Prime Minister must be the greatest understatement ever heard in this Chamber, particularly so when we consider his horrendous tenure. Confidence is not something that should be blindly given; like respect, it is something that must be earned.

How can we have confidence in or respect for a Government still headed by a Prime Minister who has shamed the office he holds? He has no respect us—Scotland’s representatives in this place—and we have no confidence in him or his Government. How can we have confidence in a Government and Prime Minister who have consistently—allegedly—lied to or misled this House? He has no respect for us, and we have no confidence in him or his Government. Who can have confidence in a Prime Minister who has been charged and fined by the police for breaking the very rules that he implemented during the pandemic? He has no respect for us, and we have no confidence in him. How can we have confidence in a Prime Minister and Government who have not only presided over sleaze and scandal, but decided to cover for it and even promote to Government positions those at the very heart of them? We have no respect for or confidence in this Government.

Even those in the Prime Minister’s own party now shudder at the thought of being associated with him, as we have seen in the Tory leadership race. Is that any wonder, given that this a Prime Minister who, despite all the scandal, the desecration of office and the criminality, is still clinging on? Even after all the back stabs and head shots by his so-called allies, he still will not go. He is now a zombie Prime Minister. And why? Not for the sake of continuity, stability or Ukraine, but so he can avoid having to find a new venue for a wedding reception. It is laughable, but it is not funny. We are being laughed at by the entire global community. We no longer have any confidence in or respect for this Government.

The people of Scotland had this Prime Minister’s card marked from the outset, and, regardless of who comes after him, we also know that Scotland’s interest will not be high on their agenda when they take up office in No.10. Albert Einstein was still alive the last time Scotland voted Tory, but we do not need to be a genius to work out where Scotland puts her confidence when she goes to the ballot box. It is not here in Westminster, and it is not in any Tory Government. The people place their confidence and trust in the Scottish Government and in the SNP—the party that has been re-elected consistently by the majority of people in Scotland since 2007, the party that is in administration of the majority of the local authorities across Scotland, and the party that has the greatest number of elected parliamentarians in Westminster and in Holyrood. Regardless of the voting franchise, regardless of the political office, the people of Scotland speak clearly. They place their confidence in Scotland’s national party and in the party of Scottish independence.

Let us not kid ourselves: the next Prime Minister will not be any different from any of the others. In the eyes of most Scots, a Tory is a Tory. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. The ducklings on the Tory Back Benches all quacked in agreement and, crucially, in defence of everything that the soon-to-be ex-Prime Minister did. When he played fast and loose with the truth, they supported him. When he broke the law, they quacked their support for him. And they will do the same again for the next one. Scotland has no confidence in them and we have no confidence in this Government.

On behalf of the good people—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Shaun Bailey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member to accuse Opposition Members who have no connection to the council that he is talking about? He is abusing his privilege to talk about corruption and then pointing at us and saying that it is our fault. It is completely out of order.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I would have brought Mr Bailey up. I am listening very carefully to what is being said. It would help if people did not chunter so that I can hear both sides clearly.

[Shaun Bailey]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a point of clarity, my understanding is that they are all members of the Labour party. It is the Labour party that controlled that local authority. They are all comrades in arms together. Labour Members could have intervened at any point. They promised that they would get grip on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We have just over an hour before the wind-ups begin and I want to accommodate everybody, so we are going to a three-minute limit, with immediate effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If people can trim a bit off their speeches, everyone will get equal time.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope you caught the Prime Minister’s surreal bravura performance, which was rather clouded by the fact he did not realise that his own Government tabled the motion. There was not a cheep about being booted out by his own party, finally, after breaching his own rules on partying while my constituents could not hold their loved one’s hand as they were dying. There was not a cheep about Marcus Rashford shaming this Government into feeding hungry, poor children during the school holidays.

As Conservative Members brag about this Government getting Brexit done, they forget that they were continually warned about what Brexit would mean for families in Scotland and the rest of the UK—£1,400 a year and a fall in GDP. Well, it has happened, folks. And the latest polling shows that more people think Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU.

There was not a cheep about being prepared to flout international law after he changed his mind on signing the Northern Ireland protocol. There was not a cheep about illegally proroguing Parliament.

