United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Paul Bristow Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

Yes, I am saying that, but that is also what the National Farmers Union is saying. It is also what the Institute for Government has pointed out. A number of other bodies have pointed out that this is just not necessary. We have something that we could work with, with co-operation, but of course, the UK Government do not want co-operation, consultation and working together. They just want to impose their will, and that is what they are trying to do again.

This Bill not only undermines the basic foundations of devolution but goes further, hitting all existing mechanisms for co-operation and the development of common frameworks. It is not this abomination that is required; it is the establishment of the common frameworks mutually agreed, developed and implemented through consent, with effective governance and processes for regulatory impact.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman called the Office for the Internal Market an unelected quango. Does he accept that, if he had his way, he would be handing powers back to unelected quangos in Brussels?

[Drew Hendry]

This is the argument that Government Members try to propagate all the time—that if these powers came to Scotland, they would immediately be transferred to unelected people in the EU. Two things are wrong with that. First, nobody in the EU is actually unelected when they make decisions; they are all elected by either the Parliament or the people who go there. The second and most fundamental point is that, under these proposals, the UK Government are simply taking all control and overriding the ability of Members of the Scottish Parliament to do their job by representing the people who voted for them and their choices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neale Hanvey]

The hon. Lady raises a really interesting point. I wanted to get it into my remarks, and she has now given me a very clear avenue in which to do it. I cannot understand how she could come up with the suggestion that the UK would enforce its own internal tariffs, but with regard to Scottish competitiveness in this internal market, Scotland is already at a disadvantage. There is a company in my constituency that imports chassis from the EU but does not make its lorries here completely—like many of its EU competitors, it buys certain parts and puts them together. Those EU companies would be allowed to import a fully completed vehicle without any tariff, while that company would be subject to a high tariff on the importation of those chassis and therefore at a competitive disadvantage. That is because of Brexit. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point. I would also be grateful if the Minister took cognisance of my comments and gave me a detailed response about how the Government will protect companies such as that in my constituency from this type of disadvantage in the importation of completed vehicles.

[Paul Bristow]

The internal market does not just guarantee costs and prices of things—it also guarantees standards. One of my favourite Scotland-to-England exports is BrewDog’s Punk IPA. How can the hon. Member, without the internal market, guarantee that my pint of Punk IPA in Peterborough is the same quality as in Aberdeen?

[Neale Hanvey]

I thank the hon. Member for raising yet another very helpful point. The problem is not whether the quality of Punk IPA will be consistently high in the north and the south, or even in Europe if it is still able to import it; the problem is that the quality at the lowest level will have to be accepted everywhere. It is not the highest level that is the issue; it is the lowest level. I will now try to make progress. I hope that it is now beginning to make sense, Dame Rosie, why I had that preamble.

As I said, devolution is the settled and robustly expressed will of the Scottish people, and it is for them alone to decide if it should ever be restricted or changed in any way. If this law had been in force during the past 20 years of devolution, it would have affected Scotland’s ability to prioritise important issues like free tuition for Scottish students or to set important health policies such as minimum unit pricing for alcohol and introducing the smoking ban before other nations. Those would all have been at risk and may not have happened. Looking forward, there are things like the procurement of changes to food standards that can be imposed on Scotland as devolution is reduced to the powers of compliance, complicity or subjugation. Can you imagine the howls from Government Members if the EU had proposed such legislation? Yet they are content to do this to Scotland, and then tell us that we should be grateful. What a charade!

Well, Scotland is not buying it and we are having none of it. This legislation strips powers of decision making away from our democratically elected representatives in Holyrood. In an email to MSPs on 14 September, the Royal Society of Edinburgh warned that, while final decision-making power ultimately would remain with the UK Government, the use of that authority by the CMA against the wishes of devolved Administrations

“would constitute a failure of intergovernmental relations”.

