CCRC Decision on 44 Post Office Prosecutions

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the 44 Post Office prosecutions overturned by the CCRC.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I appreciate the urgent question. The Government recognise that the Horizon dispute has had a hugely damaging effect on the lives of affected postmasters and their families, and its repercussions are still being felt today. I have spoken to a number of postmasters who have been affected by this ordeal.

On 2 October, the Post Office formally responded to the Court of Appeal and Southwark Crown court regarding convicted postmasters whose cases were referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The Post Office has stated that it will not oppose 44 out of the 47 cases. The Post Office also sincerely apologised to postmasters for historical failings and underlined its commitment to delivering a fundamental review of the businesses and to resetting its relationship with postmasters, to ensure that this never happens again.

This decision by the Post Office is an important milestone for postmasters whose convictions are part of this appeals process. Friday’s announcement was not, however, the end of that process. It is now for the courts to decide whether the convictions should be overturned. It would not therefore be appropriate for the Government to comment on these cases until that process is complete.

The Post Office continues to co-operate fully with the CCRC and is in the process of reviewing about 900 historical prosecutions. Should it find any new information that may cast doubt on the safety of a conviction, it has confirmed that it will disclose that information to the person who is convicted. We will continue to monitor the work of the Post Office closely. In addition, I am pleased that the Government last week launched an inquiry, chaired by retired High Court judge Sir Wyn Williams, which will gather relevant available evidence to provide a public summary of the failings that occurred in relation to Horizon and assess whether lessons have been learned and concrete changes have taken place, or at least are under way, at the Post Office.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I had high hopes for the Minister when he was appointed, but unfortunately he is reverting to type, like all his predecessors I have had to deal with over the last eight years. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), Lord Arbuthnot and I have been campaigning on this issue for nearly nine years, and I know that many other Members across the House have individual cases and have been involved in this. It is six years since the three of us met the CCRC, and I am pleased that Friday’s announcement made it clear that the Post Office would not pursue 44 of the cases. But those are simple words, and they belie the agony and torment of these individuals and of hundreds of other individuals who have lost their livelihoods, their good names and, in some cases, their freedom. In other cases, people have lost their lives.

I am sorry, Minister, but what you have said today is not good enough. I cannot get over the fact that this scandal—that is what it is—is still being treated as somehow an issue of the Post Office. The Government are the single shareholder in the Post Office; they are the ones who can actually make some changes, so I would like to ask them some direct questions.

First, as the single shareholder, were the Government involved in the decision not to take forward these prosecutions, in the same way they were involved with the £100 million they spent in defending the civil case last year? Secondly, in terms of the convictions that have been overturned, the Minister said in June that there would be a process in place for compensation. Will he announce a compensation process, or will these people have to pursue cases through the court for compensation? Can I also ask where we are at with the historic compensation process? I understand that 2,000 claims have been made, but not a penny has yet been paid out.

Finally, can I put this issue to the Minister? I am sorry, but the review he has announced is not good enough. It may have a retired judge at its head, but he does not have the powers to summon witnesses and cross-examine them. A full public inquiry is needed. Without that, we will not get to the truth of what is, as I have already said, a national scandal.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those points, and I will try to deal with them directly. The decision to prosecute postmasters was an operational matter for the Post Office, and the Government are not involved in operational decisions. However, in hindsight, knowing what we know now, it is clear that different conclusions could and should have been reached by the Post Office, and that is why the inquiry is there to look at the lessons.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about a route for compensation, should postmasters who have been convicted have their convictions overturned. There are processes in place for them to receive compensation if appropriate, and that includes a statutory scheme under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

In terms of the latest update on the historical shortfall scheme, the Post Office launched the scheme on 1 May to allow postmasters who were not part of the group litigation to have issues with shortfalls recorded in Horizon investigated and addressed. The window for applications formally closed on 14 August, but late applications are being considered by the Post Office on a case-by-case basis. There have been over 2,200 claims, and the independent panel advising the Post Office on the scheme is now assessing those.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the inquiry. A judge-led inquiry is very much what was asked for. We have Sir Wyn Williams, a former judge, at the head of that. He will be an independent chair; he will be able to ask the questions, push back at the Government and the Post Office, and get evidence. The reason it is an inquiry rather than a review is that, reflecting on the way its remit was worded, I have always wanted it to be a backward-looking review that enabled evidence to be sought, rather than to be done on just a desktop basis. We have clarified that in the written statement, and I believe this is the inquiry—albeit on a non-statutory basis—that will actually get the answers, and do it in a quick way that hopefully satisfies the sub-postmasters and gets the answers they want.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

Almost 20 years ago, Telford resident Tracy Felstead—then a 19-year-old post office clerk—was wrongly convicted and jailed because of a glitch in the Post Office computer system. Last week, the Post Office finally conceded defeat in the long-running battle between David and Goliath. How did a respectable organisation such as the Post Office, a major software company such as for Fujitsu, the great and the good in the civil service, and Ministers from all parties fall prey to groupthink on such a grand scale, so that, despite this computer error occurring across the country, it was assumed that the only possible explanation was that all sub-postmasters affected were dishonest? What action will my hon. Friend take to ensure the Post Office and Fujitsu are properly held to account, and will he commit to determining who knew what and when during this shameful saga?

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to get to the bottom of who knew what and when. That is why I am determined that, under Sir Wyn Williams’ chairmanship, we can seek evidence to complement what is already available from Mr Justice Fraser’s findings by speaking to the Post Office and Fujitsu, who have agreed to comply fully with this inquiry. I also hope that sub-postmasters will, through conversation with Sir Wyn Williams, agree to get involved so that they can share their evidence and stories and so that we can get to the bottom of this, exactly as my hon. Friend says.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]]

The Post Office Horizon scandal may well be the largest miscarriage of justice in our history, with 900 prosecutions, innocent people bankrupted and imprisoned, careers ruined, families destroyed, reputations smashed and lives lost. I pay tribute to the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance and all who campaigned with them, including Members on all sides of the House, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who secured this urgent question.

For decades, the Post Office denied all wrongdoing, imposing huge stress and legal fees on the victims and spending tens of millions of pounds in the process. Friday’s announcement is a welcome relief for so many, but can the Minister tell us why, as its only shareholder, the Government allowed the Post Office to continue to oppose the appeals for so long? Far from it being merely an operational matter, as the Minister has said, will he admit that this represents a gross failure of oversight, and will he tell us how much this has cost the Post Office and, ultimately, the taxpayer? What is the estimated cost of the compensation that will now need to be paid to those prosecuted, and what of those who were pursued, harassed and bankrupted, but not ultimately prosecuted? It is right that the Government have finally announced a judge-led inquiry into this scandal, which Labour called for months ago, but despite this House having expressed its concerns forcefully, the terms of reference deliberately exclude compensation. Will the Minister amend the terms of reference to include compensation and deliver true justice for the victims?

A miscarriage of justice on this scale undermines confidence in the justice system. Is it right that the Post Office has the power of independent prosecution, and is the Minister reviewing it? The victims need justice, not more unanswered questions. The taxpayer needs to know just how much this failure of oversight has, and will, cost. Finally, the Government need to take responsibility for this debacle and ensure nothing like it can ever happen again.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question—there were a number of questions in that. In terms of the Government’s involvement, as I say, the Post Office’s decisions are operational decisions for it and its board. What happened when—whether there was any Government involvement in terms of the Government shareholder, the board’s appointee, as well as the Post Office—will come up in the independent inquiry, and it is right that they are questioned so that we find out what happened and when.