Scotland has a different Government and deals with people in an entirely different way. We respect people and we treat them with dignity and respect when they need help. Here, this Westminster Parliament is believed to be sovereign, whereas in Scotland we know that that is not true; in Scotland, the people are sovereign. They elected a Parliament last year with a majority for independence, but this Tory Government are absolutely determined to keep Scotland in the Union. Self-determination apparently does not apply in Scotland. Even the—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I want both Front Benchers to be heard with civility, please. I call Angela Rayner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is more, the behaviour of those on the Labour Benches will unite the country. We know why they have not stood up to the unions, including the RMT, since 2015. The Labour party HQ and the local Labour party branches have guzzled up some £68 million in donations from the unions. It is the same old story. The Labour party cannot stand up for the people of this country because it is so deeply buried in the pockets of the unions.

While Labour Members play their games and stand on the side of the unions rather than the public, we will get on with delivering for the British people: unemployment close to a 50-year low, a rise in the national insurance threshold—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I cannot hear what Mr Raab is saying.

[Dominic Raab]

The Opposition do not want to hear it. They never want to talk about the fact that unemployment is close to a 50-year-low, or about the rise in the national insurance threshold, which is the biggest personal tax cut in a decade to support hard-working people across the country; the record levels of doctors and nurses in our precious NHS, only because we have the economic strength to fund them; the fact that violent crime and theft are down since Labour was in office, and reoffending is down because of the action that we have taken; the extra money that we provided for more police officers, which Labour opposed—that is true—and the tougher sentencing powers for dangerous and violent sexual offenders that we passed only recently in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which Labour opposed.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

If I had known the hon. Gentleman was going to say that, I would not have let him intervene. I never said that. [Interruption.] No, I did not say that. I said that international delegations come and call us “planters”, and then I referred to others who fundraised actively for IRA-Sinn Féin to plant bombs. That is those who are supporters of Sinn Féin in America; they fundraise to raise a great deal of money.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Could we please just focus on the amendments? We do not want a wider debate.

[Jim Shannon]

The debate was not widened by me; it was widened by somebody else.

Let me be clear: I voted against that agreement, but I listened to its proponents tell us that it protected Unionism. One of those proponents—David Trimble, who sits in the other place—well understands the issue and has outlined how the Northern Ireland protocol has adversely impacted the Good Friday agreement, but we are asked to sit in silence when our economy, our buying power and our very identity is decimated by the protocol.

The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) had the opportunity to visit my constituency and understands the importance of fishing there. The Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation and the Irish Fish Producers Organisation are clear that the Bill will do away with the tariffs and red tape. How can it be right for a fishing boat to leave Portavogie, Ardglass or Kilkeel, get out of the harbour and get 2 miles off the shore, and pay a tariff on anything it brings back? The Bill will stop that. For those in Portavogie in my constituency of Strangford, and for those in Ardglass, Kilkeel and other places, I look forward to the days whenever we can grow our fishing sector, and create more jobs, opportunities and prosperity.

As the House discusses this legislation to begin the process to rectify the gross betrayal of Northern Ireland to get Brexit done, I ask Members please to remember the truths of where we are. I understand that there are those who did not want the referendum result. I understand that some want to remain tied to the EU. I understand the threats that are coming from Europe and latterly from the US. But the question is easy: are we a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? If so, the protocol must go. The Bill does not satisfy all that I want to see, but it does begin the journey. I am asking the Committee to travel with us, not against us: to call time on the kicking we have gotten as a political football between the EU and the UK. The EU has not negotiated common sense after 300 hours of discussions; it was never going to, or it would have happened already.

The reason we are here today is the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which was put forward by the Government and which my party fully supports. We need to make the changes. It is time to legislate this common sense to allow us all to move on together. The quicker that happens, the better. The people of Strangford want it and I want it, being British. I think all the people of Northern Ireland here are British, but even those who are not want it as well.

Ministers’ Severance Pay

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

A supermarket worker from Shettleston would not get thousands of pounds in a severance payment. Why should Rishi Sunak, the richest man in Parliament, get a severance payment?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Do not name Members by their names, please. You could say former Chancellor of the Exchequer—

[David Linden]

Prime Ministerial hopeful, surely.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. You stand corrected.