The reality is that part 4 grabs the powers of devolution and gives them to an unelected, barely accountable quango. The Bill grabs the powers of devolution, animal welfare, forestry, voting rights, food standards and energy—all currently the purview of the Scottish Parliament. The Government say that they are empowering Scotland; the truth is that they are robbing Scotland of democracy itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford]

I completely refute that point. In fact, I think the Bill will actually create a better working environment, as I said, by bringing the four components together. Since ’97, the Union has been pulling apart, and the Bill will actually bring the parties together, to talk better. That is why the SNP does not want the Bill, because the Bill actually says that we are one family. Yes, we have differences, and yes, we have different opinions, but we are a family and we need to work together. The Competition and Markets Authority is the Christmas table, bringing us all together from across the land to share the stuffed goose.

[Paul Bristow]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is essentially an economic argument, not a political argument, despite how much Members opposite—the nationalists—are trying to make it into a political argument?

[Alexander Stafford]

I completely agree—this is an economic thing. In fact, I am about to talk about clause 38, which brings me on to answer my hon. Friend’s point. Clause 38 says that the CMA is able to choose between a number of penalties to punish non-compliance, which is good, but is unable to levy a penalty against national or devolved Governments. It can therefore never be a stranglehold on Governments and can never be used as a tool between Governments; it is not going to bash the English Government or the Welsh Government or the Scottish Government. The CMA is actually a business body. This is not a political Bill but a Bill for business, because business will bring us together. Fundamentally, the Acts of Union of 1707 came together over business. Lest we forget, after Scotland’s failed colonial project in Panama, when Scotland went bankrupt, we had to come together to promote business. That is why the Acts of Union happened. This helps to create business.

Ultimately, the Bill ensures that high standards are protected across the whole UK. Our legislation will maintain consistently high standards across every part of it, promoting co-operation between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures. There will be no diminution of our food hygiene or animal welfare standards. I know that the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not buy into this nationalistic, manufactured hysteria. Scottish National party Members claim to represent all the people of Scotland. No, they do not. They represent their own views, and those of many people —I grant them that; many people want independence—but not the whole of Scotland. What represents the whole of Scotland support for business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.

The most important element of the debate around this Bill and its amendments is that the most successful union of nations in the world continues to thrive. The UK’s internal market has functioned seamlessly for centuries. Amendments to this Bill should be accepted only if they make this market more effective. We all have a duty in this House to prioritise that. The Government are absolutely right to ensure that there are no internal barriers to trade within the UK following the end of the transition period, so that business is able to trade unhindered across the United Kingdom.

As has been mentioned in this debate, the Bill establishes the Office for the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority to provide independent and technical advice to Parliament and the devolved Administrations together on regulations that may seek to damage the UK internal market. It will be responsible for monitoring and reporting on our own internal market, and it will do so impartially, away from the undue influence of Ministers, whether here at Westminster or in the devolved Administrations. This is important for obvious reasons. Ministers want and need technical advice. Goods and services must move unhindered and conform to the same standards and requirements whether they are sold in Peterborough, in Paisley, in Prestatyn or in Portrush.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is giving a very strong argument as to why this legislation is so important. Does he agree with Grahame Crook, the director of Kent Periscopes, in my constituency, who says:

“Barriers to trade within our own borders will not just be harmful but are patently ridiculous. We, the four nations of the United Kingdom, face enough challenges to our prosperity at the moment from outside forces–notably covid–without hobbling ourselves further by having restrictions on trade within the UK”?

[Paul Bristow]

I absolutely agree with the businessman in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I think it is the Federation of Small Businesses in Wales that has said that ensuring stability in the UK market is vital. What businesses in Peterborough want to hear is that they can trade freely across these islands. It is an economic argument, not a political argument, which is what many of the amendments tabled by the nationalists are. It seems ridiculous to have to say this, but the vast majority of business-to-business traders in the UK are selling to, and buying from, other businesses within the UK. The Scottish economy and Scottish jobs rely on UK-wide trade. The Welsh economy and the Welsh jobs rely on UK-wide trade. The Northern Irish economy and Northern Ireland jobs rely on UK-wide trade and, of course, the English economy and English jobs rely on UK-wide trade. The Office for the Internal Market is not there to lecture the devolved Administrations. Let me repeat the point that I made earlier: if the SNP had its way, it would hand the powers of the proposed OIM straight back to Brussels.