On the issue of compensation, if the sub-postmasters get involved in this inquiry and share their evidence, they will be able to share their stories and the losses that they have made, both directly and indirectly. However, an inquiry cannot direct compensation; ultimately, that has to be done through the courts.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

It is clearly not this very good Minister’s fault, but it is clear, is it not, that a monstrous injustice by the state has been visited upon these poor postmasters and postmistresses, leaving us all, I would hope, extremely uneasy. By refusing to allow the inquiry even to consider the compensation that they should be given, are not the Government, who own, fund and direct the Post Office, in danger of making an already truly dreadful situation even worse?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my right hon. Friend for those personal comments. We are constituency MPs as well, so we can all, I hope, share the horror when we hear the stories of those people, who could easily have been constituents of mine. In terms of compensation, as I say, there are avenues open to those who have been wrongfully prosecuted, there is reason for people to be able to talk about their losses, and it is then for Sir Wyn Williams to present his findings when he concludes the independent inquiry.

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

During this pandemic, the post office network has shown what a valuable community asset it is. Cases being reviewed in Scotland and the rest of the UK should result in financial compensation to all those innocent people who suffered as a result of the Horizon scandal. I pay tribute to all who have worked for justice in these cases. Will the Minister commit today to ensuring that the costs do not put the post office network at further financial risks? Also, does he still not understand that a non-statutory review is not an independent inquiry, as was promised by the Prime Minister?

[Paul Scully]

In terms of the post office network, it is up to the Post Office to work out how best to compensate people, and it will be looking at that in due course. We will continue to work with the new chief executive, Nick Read, who is looking to put the future relationship with postmasters on a sure footing. In terms of an independent inquiry, this is the judge-led inquiry that has been asked for, albeit on a non-statutory footing. It is judge-led and it is backward looking, in terms of taking evidence from all those involved. When the hon. Lady sees the findings at the end, I hope she will see that, although perhaps not everybody will get everything they want, we will get answers about who knew what, when.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) [V]]

May I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing this urgent question? The Minister is well aware of my long-term interest in this topic, which has been a running sore for far too long. How confident is he that the review that he announced last week will gain the support and participation of all the stakeholders involved in this issue, and will it be able to hold to account and hold responsible those who allowed this gross miscarriage of justice to occur? If it cannot do the first of those, what confidence can he have that it will ensure that this intolerable situation will never ever be repeated?

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly good point. It is important, first, that Sir Wyn Williams engages with the sub-postmasters, led by Alan Bates, as part of the group litigation, to explain how he intends to investigate and take evidence, and I hope that they would therefore engage. I have talked about the fact that the Post Office and Fujitsu are ready to comply fully with the investigation, but if there are important people with important evidence that is not coming out, for whatever reason, there are mechanisms available to the chairman, Sir Wyn Williams, to look at that further and to re-evaluate.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Two post offices in my constituency are threatened with closure because of the difficulty of recruiting new sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses. What impact does the Minister think the appalling case of Horizon has had on recruitment? Is he anxious about the future of post offices, particularly rural ones but even those in urban constituencies such as mine? What is the Department doing to work with the Post Office on this issue?

[Paul Scully]

Yes, I am anxious, because it is important that we keep the network up at the target level we set of 11,500. The hon. Lady is right that some of the difficulty is due to the situation gone by; some of it is due to the ongoing complexity of the Horizon system and resource availability. I am glad that the chief executive, Nick Read, comes from a business where he is used to dealing with people as stakeholders, not just as employees, so engaging in a more positive future relationship with postmasters. She is right to talk about rural and urban areas. In London, although clearly we do not want to lose post offices, it is relatively easy compared with some rural areas to get to the next post office, but that is not an excuse to diminish the network in London.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

In his previous response, the Minister said he is anxious about the future of the network. I welcome the statement that the Post Office wants to reset the relationship with sub-postmasters, but if he is anxious, what measures is he going to take to make sure that that actually happens? He says that he expects compensation from the Post Office “in due course”, but will he put a timescale on that?

[Paul Scully]

On compensation, it depends on the situation of the people involved. Those who have been wrongfully convicted have recourse through the courts. I have regular contact with Nick Read, the chief executive, and other members of the board to make sure that we look at post office closures as reported to me by MPs and from updates, and increase and improve recruitment of postmasters, which will be achieved through a better future relationship.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Will the Minister join me in thanking all those at the Post Office and Royal Mail who have kept us all going throughout this crisis? As we know, a disproportionate number are from BME communities, who have experienced such death and suffering, like my constituent Varchas Patel and his family. They are pleased that their appeal is not being contested, but they wonder what action is now being taken against those at the top—those in management and leadership positions in the organisation—who presided over this scandal. Or are this algorithm-obsessed Government stuck in a “computer says no” mode?

[Paul Scully]

I can assure the hon. Lady that the computer very much says yes, which is why we have launched an independent inquiry.

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

I have not yet had the chance in this place to congratulate my constituency neighbour and former boss on his ministerial appointment.

I have met Carshalton and Wallington residents, including Nirmala Fatania, who have been affected by the Horizon scandal and whose lives have been turned upside down. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Post Office will co-operate fully with the inquiry, that we will learn the necessary lessons, and that we will make sure that nothing like this ever happens again?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend—I did not ask him to say what he did, but it is gratefully received and he can come again.

All of us as constituency MPs hear from people like Nirmala Fatania. We are determined to get the answers through the independent inquiry, so that this can never happen again.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that those present or former Post Office officials who perpetrated this disaster and perpetuated the agony of the victims must be punished, not promoted, and shamed, rather than rewarded with honours, as I believe happened in at least one prominent instance?

[Paul Scully]

Yes, the Honours Committee and any future employers need to look at the background of any person involved in this. However, as I said, the inquiry is independent, and I do not want to stamp my authority on it. It is now for Sir Wyn Williams to question people and get answers. I want everyone, including people at the Post Office who were involved and are now no longer employed there, to engage in the process.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

For years, pleas from MPs to address this scandal have been ignored because of the Government’s cosy relationship with the Post Office. My constituents Kevin and Julie Carter and Dionne Andrew, like hundreds of others, have had to fight for justice every step of the way as they try to clear their names. They have lost more than the Minister can ever comprehend. What protections will the Government put in place so that never again can powerful organisations behave in this way and use the criminal courts with such unaccountability?

[Paul Scully]

I am glad to report that the Post Office is not using private prosecutions any more—the Justice Committee met last week to talk about private prosecutions—but the hon. Member is absolutely right to talk about her constituents and the losses they have suffered. I am glad that the independent inquiry will be able to get to the bottom of that to make sure that it can never happen again.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

In my previous life, I remember collecting the mail from post office branches at the time the Horizon scandal was happening. I remember vividly the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses not being able to balance the tills at that time, and having the stress and anguish of that resting over them. While it is absolutely right that we recognise the hole the Post Office is in, it is worth remembering that at its heart—its very core—is not some mythical bogeyman, but hard-working sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses across the country. The reputational damage that has been done by the Horizon scandal threatens their very livelihoods, and we need to act on this now. With the traditional banking system closing many of the branches in rural communities, what can the Department do to ensure that post office branches have a workable banking system and can offer other services to make these vital rural services more viable?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important point. It is important to remember what a vital service the post office is for all of us, and we must make sure that while we are looking backwards at the situation with sub-postmasters, we do not threaten the future viability of the network. On banking, we are working with the Post Office as it introduces greater services for various banks to expand the branches and the types of banks they can deal with in-house.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]]

I would urge the 73 Scottish cases whose convictions may be unsafe as a result of this injustice, which was overseen by consecutive Labour, Tory and Lib Dem Ministers, to contact the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission as a matter of urgency. Will the Minister, with his predecessors, write a cross-party letter to the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance apologising for the parts they have played in this saga?