[Mrs Wheeler]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Absolutely, we do not use names, do we? I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question. It is very simple: this is a matter of statute law, it has been around since 1991, and all the different political parties have taken use of it. That is where we are.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Brown, let’s see if you can do better than your colleague.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. When the new Education Minister gave a one-fingered salute to the crowd outside Downing Street, that was symptomatic of this Government, who have been putting two fingers up to the entire UK for the tenure of the former Prime Minister. Given that we have a zombie Government, with Ministers who are clearly in place on a temporary basis, does this Minister agree that they should not take severance payments when they rightfully get sacked when a new Tory leader comes in?

CHOGM, G7 and NATO Summits

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is completely right; that is where the focus now is. The Ukrainians are heroic. They have shown they can push the Russians back. They pushed them from Kyiv. They pushed them back from Kharkiv. What they need is the right multiple launch rocket systems to do it, because the Russians are very good at standing off and using heavy artillery to shell and intimidate. The MLRS are absolutely critical to the Ukrainian fightback. That is what we are giving them now, together with several other allies. What they also need is the training to make sure that those very sophisticated weapons are used to the best possible effect, and we are giving them that training as well.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for answering questions today.

Standards in Public Life

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. If everybody can resume their seats, I want to give some advice. First, please remember that everybody taking part in the debate should come back for the wind-ups. We hope that they will start at about 3.40 pm, but it could be sooner than that. If a Division takes place, it will be at about 4 pm. We cannot be absolutely certain, but that is the guidance. I am trying to do this without a time limit, so looking at the number of people who want to speak, if everybody speaks for around eight minutes—perhaps a bit more; let us see how it goes—we will fit in with the schedule that I have in front of me. Clearly, if people speak for longer, those towards the end will have less time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger). He did a fine job of trying to defend the indefensible, but the thing that undermines his argument is the timing of the changes to the code: the coincidence that, just as the Prime Minister is to be investigated by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, he has decided he wants to move the goalposts. That is obvious, and it is not lost on members of the public that he has changed the rules. The reason why he has done so is that he fears what is going to come in the future—the not too distant future.

We are here having this debate today really because we have seen this conduct on an industrial scale at No. 10. The PM has been fined, the Chancellor has been fined and so have numerous members of staff. What those charged with upholding standards in the future have to look at is what has been said to this House and what rules were in place at the time the events took place that have led to the Prime Minister rushing to make these changes.

It is worth reminding ourselves that, when the wine and cheese party took place in the garden of No. 10, people were allowed only to meet one other person from outside their household, as long as it was in a public place and 2 metre social distancing was maintained. Friends and family were not allowed to go to one another’s homes or gardens. Later in that year, after the rules had changed, the rules prohibited indoor gatherings of two or more people. An exception was allowed for work if it was reasonably necessary for work purposes, and in those circumstances the necessary participants could physically attend such meetings and social distancing had to be applied. Those charged with upholding the rules and code must satisfy themselves that what was said in this House, and the rules that applied, are consistent. We have seen photographs of the garden party, and a photograph of the Prime Minister inside No.10 at a party on 13 November. Allegra Stratton talked about a party that took place in No.10 on 18 December. She was head of media for the Prime Minister, and if she were rehearsing a response to the press about an alleged party that took place in No.10 on 18 December, it is inconceivable that she would not go to the Prime Minister and warn him that he might be quizzed about that party.

Again, going back to the code that we are debating, we must be satisfied and demand answers to ensure that the code has been adhered to. This is what was said on 1 December at the Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition about the party in No.10:

“What I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that all guidance was followed completely in No. 10.”—[Official Report, 1 December 2021; Vol. 704, c. 909.]

The following week—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I want to give a little caution about any comments made about anything that is before the privileges committee. Please be very careful. We are talking about conduct in public life generally and about the ministerial code of conduct, but without going into detail on things that are being adjudicated and that will come before the House in time.