The nationalists are okay with quangos, just as long as they are European Union quangos and not British quangos. Let us be clear: as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) said earlier, the Scottish Retail Consortium has said:

“Scottish consumers and our economy as a whole benefit enormously from the UK’s largely unfettered internal single market”.

That is what is at stake. Would amendments 28 and 29 make the Scottish economy or Scottish jobs healthier? They would not, which is why we need to reject them.

The Office for the Internal Market is there to achieve the things I have described; it is not some sort of power grab. It will advise all four Governments of the United Kingdom, including the United Kingdom Government, as equals. As was said earlier, the internal market is a shared asset of all four nations. All four Governments need to be advised equally. If the internal market is a shared asset, we want it to work well.

New clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), would require that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Ministers have a say on who will advise them. I urge Ministers to give that due consideration and listen to those arguments, because if they do, we can avoid some of the politics that surround the argument. It does not matter how many manufactured grievances there are from the Scottish nationalists; we can avoid some of the politics and just get on with it and vote the Bill through unamended.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman is making some points on which we might be able to agree. The issue at hand is who sets the rules for the new UK internal market. Does he agree that the four Governments should play an equal role in setting the rules? Or does he believe that it is a matter for Westminster alone? That is the fundamental issue at hand.

[Paul Bristow]

I have heard the arguments, as have Ministers, I am sure. Points have been made about the internal market being a shared asset; having clear input from the devolved Administrations on who is appointed to the Office for the Internal Market would be an inherently good thing. I am sure that Ministers have heard those arguments, and if they have been heard, we can go ahead with the Bill unamended and just get on with it.

The CBI has said that protecting the internal market is essential and, as I said earlier, the Federation of Small Businesses in Wales has said that ensuring stability in the UK market is vital. Let us not mess around with the most successful internal market in the world, which has worked well for centuries; let us reject the amendments and vote for the Bill unamended.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.

I rise to speak to amendment 21 and new clauses 1 and 4, which I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have tabled with the purpose of building consensus, which has been sorely lacking in the whole process of the Bill. From the publication of the White Paper and its incredibly short consultation period back in July, to the rushed programme for debating the Bill, there is clearly no willingness on the Government’s part to find any degree of consensus. We have heard some of that rancour this afternoon.

The devolved Administrations have indicated that they are unlikely to give legislative consent to the Bill. Although it will not, that should be something that gives the Government pause for thought. It is not just the SNP that thinks the Bill does real damage to the devolved settlements, but Welsh Labour and colleagues in Plaid Cymru. As a Liberal Democrat, I must say that the Government are making it hard for those of us who want to keep the United Kingdom together to make the emotional case for doing so.

It seems easy to forget that just four years ago the Conservative Government were passing the Scotland Act 2016. That piece of legislation was grounded in consensus and, although it was an Act of the UK Parliament, the Smith commission that preceded it was made up of Scottish political party representatives. I am afraid that in the past year the Government have taken us far away from that model of consensus.

The Government have been determined to leave the customs union and the single market above all else, and the Bill is a clear indication of that. I fear there has been no consideration of cost, and not simply in financial terms. The Prime Minister signed a withdrawal agreement that created a border in the Irish sea—one voted for in January and overturned by the Bill we are debating. How many more people in constituencies such as North East Fife that voted clearly to remain in the EU are the Government willing to alienate?

It is a matter not just of conduct but of the practical realities. For example, the University of St Andrews, the largest employer in my constituency, has ongoing concerns, not assuaged by this Government’s current actions, about the impact of our final departure from the EU in December. I urge the Government to change tack. Surely working in co-operation and trying to find consensus should be the way to demonstrate Government good faith in the UK and its workings. That is why I have tabled my amendments, along with my parliamentary colleagues.