[Paul Scully]

I would echo the hon. Gentleman’s call for people to make sure they are in touch if they believe their convictions are not safe, because the Post Office is determined to make sure, as it looks back and reviews those 900 prosecutions, that it will be in contact—it is committed to being in contact itself—with anybody it feels is part of the Horizon process.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

Last week, the Justice Committee, of which I am a member, published a report into private prosecutions, which was prompted by the Horizon scandal. Does my hon. Friend agree with its recommendation that any organisation that conducts a substantial number of private prosecutions should be required to meet the same standards of regulation, accountability and transparency as public prosecutors, and will he discuss that with the Lord Chancellor as a matter of urgency?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for that, and as I have said, I pay tribute to the work that the Committee has done. The Government will certainly consider the very many sensible points that have been raised in the report, and we will report back in due course.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]]

My constituent Della Robinson was formerly a local sub-postmistress in Dukinfield, and she lost almost everything in this scandal, including her reputation. I welcome the latest announcement, but when did the Minister know that the Post Office would not oppose the appeals, what discussions did he have with Post Office officials and did they discuss the amount this would cost the Post Office and, ultimately, taxpayers?

[Paul Scully]

We discuss that with the Post Office regularly, and it is the Post Office’s decision not to oppose the appeals. This is clearly part of the recognition that it got things wrong so much over a period of time. I am glad that this change of approach is something that can get to the bottom of sub-postmasters’ questions and clearly right the wrongs of the past.

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

My father used to be a postman, and I know the vital role that postmasters play in serving many of our communities, especially in rural areas such as High Peak, but the way that many of them have been treated during this scandal is appalling. Can the Minister assure me that he will do everything he can to make certain the Post Office keeps to the commitments it has now made, and that we learn the lessons so that something like this can never happen again?

[Paul Scully]

My uncle was a sub-postmaster in a rural area, and I saw the way he worked; that predated Horizon. We have watched people like him and my hon. Friend’s father work so hard in their communities, and the last thing they should expect is the scandal that has befallen some of these individuals. We must make sure that through this independent inquiry we get the answers so it can never happen again.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Is the Minister aware that I chair the all-party miscarriages of justice group? I have never seen anything as awful as this: so many people’s lives made a misery; their reputations ruined; their whole future and their families broken up. This is so important that I would have expected today at least the Secretary of State on his knees in sackcloth and ashes. Will the Minister make sure that these people get justice, because this was not done by machines or computers; it was done and organised and managed by people, and they should be held to account? Does the Minister agree?

[Paul Scully]

The brief answer is no in terms of the chairmanship; in terms of the Secretary of State and sackcloth and ashes, I am the postal affairs Minister so I am the one who set up the inquiry and I am determined that we get the answers the hon. Gentleman is seeking.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I, too, put on record my thanks to our community post offices; they have provided a vital lifeline during this pandemic in my villages and towns in Colne Valley. In terms of the inquiry, can the Minister assure me that my constituent, Maria, who is one of the victims of this scandal, and all the other victims will be able to give evidence so that they will be heard, and that we will get some conclusion to this inquiry within the next year?

[Paul Scully]

It is up to Sir Wyn Williams how he wants to frame that inquiry, but it is absolutely set up for sub-postmasters to have their voices heard and to report back within about a year.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]]

I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and agree with what he said. This has been a dreadful affair during which neither the Post Office nor the Government have covered themselves in glory. A constituent of mine was sent to prison as a result of Horizon issues and was forced to sell their family home, leading to the breakdown of their marriage, yet in a letter to me the Government said they had no plans to prosecute anyone as a number of decision makers were involved. My constituent’s life is in tatters; who is going to be held responsible?

[Paul Scully]

On who is held responsible, let us wait for the response from Sir Wyn Williams and the independent inquiry. I know that, from Justice Fraser’s findings, some names have been recommended to the Crown Prosecution Service for it to discuss and investigate.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Like other Members across the House, I have constituents whose lives have been destroyed by this scandal, and I welcome the establishment of the inquiry. Can the Minister assure me that any recommendations that emerge from it will be acted on promptly, and will he undertake immediately to speak to senior management at the Post Office to establish whether structures are now in place to ensure that nothing like this could happen in the interim?

[Paul Scully]

Absolutely: I want to ensure this is dealt with in a timely fashion, and we will take all the recommendations very seriously, because we want to get to the bottom of this. I continue to work with, and speak to, Nick Read, the chief executive, and listen to him and push him to ensure that the lessons have been learned and the structures are in place.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

Campaigners have labelled the review into the Post Office as a whitewash and a betrayal, and instead are calling for a full independent inquiry with statutory powers, as agreed by the Prime Minister in response to my question to him in February, so will the Minister confirm that statutory powers will be given to the inquiry, meaning that full accounts from former sub-postmasters will be heard as evidence and witnesses will be cross-examined, to ensure that proper justice is served?

[Paul Scully]

The Prime Minister promised an independent inquiry, and that is what we have announced. We want to make sure that postmasters engage with it. The Post Office and Fujitsu have also said they will engage with it. It is now for Sir Wyn Williams to instigate the inquiry and get it under way, and he can always report back if he finds he is not getting the support he needs.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

When you have caught and removed the fox from the henhouse, it is never a good idea to put it back in there to compensate the rest of the chickens. We did exactly that with Lloyds, and I fear we are doing exactly that with the Post Office. There is no obvious means of compensation for those with criminal convictions. The jury is out on the historic shortfall scheme, and those who are employed as sub-postmasters through McColl’s or the Co-op have no direct means of compensation. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committed to making sure that every single person who was disadvantaged is fairly compensated?

[Paul Scully]

There is a separate director within Post Office Ltd who is looking specifically at the historic shortfall scheme to make sure that the rest of Post Office Ltd has the capacity to reset its relationship with postmasters, but we will of course look at Sir Wyn Williams’s findings. Postmasters who have had wrongful convictions have other methods of compensation, as I outlined in my original statement.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]]

My constituent Tracy Major was falsely accused of stealing £24,000 from Anlaby Park post office. She was innocent. She has had her reputation destroyed, she has suffered unimaginable stress, and she is also looking at losing more than £150,000. She has received only £20,000 in compensation. How will the Government and the Post Office ensure she has the justice she deserves?

[Paul Scully]

If the hon. Lady’s constituent was in the group litigation, the compensation was settled in a full and final settlement that was agreed with the Post Office. The Post Office has said it will not contest the wrongful convictions. We will see what happens in the courts, but anybody who has been wrongfully convicted who was not part of that group litigation will have other methods of returning to compensation.

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) [V]]

Sub-postmasters often operate in very small communities where everybody knows each other. This has been an incredibly painful experience for them, their families and their communities. I welcome the establishment of the inquiry, but will the Minister please assure us that it will not be a whitewash? Many sub-postmasters in my constituency are anxious to know that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that it will not be a whitewash. I am determined to get the answers we need from the Post Office and Fujitsu and, indeed, from Government in terms of our role. We want to hear from sub-postmasters about their stories, their evidence and their losses. It is now for Sir Wyn Williams, a retired judge, to get to the bottom of it and to get those questions answered.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

People have had their reputations trashed. They have been made bankrupt. Others have gone to prison. What is the Minister doing to ensure that they are assisted while we wait for this inquiry? What we do not need is justice delayed and justice denied. We need action now, so what is he doing to assist those who are in real difficulties?