[Clive Efford]

I am grateful for that guidance, but I thought I would be in order because I am quoting the public record—I am reading from Hansard—on what was said in relation to these events. I am doing that because we have a debate about the code of conduct, and we must be satisfied that when the response comes back, these questions are answered.

At the start of Prime Minister’s questions on 8 December, the Prime Minister stated:

“May I begin by saying that I understand and share the anger up and down the country at seeing No. 10 staff seeming to make light of lockdown measures? I can understand how infuriating it must be to think that the people who have been setting the rules have not been following the rules, because I was also furious to see that clip.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 372.]

I think it inconceivable that people were not advised that questions may be raised about the party that took place in No.10 Downing Street, and I would like that to be measured against the code we are talking about today. The Prime Minister has given repeated assurances that clearly need to be investigated further. His repeated assertions to this House were that no rules were broken and there were no parties, and we must have an answer to that question.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sorry. Irrespective of whether it is in Hansard, this matter is before the Committee of Privileges, which is considering it specifically. The specifics of whether the Prime Minister misled, or inadvertently misled, the House is not for today’s debate.

[Clive Efford]

With due respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not making the conclusion that he has done so; I am just raising questions that I expect to be answered.

My next point is about how the code has been applied in the past, because Ministers have resigned when they have inadvertently misled the House. The most recent example I think of is that of the former Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, who inadvertently misled the House about immigration figures, and as a consequence of the information that was supplied to her, resigned from her post. It is not true that the ministerial code requires only a slap on the wrist for senior members of the Government—far from it. There are numerous examples of Ministers who have gone because they have inadvertently—not deliberately or maliciously—misled this House. Should the conclusion to the investigation be that people have misled the House, inadvertently or otherwise, resignations should follow. The public expect nothing less. Last night’s vote was an opportunity to draw a line under the sorry situation in which we find ourselves, because it is undermining our democracy and undermining this House, and it is time that it was drawn to a conclusion. Last night Conservative MPs missed that opportunity, but I do not think the public will when their time comes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Will Members look towards seven minutes for speeches, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) on a great speech and on bringing the motion to the House.

We have had cash for honours, cash for contracts and even cash for curtains. This is a Government drenched in dirty money and dodgy deals, and when the truth is laid bare for all to see, they resort to amending the ministerial code, changing the rules to save their skin. The changes made to the ministerial code are transparent and stand in stark contrast to what we have heard from the Minister today. Our constituents can see that the Prime Minister has blatantly amended the code to suit himself and has simply selected the elements of the Sue Gray report that fit his ever-concerning rhetoric. If, as the Minister suggested, all the recommendations had been taken on board, there would have been no need for the motion or for this debate.

The truth is that we deserve better from our elected leaders, and when they do not live up to our expectations, checks and balances should come into effect. They should prevent this very situation. They should maintain faith in our democracy. They should prevent a liar from ever residing in 10 Downing Street. But the system is broken, the scale is askew and only a strengthened ministerial code could set the House to rights.

Where will this end? A lawbreaker is now being allowed to remain as Prime Minister because his own MPs say so. Partying, lying, amending the ministerial code, voter suppression, watering down human rights—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. You used the word “lying”. May I ask you to withdraw it?

[Amy Callaghan]

I withdraw the word “lying”.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I referred a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot but I should have allocated my congratulations to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and I would not want them to be misallocated, so can I set the record straight?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you very much for that point of order, and you have done so.

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

If the House divides at the end of this debate, I shall be voting with the Opposition. Standards in public life are a foundation of our democracy. We must be able to have trust in those in public life, and we need Ministers, and especially a Prime Minister, to adhere to the ministerial code. Breaches of the Nolan principles and the ministerial code affect us all. It is fundamental that those in positions of power are honest and truthful; otherwise, we lose the trust of the public who elect us.

Independence is a word I am extremely fond of—indeed, I am wedded to it for Scotland’s sake—but we also need independence because we need a brake on this Prime Minister. He must not be judge and jury on the ministerial code, and I shall lay out my reasoning on this using the Nolan principles. Selflessness—denying yourself what you want for the greater good—is not what our current Prime Minister is noted for. My constituents showed selflessness during the pandemic for the common weal—the greater good. Our current Prime Minister did not. He carried on regardless, and permitted an ethos in Downing Street in which those working for him believed, as he did, that the rules did not and should not apply to them. They allowed guardians and security staff who knew wrongdoing was afoot to be belittled. Nae selflessness, then.