New clause 4 and amendment 21 try to take some of the spirit of what was in the Scotland Act 2016 and apply it to this Bill. I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who is now back in his place, and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for their supportive comments on them. I hope that the Government will give some indication of seriously considering them.

One of the steps recommended by the Smith commission was put into law by section 65 of the Scotland Act, which gave Scottish Ministers the power to appoint a member to the panel of Ofcom. This Bill creates new responsibilities for the Competition and Markets Authority —a body, as has been well debated already, whose public appointees are chosen by the Secretary of State for Business in the UK Government. As others have rightly pointed out, the Government have a less than transparent approach to appointments and contracts of late. Would it not be simpler to mirror what the Scotland Act did for Ofcom for the CMA, given the Government’s intention that the CMA has a very important role in relation to the functioning of the Union? That is what new clause 4 is about. It would give the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations the ability each to appoint a member of the CMA board, giving them a degree of buy-in to this body. I really hope that the Government will consider supporting the new clause. There is a clear precedent for it in the Scotland Act. It would give the devolved nations a degree of ownership over the CMA and make it a more collective body.

Amendment 21 tries to ensure that, as this raft of new responsibilities is going to the CMA, there is proper buy-in and consultation with the devolved Governments in that regard. Again, this is based on provisions that currently exist in law in the Scotland Act, which specified that for agencies such as the Maritime and Coast- guard Agency there should be consultation with the Scottish Government about their strategic priorities in the exercising of their functions. Consensus, consultation and collaboration, with a four-nations approach, should be the root of all we do as a United Kingdom. It should be and must be our starting point.

One of the key concerns around this Bill is the fear of a race to the bottom, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) said. One easy way that the Government could assuage these fears is by accepting likely amendments to the Trade Bill and the Agriculture Bill in the Lords, which they have previously failed to do in this place.

New clause 1 fills in one of the missing pieces of the Bill but also provides an opportunity to strengthen intergovernmental relationships. The White Paper for the Bill posed the question of what body to use to examine the functioning of the internal market, but it did not discuss what to do when there is a dispute, nor is this answered in the Bill itself. I find that strange, because there is lots in part 4, not least in clause 32, dedicated to the CMA investigating whether a provision passed by a national authority has a detrimental effect on the functioning of the internal market. If the CMA does indeed find that there is a detrimental effect, then other than clause 33, which states that the relevant Administration should table a written statement in their respective Parliament in response to the report, not a hint of the process to be used to reach a resolution in order to do that is detailed. It may be that the UK Government are intending for dispute resolution to take place within existing intergovernmental bodies such as the Joint Ministerial Committee. As part of the ongoing review taking place, that may well be the case, but it is important that that is set out. It is also important that such a decision is made with the support of the devolved Administrations. New clause 1 will ensure that the Secretary of State has to carry out that process of consultation and that any dispute resolution mechanism provides for representation from each of the devolved nations.

The Joint Ministerial Committee has been at the heart of the devolution settlement for the past 20 years, as the previous Parliament’s Scottish Affairs Committee reported in its inquiry into devolution, but it has its limitations. The Committee’s inquiry found that the

“existing setup and organisation of the JMC has resulted in it being predominantly controlled by the UK Government”,

which has “limited its effectiveness”. In the Committee’s current inquiry into coronavirus, we heard that the JMC has not even met during the pandemic. There is also no formal mechanism for coming to agreement or resolving disputes generally. As I said, there is an ongoing joint review of intergovernmental machinery. The Minister mentioned that that is due to report by the end of the year, but it has been ongoing since March 2018. New clause 1 would set the UK Government and the devolved nations on a path to a dispute resolution mechanism. Fundamentally, we need a route to rebalancing the relationship between the four nations and moving to a more equitable, and arguably more federal, United Kingdom.