[Paul Scully]

What I am doing is announcing the inquiry; one of the big reasons I did not want it to be a statutory inquiry, although I can understand the impetus, is that statutory inquiries can last for decades sometimes and cause even more expense. In this way, we can get the answers within a year, I hope, so that we can put this issue to bed and get the answers that people want.

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

The Minister is aware of the Justice Committee’s report on this matter. He will know that any wrongful conviction potentially undermines the whole of the justice system. Rather than waiting a year for the outcome of this review, will he meet urgently with the Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), to discuss the specific recommendations that the Committee makes in its report to ensure that safeguards are applied? Through that, we can ensure that the standards applied by those who have the power to bring private prosecutions are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) said, never less than those applied by the Crown Prosecution Service. Being judge, jury, investigator and victim potentially creates very great conflicts of interest.

[Paul Scully]

I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Justice Committee for all the work he has done and for the report the Committee published last week. I am always happy to speak to the Attorney General, and I will definitely take consideration in due course of that report.

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

I welcome the progress that we have made thus far in getting at least an element of judicial oversight of this inquiry. Like others, I remain sceptical about whether it will be sufficient, but to proceed on the basis that it is, and that the undertakings that the Minister has given the House today are sufficient to do the job, will he now look at the damage that has been done to the availability of postmasters as a whole across the whole of the country? Communities such as mine rely on them very heavily, and it is becoming more and more difficult with every month that passes to fill those very important positions.

[Paul Scully]

I absolutely see the right hon. Gentleman’s point. This may well be a contributing factor, but there are plenty of other factors that make it difficult to recruit postmasters, particularly in areas such as his. However, we will do whatever we can to fill those places and keep that network up.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

The Horizon litigation process has caused immeasurable financial and emotional suffering and distress to the sub-postmasters who have been affected, including some of my constituents. Will my hon. Friend commit to studying whatever recommendations may come forward from the inquiry to ensure that this never happens again?

[Paul Scully]

Yes—one of the reasons for making it a non-statutory inquiry is so that we can get the answers quickly, study them, put things in place, and ensure that the Post Office has put the structures in place to ensure that it never happens again. We can keep its feet to the fire to make that work.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

The Communication Workers Union has been campaigning on this issue for a long time. I join others in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for getting this urgent question. The inquiry that the Minister has set up seems to lack statutory powers. Will he comment on that? I know that he has made other comments on that matter. Also, how much taxpayers’ money was spent opposing appeals on the sub-postmaster scandal?

[Paul Scully]

On a statutory inquiry, as I have said in a number of answers, I want to ensure that we can get the answers quickly, rather than having people, as I described in a previous answer, lawyering up, which adds expense and time for the postmasters who have been through so much. I deal with the CWU on a regular basis. In terms of taxpayers’ money, the Post Office has funded the prosecutions through its own profits.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Sometimes when we hear the words “lessons learned” it can sound a little glib, if not a little trite. Given the extent and the depth of the harm caused by this scandal, can the Minister assure me and the House that we will get to the very bottom of what has gone wrong?

[Paul Scully]

Nobody but nobody, least of all me, can fail to be appalled by what we read about some of the situations, and some of the hardship and worse that many constituents have been through. That is why I am determined to listen to the evidence to ensure that we get those answers, so that it can never happen again.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The truth is that Ministers have set up a half-baked inquiry in response to this extraordinary scandal, without the powers to fully get to the bottom of this mess. Will the Minister at least commit to returning to this House to set out in full both the compensation arrangements and any financial implications for the future of the Post Office?

[Paul Scully]

Let us see what the result is from Sir Wyn Williams’ investigations and inquiry in the first place. Compensation is a matter for the Post Office, which has talked about the historical shortfall scheme. It wants to ensure that people who are wrongfully convicted are compensated accordingly.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s decision to seek justice for sub-postmasters. What steps is he taking to support victims of this scandal now, and to ensure that such mistakes never happen again?

[Paul Scully]

On what we can do, we can look for those answers now—not in five or 10 years’ time. These people have suffered enough. They need answers, and they need to be able to draw a line under the stigma that has been attached to so many. That is why the independent inquiry needs to report back, hopefully within around a year, to be able to draw that line for them.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]]

The Minister says he does not want a statutory inquiry. I think many of those affected will be sceptical about his reasons for that. Hundreds of people have been wrongly sued and pursued, with many imprisoned and many more losing their businesses and livelihoods. His Government and previous Governments have been central to an epic scandal. The Prime Minister promised a full independent inquiry. Why is that promise now being broken, like so many others by his Government?

[Paul Scully]

The inquiry is both independent and in full. It is one thing the Prime Minister promised, and it is one thing we have delivered. It has taken too long to get there, but we will get those answers in a few short months.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Covid-19: Maternity and Parental Leave

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and the Petitions Committee on bringing forward this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on the way she has conducted it and reflected the campaign of the many petitioners. As she knows, I sat on the Petitions Committee for a number of years, so I know from personal experience how important and valuable it is.

I am sure we can agree that this has been an interesting and informative debate. I am grateful to everybody who has contributed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) both have previous experience that showed up in their comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) always speaks with common sense, and the rational and reasonable thinking with which he cut through these issues was very welcome. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) has not been in this place for long, I think she has a great future ahead of her. The professional approach and experience that she brought to bear made hers a particularly insightful and welcome contribution.

The online petition asked the Government to extend maternity pay because of concerns about the lack of opportunities for parents, and mothers in particular, throughout the lockdown. Petitioners pointed out the activities, such as baby groups, which could not occur during the lockdown, and how vital they are for children’s development. We have heard a lot about that in this debate. As a father, I know how important social contact is with family, friends and other new parents. It has been quite a while since my children were in their first months and years—they are now in their 20s—but I do vaguely remember those days a couple of decades ago, and just how important such contact is. It provides invaluable support at times of significant change, and I sympathise with new mothers and parents who have been unable to spend their parental leave in the way they envisaged prior to the pandemic and lockdown.

I recognise that new parents want to give their children the best possible start in life; it is what we all want, and I wholeheartedly agree that activities that support babies’ development in those early months and years are so, so important. We are all social creatures, including from a very young age, and social contact is important at all stages. Obviously, since that initial period of lockdown, we have tried our best to relax the social distancing rules that were previously in place. There have been stricter measures, yes, in some local areas as required, but as a result of those relaxations, including the introduction of support bubbles, more new parents are now able to spend time with family, friends and other new parents, while still respecting the social distancing rules.

The online petition that prompted the Petitions Committee’s inquiry and this debate asked for paid maternity leave to be extended by three months in the light of covid-19. As hon. Members have heard, the Government have not accepted the proposal. Maternity leave is provided to enable employed pregnant women and new mothers to prepare for and recover from birth, and to bond with their child, including through breastfeeding if the mother wishes to breastfeed. Up to 52 weeks of maternity leave are available, 39 weeks of which are paid, and all employed women must take at least two weeks’ maternity leave immediately after giving birth, or four weeks if they work in a factory.

Fathers and partners can take up to two weeks of paid paternity leave. They can also access up to an additional 50 weeks of leave, and up to an additional 37 weeks of pay where the mother does not intend to use her full maternity entitlement. Employed parents also have access to up to four weeks’ unpaid parental leave, and that is per parent, per child, so a couple that wishes to take additional time off work with their baby have access to an additional eight weeks of leave per year, and more if they have other children. I know that this leave is not paid, but it is also the case that all employees have access to 5.6 weeks of paid holiday in a year. The entitlement to annual leave continues to accrue while a parent is off work on parental leave.