Again, the rules do not apply to the PM. His ethos was, “I want my flat refurbished, but I don’t want to pay for it myself.” But donations and loans were not registered with the Electoral Commission during the statutory time limit. Nae integrity there. This Government acted illegally, as judged by the High Court, by having a covid VIP lane to give money to individuals and companies run by friends and donors to the Tory party. Nae objectivity. Then there was the Owen Paterson debacle, where the Prime Minister tried to condone egregious lobbying and contracts awarded to Tory donors—a running theme. This Prime Minister and his Government believe they can do what they like, and there is nae accountability.

The Prime Minister knew he had attended parties at No. 10, but he used weasel words to try to deny it. He breached the ministerial code by using “terminological inexactitude”. For my constituents’ benefit: that is sometimes known by you as lying.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We are not having the word “lying”. That was stressed by the Speaker at the beginning of the debate, so please will you withdraw the word “lying”?

[Marion Fellows]

I will withdraw the word “lying”, and thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think my constituents struggle a bit with “terminological inexactitude”.

How does this Prime Minister deal with breaches of the ministerial code? Simple. You change it, or ignore it. So, nae openness. Partygate damaged our democracy, according to the Health Secretary, and since St Andrew’s day last year—189 days ago—we have heard nothing but, “We must move on. The Prime Minister saved us all during covid and he will save Ukraine. Nothing to see here, move along.” No acceptance of wrongdoing apart from set-piece apologies that were allegedly recanted at private meetings of the 1922 Committee. So nae honesty, either. To be a good—or even middling-to-good—leader, you need to have a moral compass. This Prime Minister has a well-hidden moral compass—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Was the hon. Lady trying to say that certain members of the Government were being dishonest when she said “nae honesty”?

[Marion Fellows]

Yes, I think that the Prime Minister—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Were you are accusing the Prime Minister of being dishonest? If so, can you withdraw that, too, please?

[Marion Fellows]

Sorry. Yes, of course.

Forty-one per cent. of the Prime Minister’s own MPs want him gone, a majority of his Back Benchers want him gone and even the Scottish Tories want him gone. It is worth repeating that former Tory MSP Adam Tomkins, a professor at the University of Glasgow, said:

“When a government asserts that the laws do not apply to it…such an assertion offends not only the law itself but our very idea of constitutional government.”

The former head of the Scottish Tories, Baroness Davidson, said the Prime Minister’s position is “untenable.” The Tory party knew what it was getting when it elected this Prime Minister as party leader, as he has a track record.

The current Tory leader in Scotland, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), has been doing the hokey-cokey on the Prime Minister: in, out, in, out. He has not been able to make up his mind, but apparently he knows now that the Prime Minister should not be in office because he has not exhibited the correct leadership.

We in Scotland have not voted for a Conservative Government for 60 years, but we keep getting them, and this one is the worst so far. The only way forward is independence. We need to break free of this corrupt Government and their leader, who does not think truth matters and who thinks the rules do not apply to him.

I never expected to be a Member of Parliament, but I have been honoured to be returned three times. During that time, I have seen for myself how the public have lost faith in politicians. We need strong, enforceable standards for those in public life, and we need stronger, more enforceable standards for Ministers, and especially the Prime Minister. We need to build back trust in politics. In Scotland we will do that best by achieving independence; and here we will do it best by supporting this motion.

Address to Her Majesty: Platinum Jubilee

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

On behalf of my constituents, it is a great privilege and honour to pay tribute to Her Majesty on an extraordinary achievement. We offer our deepest gratitude, thanks and congratulations for her sense of duty and public service, which has been the hallmark of her extraordinarily long reign, a reign that, I believe, was also inspired at least in part by her love for and dedication to her father, King George VI.

Not many monarchs make their platinum jubilee—yet another achievement in a long and accomplished reign. The vast majority of us have known no other monarch, so we are true Elizabethans. In a changing world, she remains a fixed point. Across seven decades, we have all benefited from Her Majesty’s quiet authority, dignity and firm understanding of the British people and our constitution. She has also been a great unifying force across the UK.

On the world stage, the Queen reigns supreme as a peerless ambassador not only for the United Kingdom, but for her example of selfless public service. She has been central in helping the country transition from empire to Commonwealth, to the benefit of all the countries and peoples involved. Her dedication and energy in serving her people are unparalleled in our history, and we all owe the Queen a huge debt of gratitude. She reminds us that leadership is about serving and, above all, leading by example.

At times, Her Majesty has steered our monarchy through challenging shoals, but there is little doubt that it now stands in good stead for the future. We recall the extraordinary photograph in which she featured along with the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and Prince George—our current Queen with the three future Kings. In a sometimes uncertain world, the monarchy is an important strength and stay.

In Her Majesty’s address on her 21st birthday she dedicated her life to the service of the Commonwealth and her people, whether it be long or short. We have been fortunate that she has been granted a long life, and long may she reign over us. I know that my constituents will join me, as we all agree in this place, in saying God save the Queen.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

“Short of words” is not a condition that many people associate with me, but I do not mind telling the House that on this occasion I have struggled to put into words how much I and so many people across Rushcliffe admire Her Majesty the Queen and how much the whole country owes her, although colleagues will see that I have got through that.

History is populated by many great figures—great leaders such as George Washington, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, great scientists such as Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Marie Curie, great authors such as Jane Austen and William Shakespeare—but the measure most often used to define historical eras is the reigns of great individual monarchs or families such as the Tudors and the Stuarts. The reigns of the greatest monarchs name entire eras, such as the Victorian era. What will future historians make of our era? What will they call us? I have a prediction. I believe that we will be a first: for the first time in history, an era will supplant an earlier one and take its name. I refer, of course, to the Elizabethans.

The era that we now call Elizabethan stretched from 1558 to 1603 with the reign of Elizabeth I. She represents a great era, with everything from our discovery of the Americas and the defeat of the Spanish Armada to the invention of the first flush toilet, but I believe that it is fated to be subsumed into the broader Tudor era. Five hundred years from now, when people talk about the Elizabethan era, they will talk about the reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; for her reign is longer, more significant and more transformative. Throughout it—as Mr Speaker himself has said—our country and our world have changed almost beyond recognition.

In eras past, the monarch was a remote, distant and unseen figure. Now, for the first time in history, our Queen has had a direct impact on a huge number of us. As the Leader of the Opposition said, hers is one of the most famous faces in the world—although perhaps not to everyone, everywhere. I recall the famous story of the time Her Majesty drove herself to the Royal Windsor horse show. Greeted by a guard who did not recognise her, she was told, “Sorry love, you can’t come in without a sticker.” The Queen, unfazed, replied, “I think that if you check, I will be allowed in.”

The Queen has transformed the relationship between the royal family and us, her subjects. For decades, she has been a steadying force at the heart of our country, but also a role model to so many. She epitomises duty, public service, and a tireless commitment to this country and to the Commonwealth. For the last 70 years, Her Majesty the Queen has worked on our behalf. Now, at the moment of her platinum jubilee, we come together to congratulate her, to celebrate her and to thank her for everything she has done for us.

It is my privilege to speak today as the Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, to thank and congratulate Her Majesty and to wish her well on behalf of our community. In Rushcliffe, we have a proud tradition of supporting Her Majesty and welcoming her when she visits. For example, at the time of the silver jubilee in 1977, Her Majesty came to the Trent Bridge cricket ground. She met the England and Australia teams during the Ashes test. We went on to win that Ashes series; here’s hoping that her talismanic properties see us reclaim the Ashes next year. I often visit schools and community groups in my constituency, and I am struck by the awe and respect shown by everyone to our Queen.