We have talked a lot in this debate about the data and international comparisons. It is important to look at the fact that our maternity leave, rather than the parental leave that some people suggested, which is a day one right, is one of the most generous in the OECD. When looking at the time, as compared to the money per week and per month, there are other countries that have a shorter period. Although more money may be paid, often that is combined with social insurance and is therefore dependent on the contributions that the employers and employees have already paid.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It is the unpaid part that is not generous and that is still unaffordable. Will the Minister please respond to that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

As I say, it is the overall aspect of the right balance, in terms of maternity leave, between the time and the money that we believe is both generous and fair—getting that right balance as a day one right.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North talked about what we are doing to look forward with care in the early years. The Prime Minister has asked my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) to carry out a review on how to improve health outcomes for babies and children from disadvantaged backgrounds. That review will focus on the first 1,001 days of a baby’s life, from birth to age two and a half. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North says that she is on that committee, which is fantastic. I am looking forward to seeing what comes of that and what recommendations come forward.

On social groups for babies and children, I know how important baby and toddler groups are to new parents and babies, and how distressing it has been for parents to suffer through lockdown. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham talked about GPs and what they can and cannot do in terms of health visits. There is a contractual requirement from 1 April 2020 for GPs to offer maternal post-natal consultation at six to eight weeks after birth—live and stillbirth—as an additional appointment to the baby check in the first six to eight weeks. The Government gave an additional £12 million, invested through the GP contract, to support all practices to deliver that.

On mental health, clearly this is a concerning time for mothers. It is important, as we talk about giving mental health parity with physical health, that we are committed to supporting everyone’s mental wellbeing, especially during this unprecedented period. New parents can continue to access mental health services, including virtually, and the Department of Health and Social Care has released more tailored guidance to help people to deal with the outbreak.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will not, because I have literally only a minute left and I want the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North to be able to respond.

There is no way I can talk about all hon. Members’ comments in the minute that I have left, but as I said in my response to the core of the petition, the Government believe that the entitlement to 52 weeks of maternity leave and 39 weeks of statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance is already very generous. I should perhaps add that those entitlements are provided to enable pregnant women and new mothers to prepare for and recover from birth and bond with their child.

We need to make sure that as we relax lockdown, there are new opportunities for new parents to spend their maternity, paternity, adoption and shared parental leave in the way that they envisaged prior to the pandemic. The recent relaxations have been possible only because we took the difficult decision to introduce stringent social distancing measures, including lockdown. In fact, as we are now learning, we still need to be vigilant at maintaining social distancing, to protect lives.

In conclusion, may I thank the petitioners? We will continue to work on those first early years, to ensure that parents and children can get the support that they want.

Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry

Paul Scully Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I am today announcing final terms of reference for the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. The inquiry follows the conclusion of the group litigation involving postmasters and Post Office Limited (Post Office Ltd) in December 2019, the Prime Minister’s commitment on 26 February 2020 and my written statement of 10 June 2020.



The Horizon dispute and court case has been ongoing for many years and has had a hugely negative impact on affected postmasters and their families. In his judgments in the “Common Issues” and “Horizon Issues” trials, Mr Justice Fraser identified significant failings at Post Office Ltd and with the Horizon IT system over a number of years.



The Government have formed this inquiry to fully understand these events, gather available evidence and ensure lessons have been learnt so that this cannot occur again. Having listened to affected postmasters, the Government have expanded the scope of the inquiry to ensure they get answers to questions that postmasters and others are seeking. the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) has therefore invited Sir Wyn Williams FLSW to conduct an inquiry following the judgments of Mr Justice Fraser in the Bates versus Post Office Group Litigation into Post Office Ltd’s Horizon IT system and other related issues arising from the findings of Justice Fraser and the settlement reached following this trial.



To reflect the additional focus of Sir Wyn’s work to that announced in June, it will be called an inquiry, rather than a review. Following commitments from both Post Office Ltd and Fujitsu UK to co-operate with the inquiry, the inquiry will be run on a non-statutory basis and have the following terms of reference:



Government want to be fully assured that through the inquiry there is a public summary of the failings that occurred, which were associated with Post Office Ltd’s Horizon IT system. The inquiry will draw on the findings made by Mr Justice Fraser from the Bates versus Post Office Group Litigation (in particular Judgment (No3) “Common Issues” and Judgment (No 6) “Horizon issues”) and other evidence, listen to those that have been most affected, understand what went wrong, and assess whether lessons have been learned and concrete changes have taken place or are underway at Post Office Ltd.



The inquiry shall:



A: Understand and acknowledge what went wrong in relation to Horizon, leading to the Group Litigation Order, by drawing on evidence from the Horizon judgments and affected postmasters’ experiences and identify what key lessons must be learned for the future;



B: Build upon the findings of Mr Justice Fraser, by obtaining all available relevant evidence from Post Office Ltd, Fujitsu and BEIS to establish a clear account of the implementation and failings of Horizon over its lifecycle;



C: Assess whether Post Office Ltd has learned the lessons from the criticisms made by Mr Justice Fraser in the “Common Issues” and “Horizon Issues” trials and those identified by affected postmasters and has delivered or made good progress on the organisational and cultural changes necessary to ensure a similar case does not happen in the future;



D: Assess whether the commitments made by Post Office Ltd within the mediation settlement—including the historical shortfall scheme—have been properly delivered;



E: Assess whether the processes and information provided by Post Office Ltd to postmasters are sufficient; to enable both parties to meet their contractual obligations; and to enable postmasters to run their businesses. This includes assessing whether Post Office Ltd’s related processes such as recording and resolving postmaster queries, dispute handling, suspension and termination are fit for purpose. In addition, determine whether the quality of the service offer for postmasters and their relationship with Post Office Ltd has materially improved since the conclusions reached by Mr Justice Fraser; and



F: Examine the governance and whistleblowing controls now in place at Post Office Ltd and whether they are sufficient to ensure that the failings that led to the Horizon case issues do not happen again.



The inquiry will consider only those matters set out in the preceding sections A-F. Post Office Ltd’s prosecution function, matters of criminal law, the Horizon group damages settlement, the conduct of current or future litigation relating to Horizon and or the engagement or findings of any other supervisory or complaints mechanisms, including in the public sector, are outside the inquiry‘s scope.



The inquiry will be led by Sir Wyn Williams FLSW, as the Chair of the inquiry. He will be supported by up to four independent advisers. These independent advisers will support Sir Wyn Williams by providing advice on the sources, content and interpretation of evidence received as appropriate. They may also provide independent scrutiny and challenge in relation to emerging findings and recommendations.



The inquiry should make any recommendations it sees fit, including actions that may, in its view, be appropriate as a result of its findings. The inquiry will aim to submit its findings to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy at the latest by summer 2021. The final report will be published by the Secretary of State and the Government will respond in due course.



In order to understand the range of issues fully and provide constructive challenge, the inquiry will undertake engagement with significant stakeholder groups, including current and former postmasters, Post Office Ltd, Fujitsu UK, BEIS and other third parties to identify information that is relevant to and within the scope of the inquiry.

[HCWS477]

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Paul Scully Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Government new clause 5—Office for the Internal Market panel and task groups.

New clause 1—Withdrawal Agreement and rule of law duty—

‘(1) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part (Northern Ireland Protocol) applies must—

(a) respect the rule of law;

(b) allow for the possibility of judicial review of an enactment, decision, act or omission by the appropriate authority;

(c) use the provisions of Article 16 of the Protocol to protect the interests of the United Kingdom.