Her Majesty has seen political upheaval, personal tragedy, historic moments and great milestones, and she has always done so with a stoic and steely determination. Her personal sacrifice, sense of duty and commitment to public service have inspired many people to serve their local communities. Next week is also volunteers week, a time to celebrate and thank all the volunteers in our communities. In Rushcliffe, that includes the Trent District Community First Responders, Cotgrave Community Kitchen, Sewa Day, Renew 37, our parish councillors, the Friary, Ruddington Village Museum, the Framework Knitters Museum, Tara’s Angels and all those who lead the scouting and guide movements, among many others. It strikes me that the real tribute to Her Majesty is not just the celebrations we will have over the weekend, but the tireless work of the many volunteers at the heart of our communities that epitomises the service and duty she has shown.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Ordnance Survey maps place one of my villages, Dunsop Bridge, at the very centre of the United Kingdom. It is even marked by a special telephone box. On behalf of the people of Ribble Valley, at the very centre of Her Majesty’s kingdom, let me say, “Your Majesty, we thank you from the bottom of our hearts.”

I, like many of you—I listened to those wonderful speeches—will be celebrating over the next four days, attending many events, including the inevitable street party. I really look forward to that, because we will be royally celebrating this historic time in our nation’s history. How exciting is it for all of us to be alive at this time, as history is made? God save the Queen.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to offer the heartfelt good wishes and loyal devotion of the House on the occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of Her Accession to the Throne, expressing its deep gratitude for Her Majesty’s lifelong unstinting service, leadership and commitment to the United Kingdom, Dependencies and Territories, Her other Realms, and the Commonwealth.

Debate on the Address

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

This Queen’s Speech confirms what we already know: this Government lack the vision and the ability to tackle the main challenges of the day. Last week, we saw voters in Wales deliver their message to this Prime Minister loud and clear at the local elections, and it was a very good Friday indeed for the Labour party in Wales. I congratulate all the successful Welsh Labour candidates in Newport East, in Newport and in Monmouthshire on the mandates they secured. I particularly congratulate colleagues in Monmouthshire, whose work has resulted in the Conservative party losing its only council in Wales. Ambitious Labour-led councils, such as Newport, have shown and will continue to show that there is a kinder, more positive and more proactive alternative to the Tory way of doing things.

Given the message that was sent last week, I am deeply frustrated on behalf of constituents in Newport East that this Queen’s Speech has failed to deliver anything meaningful to help people cope with the cost of living crisis now. In fairness, expectations were low. We only have to watch the Prime Minister’s disastrous interview with Susanna Reid last week to see that those in power have such little understanding of the sacrifices people are having to make. In the past few days, we have been bombarded with news of how household energy bills could hit £3,000 a year by October, how fire services across the country are reporting that they are dealing with blazes caused by people burning scraps of wood to keep warm, and, as was widely reported, how more than 2 million people are not eating every day because they just cannot afford it.

How, in the fifth largest economy in the world, are we in a position where our people are resorting to skipping meals and burning offcuts of wood to keep their heads above water? With food prices continuing to increase, the situation will only get worse, not better. That is why we should have seen more action in this Queen’s Speech to tackle that and to support households.

This Government continue to hit people on modest incomes disproportionately, but there is no hope today for those families, just an energy Bill that will eventually make energy cheaper and a nod to working to ease inflation. Like other Members, I see messages and emails daily from people who have nowhere to turn, who just do not want to live a life where they are worrying about whether they can heat or eat. There was little today to help them now, or even in the short term. There is no emergency Budget and no extra help. Given that the things announced today are essentially the Government’s programme for the next two years, I worry about all those families who are already out of options.

If the Government have run out of ideas of their own, it is still not too late for them to adopt our proposal to keep energy bills lower through a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas profits. That move was referred to by the CEO of Tesco on Radio 4 today, and it would save every household hundreds of pounds a year on their fuel bills and provide much-needed additional support to the lowest-income households. That is the right and fair thing to do, but the Government continue to side with major firms, such as Centrica, which today announced that it expects its profits to hit the top of their expected range, and oil and gas companies that describe their situation as having more money than they know what to do with, rather than those ordinary families. That speaks volumes.

While the UK Government clearly do not get the scale of the problem, I am pleased that the Welsh Labour Government do, and it is worth sharing a contrast with the Welsh Labour Government. The extra support in Wales includes a £150 cost of living payment to all households in properties in council tax bands A to D and to all those in receipt of any council tax benefit. That goes further than the UK Government’s equivalent announcement for England. There will be an extension to the Welsh winter fuel support scheme, which will provide people on low incomes and others with a non-repayable £200 cash payment—“non-repayable” being the key word—to help with their energy bills later this year, which they will receive on top of the £200 loan from the Government.

Unlike the Government, I also want to talk about steel, which is another important issue for Newport East and, indeed, the whole UK, if the Government are actually serious about levelling up. There has been no reference to steel or the industrial strategy in any Queen’s Speech since 2019, and this one was no exception. I declare an interest as a Community union member. It has highlighted that the world cannot decarbonise without steel, whether it is to build wind turbines, electric vehicles, energy-efficient buildings or anything else. It is a foundation industry that we need for our defence and national security, which is particularly important at the moment.

Sadly, we have a Government who are willing only to do the bare minimum at moments of crisis for the industry and are otherwise more than prepared to leave the sector hanging without support. Steel workers in my constituency at Tata Llanwern and Liberty feel that acutely. They want a Government who will give them the vote of confidence they deserve. A pressing priority is steel safeguards and tariff rate quotas, which I hoped would be addressed in the Brexit measures in the Queen’s Speech. Ministers should also move forward on previous commitments to a thorough review of the trade remedies system to ensure that we have a trade defence system fit for the 21st century. UK Steel and the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries have been calling for that for some time, and swift action is needed. We also need action on high industrial energy prices. Other countries in Europe can step in and help their steel industry, so why can’t we?

While, on the surface, promises of more policing powers to make our streets safer sound welcome, there is no detail on how those additional powers will be resourced. The new recruits we have seen over the past year are of course welcome, but the Government need to stop claiming that they are employing extra police officers. They are not extra officers, but partial replacements for those they have cut since 2010. Today, we have 11,000 fewer police officers, 7,000 fewer police community support officers and 8,000 fewer police staff in work than we did when Labour left office in 2010. We need new police hubs in every community and more protection for victims of antisocial behaviour.

I cannot help but wonder whether the failure to mention Wales today is simply because the Government know how badly their announcement on the shared prosperity fund was received last month. With Wales facing a loss of more than £1 billion in unreplaced funding over the next three years, it begs the question as to whether the Prime Minister seriously thinks that the people of Wales have forgotten his Government’s “not a penny less” promise to at least match, post-Brexit, the size of the EU structural funds that Wales would have received.

Moving on to rail, I welcome work to modernise and improve rail services, but what plans are there in this Queen’s Speech for the Government to address the appalling rail infrastructure underfunding in Wales? Wales accounts for 11% of the UK rail network, but still receives only 2% of rail enhancement funding from the UK Government. Wales’s rail networks are underfunded by billions of pounds, and that needs addressing today. I urge the Government to take a strategic look at what they can do to improve cross-border transport between south-east Wales and the south-west of England. A new station for Magor would help, and I pay tribute to the volunteers at the Magor Action Group on Rail, who continue to campaign so hard for that. Action on the group’s plan would be a positive step in the right direction.

To finish on a slightly more positive note, there were rays of hope in the Government’s response to the Crouch review on football governance recently, which was referred to in the Queen’s Speech today. I hope we will soon see the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport make good on the pledge to introduce an independent football regulator. A timetable would be good, as would an assurance that Ministers will not cede to the demands of vested interests and delay or water down their plans on regulation. As Fair Game has highlighted, we also need an overhaul of the outdated parachute payments system and its replacement with a sustainability index that rewards conscientiously run clubs, such as Newport County AFC in my constituency, that prioritise good governance and strong relationships within the community. I hope that the Government will engage with Fair Game and other stakeholders over the coming months to ensure that momentum on these important changes is not lost, and that they will look at the Newport County model.

In short, what we have seen today is a Queen’s Speech that was written to shore up a listing PM, not a Queen’s Speech for families and workers who are looking for support right now. Deeply disappointing? Yes. Surprising? No.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We have about a dozen Members left who want to speak, and even without being told to keep her speech to roughly 10 minutes, Jessica Morden spoke for nine minutes, so everybody will get equal dibs if we can keep to time. I call Peter Aldous.