(2) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part applies must comply with the obligations of the United Kingdom under international law.

(3) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part applies must comply with—

(a) the requirement under Article 5 (Good faith) of the Withdrawal Agreement for the EU and the United Kingdom to assist each other in full mutual respect and good faith to carry out the tasks which flow from the Agreement;

(b) the requirement under Article 167 (Consultations and communications within the Joint Committee) for the EU and the United Kingdom to endeavour to resolve any dispute regarding the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Agreement by entering into consultations in the Joint Committee in good faith, with the aim of reaching a mutually agreed solution;

(c) the requirement under Article 184 (Negotiations on the future relationship) of the Withdrawal Agreement for the EU and the United Kingdom to use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration of 17 October 2019 and to conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition period;

(d) the requirements of the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations, which is annexed to the British-Irish Agreement of the same date.

(4) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part applies must comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.’

This new clause is intended to replace Clauses 42, 43 and 45 of the Bill, to require Ministers to respect the rule of law and uphold the independence of the courts and the practice of judicial review, and to require UK Ministers to implement the Withdrawal Agreement.

New clause 2—Internal market common framework—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must seek to reach agreement with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive on a common framework on the United Kingdom internal market.

(2) A common framework under subsection (1) may cover—

(a) the functioning of the United Kingdom internal market;

(b) the effectiveness of market access principles; and

(c) drawing up a shared prosperity fund to balance economic development across the whole of the United Kingdom.

(3) The Secretary of State must take into account the common framework on the United Kingdom internal market in exercising any powers under Part 6 (Financial assistance powers) of this Act.’

This new clause would put the Common Framework process on a statutory footing.

New clause 3—Duty to consult, monitor, report and review—

‘(1) Within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament on the dates on which each section—

(a) was commenced; or

(b) is planned to commence.

(2) The Secretary of State must arrange for a review to be carried out within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, and thereafter at least once in each calendar year on the operation of this Act.

(3) The Secretary of State must invite the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to contribute to the reviews in subsection (1).

(4) The reviews under subsection (1) must make an assessment of—

(a) the functioning of the United Kingdom internal market;

(b) the effectiveness of market access principles;

(c) progress towards agreeing common frameworks with the devolved administrations;

(d) progress towards drawing up a shared prosperity fund framework; and

(e) progress in resolving issues through the Joint Committee machinery in the Withdrawal Agreement.

(5) The Prime Minister must arrange for a report of any review under this section to be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after its completion.’

This new clause would ensure Ministers have a duty to report back to Parliament on the progress of the functioning of the internal market; market access; progress towards agreeing common frameworks; progress towards drawing up a shared prosperity fund; and progress in resolving issues through the Joint Committee machinery in the Withdrawal Agreement.

New clause 6—Economic development: climate and nature emergency impact statement—

‘(1) Any financial assistance provided under Part 6 of this Act for the purpose of economic development must take into account the overarching need for a sustainable strategy aimed at long- term national well-being.

(2) Every proposal for financial assistance under this Act must be accompanied by a climate and nature emergency impact statement.

(3) Responsibility for the production of the climate and nature emergency impact statement required in subsection (2) resides with the applicant for financial assistance.

(4) Responsiblity for assessment of the climate and nature emergency impact statement required in subsection (2) resides with Ministers, who are required to publish this assessment for any successful proposal.

(5) The climate and nature emergency impact statement produced should take account of any carbon budget, climate, nature and environmental goals approved by the relevant Parliament.

(6) In subsection (5), the “relevant Parliament” means—

(a) where the proposed financial assistance relates to a person in England, the House of Commons and the House of Lords;

(b) where the proposed financial assistance relates to a person in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament;

(c) where the proposed financial assistance relates to a person in Wales, Senedd Cymru;

(d) where the proposed financial assistance relates to a person in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Assembly.’

The intention of this new clause is to ensure that those seeking financial assistance for economic development, etc under this Act are obliged to undertake a climate and nature emergency impact statement to ensure public money is only granted to development consistent with climate, nature and environmental goals and targets.

New clause 7—Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market—

‘(1) As part of its obligation under Article 6.2 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to use its best endeavours to facilitate trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK, the UK Government must—

(a) publish an assessment at least every 12 months of any impact on businesses and consumers arising from the Protocol on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and vice versa; and

(b) develop mitigations to safeguard the place of Northern Ireland businesses and consumers in the UK internal market.

(2) The assessment published under paragraph (1)(a) must include assessment of the impact of any actual or proposed regulatory or trade policy divergence on Northern Ireland’s place in the UK Internal Market.

(3) Any official or administrative costs arising from the duties under subsections (1) and (2) may not be recouped from the private sector.’

New clause 8—Interpretation of the Northern Ireland Protocol in accordance with International Law—

‘(1) In the event that the European Union fails to act in accordance with the principles of public international law in its implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol, by

(a) failing to undertake acts that are required by the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol;

(b) committing acts that are not in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol;

(c) failing to undertake acts that are necessary for the effective implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol;

(d) asserting positions in the Joint Committee that are not in accord with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol; or

(e) refusing to discuss in the Joint Committee proposals on implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol tabled by the United Kingdom;

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the principles of public international law that may be invoked include—

(a) the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986, including, in particular,

(i) the need to act in “good faith” and

(ii) the need to avoid results that are “manifestly absurd or unreasonable”;

(b) established international practices, having the status of customary international law; and

(c) the commitments made in the preambular paragraphs of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

(4) A unilateral interpretative declaration issued under subsection (1) may not be submitted unless—

(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament

(i) a copy of the proposed declaration,

(ii) a statement on the nature of the dispute with the European Union,

(iii) a statement of the intended effect of the proposed declaration; and

(b) the declaration has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown; and

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

(i) the House of Lords has debated the motion, 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 (b).

(5) When a response to the submission of any unilateral interpretative declaration is received from the European Union, a Minister of the Crown shall lay before each House of Parliament the response received from the European Union, and—

(a) in the case of the approval of the declaration by the European Union, the Minister shall issue a written statement confirming that the declaration has obtained the status of an authentic interpretation of the Northern Ireland Protocol;

(b) in the case of opposition to the declaration by the European Union, the Minister shall issue a written statement, assessing any alternative interpretation formulated by the European Union and indicating the government’s intended response; or

(c) in the case of the recharacterisation of the declaration by which the European Union purports to treat the declaration as an illegal reservation, the Minister shall issue a written statement of what action it intends to take to resolve the dispute.

(6) In this section—

“approval”, “opposition” or “recharacterization” of a declaration shall have the meaning given in Guideline 2.9 of the Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties, contained in the report of the International Law Commission on its Sixty-Third Session in 2011;

“Joint Committee” means the Joint Committee established under Article 164 of the EU Withdrawal Agreement;

“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);

“submit” means to make a submission to the depositary of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, as specified in Article 183 of the EU Withdrawal Agreement; and

“unilateral interpretative declaration” means an interpretative declaration as defined by Guideline 1.2 of the Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties, contained in the report of the International Law Commission on its Sixty-Third Session in 2011.’

Government amendments 31 and 32, 19, 33 to 38, 20 to 26, and 1 to 11.

Amendment 16, page 37, line 10, leave out Clause 45.

Government amendments 12, 13, 15 and 14.

Amendment 18, page 38, line 36, leave out Clause 46.

Amendment 29, page 39, line 27, leave out Clause 47.

Government new schedule 1—Constitution etc of Office for the Internal Market panel and task groups.

Amendment 17, in schedule 1, page 48, line 14, at end insert—

‘(8A) In the case that there is one REACH authorisation process for Great Britain, an authorisation that is lawful for the Northern Ireland market will be valid for the Great Britain market.’

The intention of this amendment is to apply the non-discrimination principle to the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) regime.

Government amendments 27 and 28.

Amendment 30, in title, line 7, leave out from “aid” to “to” in line 10.

Amendments 18 and 29 would remove both clauses in Part 6 (Financial assistance powers). This consequential Amendment removes from the long Title “to authorise the provision of financial assistance by Ministers of the Crown in connection with economic development, infrastructure, culture, sport and educational or training activities and exchanges”.

[Paul Scully]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to begin by thanking all Members for their engagement throughout the passage of the Bill and the Public Bill Office for its excellent work in supporting Members and officials.

Before I turn to the specific amendments that we are debating, I want to briefly remind Members why it is crucial that we pass this Bill. Around 60% of Scottish and Welsh exports are to the rest of the UK, which is around three times as much as exports to the rest of the EU. About 50% of Northern Ireland’s sales are to Great Britain. In some local authorities in Wales, over a quarter of workers commute across the border. When we leave the transition period at the end of this year, laws made in Europe can be made in the UK.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Minister will have noticed yesterday that the Scottish Government declared their intention not to give this Bill a legislative consent motion. Does he intend to ignore that or dismiss it, and does he hold Scottish democracy in contempt?

[Paul Scully]

I very much do not hold the devolution settlement in contempt. It is right that we work together. I believe that the UK is stronger together. It is important that we give Scottish businesses—just as much as Welsh, Northern Irish and English businesses—the certainty that they want to be able to trade, so we will continue to engage with the Scottish Parliament and officials and politicians up there to achieve legislative consent.

Hundreds of powers will flow from the EU to the devolved nations and the UK Government in an unprecedented transfer. As we recover from covid, we must ensure that our economy is stronger than ever. That is why the Government have introduced this Bill and why it is essential that we pass it. We want to guarantee the continued functioning of our internal market, to ensure that trade remains unhindered in the UK.

I will begin by speaking to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, starting with those that strengthen the Bill’s measures relating to the governance and functioning of the Office for the Internal Market. The office will sit within the Competition and Markets Authority to monitor and report on the internal market on an equal basis for all Administrations. The Competition and Markets Authority has a strong reputation for independence and impartiality. The Government have strived to preserve that reputation in setting out the functions to be carried out by the Office for the Internal Market. By providing non-binding, expert reporting and technical monitoring on regulations and proposals, it will provide robust evidence on the actual or potential impact of regulatory measures.

New clause 4 gives the Competition and Markets Authority the objective of supporting the effective operation of the UK internal market through the provision of economic and technical advice and expertise. That will exist in parallel to the existing objective of the Competition and Markets Authority to promote competition for the benefit of consumers.

New clause 5 enables Competition and Markets Authority functions under part 4 of the Bill to be carried out by an Office for the Internal Market task group and introduces a new schedule setting out the Government’s arrangements for the Office for the Internal Market panel and task groups. That mirrors the existing arrangements for the establishment of panels and groups that it has in place.

New schedule 1 establishes a panel of experts to lead the work of the Office for the Internal Market. The Secretary of State will appoint a chair and further members, following consultation with Ministers from all three devolved Administrations.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that the arrangements under the Bill regarding the CMA guarantee that we will not have any jurisdiction by the European Union or the European Court over the CMA and, furthermore, that one of the cardinal principles on which the European Union and the Commission are taking their stand is that they insist that we should not benefit competitively from leaving the European Union and we should not be able to compete with them on reasonable terms?

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful for that typically wise intervention. I am happy to provide that confirmation.

Amendment 1 provides absolute privilege against defamation for the Competition and Markets Authority when carrying out its functions under part 4. That will ensure that it can report and provide advice independently without needing to expend resources on preparing to defend litigation, and that businesses with deep pockets cannot sue or threaten to sue the CMA to obstruct it from carrying out its functions.

I shall set out briefly for the House the amendments that will improve the Bill’s drafting. Through amendments 31 to 34, we are taking the opportunity to put it beyond any possible doubt that alcohol minimum unit pricing-type regulation and any other sales requirements are not in the scope of the mutual recognition principle, unless they amount in practice to a total ban on a good being sold. That came up in Committee. We want to make sure that rather than politicking, we can return to a business continuity approach.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The Minister just told us about an amendment to take into account concerns about the minimum unit pricing aspect, but UK Government Ministers have been telling us for weeks that the Bill does not affect that. Clearly, that was a concern until now and we were right. Is it not also true that the non-discriminatory aspects of the amendment make it completely useless anyway?

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the answer is no. To ensure we take that political football totally off the table and return the Bill to what is was always designed to be about—giving businesses in Scotland and all parts of the UK the business continuity and certainty they need without such distractions—the technical amendment dots the i’s and crosses the t’s.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

For Northern Ireland to be a successful part of the United Kingdom, may I gently suggest that the Minister should work with us on new clause 7, which my party has tabled? It is an imperative tool to ensure that Northern Ireland is not left behind in Brexit in terms of being an integrated member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—in other words, that we are treated equally.

[Paul Scully]

I will turn to new clause 7 in a second, but clearly we will treat Northern Ireland equally.

Amendments 2 to 11, 24, 27, 28 and 35 to 38 are technical changes to remove sources of potential confusion in the drafting. Amendments 19 and 21 provide fuller clarification that a wide range of agricultural processes are considered to be in scope when we refer to the production of goods. Amendment 20 ensures that the UK Government and devolved Administrations can continue to respond to specific biosecurity threats arising from the movement of animals and high-risk plants and that they are excluded from the mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles of the Bill.

Amendments 22 and 23 clarify the meaning of clause 16 that a change to the conditions attached to an authorisation requirement would bring it in scope of part 2 of the Bill. Amendment 26 ensures that the exemption in clause 23 covers the replication of non-statutory rules as well as a re-enactment of legislation. Amendments 12 to 15 ensure that the higher courts in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland may make declarations of incompatibility in respect of the regulations under clauses 42 and 43, but may not quash them. That will ensure that, in the unlikely event of a violation of convention rights, there is a remedy available through the courts.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Notwithstanding the terms of amendments 12 and 13, can the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State continues to be confident that the statement he has made in terms of section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is accurate?

[Paul Scully]

We have been quite clear in the approach that we have taken in terms of the human rights impact, so I am confident that the Secretary of State has talked about that.

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

May I press the Minister a little further in relation to amendment 13 and so on? I accept “preserving a remedy”, but it is a remedy by way of a declaration of incompatibility, as opposed to removing any offensive regulation in domestic law. It is a much harder burden or obstacle for a litigant—for every person—to go through to get a declaration of incompatibility. What is the compelling reason for adopting this unusual approach?

[Paul Scully]

This achieves the right balance in terms of a remedy, in the unlikely event of a breach of convention rights, for the reason that I have covered in terms of our impact assessment on human rights. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will feel able to support these important but mainly technical amendments.

I will move on to the Opposition amendments, because it is important that we give them due care and attention, but I first want to remind hon. Members of the core purpose of the Bill. The Bill puts into law a market access commitment by enshrining the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination in the law. That means that goods and services from one part of the UK will be recognised across the country, and it will ensure that there is equal opportunity for all UK-based companies trading in the UK.

New clause 2 would place an obligation on UK Ministers to seek to agree a framework covering the UK internal market, which would need to be taken into account in the exercise of financial assistance payments. The new clause would fundamentally alter the basis on which common frameworks are developed and would not be in line with the design of common frameworks that was agreed by the UK Government and devolved Administrations. The principles agreed made it clear that the common frameworks are based on consensus rather than legislation, as we discussed in Committee. The principles also set out that the common frameworks are limited in their scoped powers returning from the EU, which have a devolved intercept.

An overarching framework would not materially contribute to effective joint working between the United Kingdom Government and devolved Administrations. Through the common frameworks programme, we are agreeing mechanisms for effective intergovernmental working. Those will cover many areas engaged by provisions in the Bill for the internal market.

We are also developing proposals for an enhanced intergovernmental system, which will support work to maintain policy coherence across the United Kingdom. This collaborative model is likely to be more effective and provide greater clarity than the process set out in the new clause, which does not clearly define when the duty in subsection (1) and the due regard duty in subsection (3) would be met.

Common frameworks are designed to allow for collaborative and flexible working between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations. Creating a framework such as this, which is underpinned by obligations in law, could undermine that effective joint work.

New clause 3 seeks to require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with regular reviews on the functioning of the internal market, the effectiveness of provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act and progress towards delivering provisions not in the Act, such as common frameworks. While I commend the intention behind the amendment, the review provisions it seeks to deliver are already provided for. They exist either in the Bill, through the Office for the Internal Market, or in previous legislation.

As part 4 of the Bill sets out, the Office for the Internal Market will have a number of reporting and monitoring responsibilities. Clause 29 sets out how the office will need to compile yearly “health of the market” reports on the functioning of the internal market, and five-yearly system reviews on the operation of parts 1 to 3. Those reports will be laid before the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures for consideration, ensuring parliamentary transparency and accountability. I consider, therefore, that the new clause risks being highly duplicative.

It is essential that both those reports are compiled at arm’s length from both the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. That will enable the office to deliver a credible, impartial and expert analysis that delivers difficult messages to the Administrations, if necessary. However, when conducting those reports, the Office for the Internal Market will be able to consider the views of all relevant interested parties, including the devolved Administrations, in order to present evidence on how well the internal market itself and the Government’s proposals are serving stakeholders across the UK. Moreover, regarding the specific areas listed in the amendment, the Government already publish quarterly reports entitled, “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks”, which set out joint progress on common frameworks.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is putting a brave face on things, as always. It is all very well talking about reviews and reports, but does he accept that, for an internal market to function, there actually needs to be communication between the Prime Minister and the leaders of the devolved Administrations? Why has the Prime Minister failed to communicate regularly with the First Minister of Wales, instead speaking to him only once every few months? Especially at a time of national crisis, why has the Prime Minister been so poor in his communication?

[Paul Scully]

The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and Ministers work with all the devolved Administrations. My colleague in the Business Department has meetings—especially at this particular time—with businesses across the devolved Administrations, including in Wales.

As I say, for this particular area, we already publish the report I referred to. However, we consider it right that any reporting on the Joint Committee machinery or the UK shared prosperity fund should be undertaken separately from that on internal market provisions. For that reason, I am not able to accept the amendment.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that Brexit is a huge opportunity to increase the powers both of this House—over our own internal market and economic prosperity—and of the devolved Administrations, which will gain power? Should everybody not cheer up and welcome the fact that both the devolved Administrations and the Union Parliament can take back control?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the opportunity to absolutely agree with him that this gives us a great opportunity to come together as the United Kingdom, to give that sense of certainty to businesses and, just as importantly, to grab hold of the opportunities provided by leaving the European Union.

Before I address the amendments to the Bill’s Northern Ireland protocol measures, I remind hon. Members of the points made by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), in Committee last week. He made it clear that

“the Northern Ireland protocol…is designed to recognise and protect the needs and unique circumstances of Northern Ireland. Central to that is ensuring that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, its successor agreements, and the gains of the peace process are protected.”

He stressed that it was crucial to

“ensure that the delicate balance between all communities in Northern Ireland is maintained and that the UK Government pursue policies for sustained growth and stability in Northern Ireland…Through this Bill, we are acting to uphold those priorities and deliver the commitments we made in our election manifesto that we would provide unfettered access between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and ‘maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of the internal market’.”—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 647.]

I will now speak to new clause 1, which seeks to replace clauses 42, 43 and 45, as well as amendment 16, which intends to remove clause 45. The Government have already been clear that these clauses are required to provide a safety net of powers in reserve, which Ministers may need to use to guarantee the integrity of our United Kingdom and to ensure that we are always able to deliver on our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland, in line with the three-strand approach of the Belfast agreement.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

The Minister talks about giving a safety net to the people of Northern Ireland. Does he recognise that the majority of people in Northern Ireland regard the Bill as taking away their safety net by undermining the Good Friday agreement? That is the view in Northern Ireland, and it is important that the Government listen to it, not act contrary to it.

[Paul Scully]

I have spoken to businesses in Northern Ireland, and a number of them are very supportive of this. I suggest that anybody in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the UK who believes that the Bill actually takes away from the Belfast agreement is listening to the wilful misrepresentation of the Bill by certain people politicking. Actually, the Belfast agreement has a three-strand approach, and the Bill will be a safety net only in the event that we cannot reach agreement with the EU through the Joint Committee.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paul Scully]

I will make progress, because these are important points. New clause 1 and amendment 18 would remove that safety net, which we just cannot agree with. These clauses were supported by clear majorities of the whole House at Committee stage.

I can reassure hon. Members that many of the proposals in new clause 1 are already addressed in the Bill. First, the Government have been clear that regulations made under clauses 42 or 43 would be subject to judicial review on general public law grounds, while ensuring that any claims must be brought within three months. This ensures any challenge to the regulations will be subject to timely resolution before the courts. This is essential to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses and investors in Northern Ireland have the certainty that they need. Amendments to this effect have already been agreed to in Committee, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who helped make that happen.

Secondly, on article 16 of the protocol, which new clause 1 mentions, in the event that regulations were made under clauses 42 or 43, we have been clear that we would activate appropriate dispute settlement mechanisms to find a solution in parallel to domestic legislation. Thirdly, the UK Government will continue, as we have always done, to negotiate with our friends and partners in the EU in good faith.

For the avoidance of any doubt, let me confirm again that we are of course committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, and have already taken many practical steps to do this. However, as a responsible Government, we cannot allow the gains of the peace process or the economic integrity of the UK’s internal market—

[John Redwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will happily give way.

[John Redwood]

Would the Minister confirm that the Government are not intending to break the law—and I do not think anything they have suggested is breaking the law—and will he confirm that those who say otherwise are deliberately undermining our negotiations with the EU?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. Indeed, our intention, as I say, is to work on implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. I have talked about the fact that we have taken many practical steps to do this. We continue to negotiate in good faith.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paul Scully]

I am going to make progress because I still have a number of amendments to cover.

We cannot accept any amendments that will undermine provisions in the Bill by rendering them no kind of safety net at all. New clause 1 does that, I am afraid.

I now turn to new clause 8. I appreciate entirely the spirit in which this has been put forward. While all of us hoped that the EU would negotiate and discharge its obligations under the withdrawal agreement and protocol in good faith, this amendment seeks to frame in statute a number of steps that Ministers could take under international law were that not to happen. However, this amendment is not necessary, as it would already be open to Ministers to take the steps my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) proposes.

As I have mentioned, the Government have been working with the European Union to reach agreement through the Joint Committee process, and through this Bill we are preparing for a scenario where that does not happen. On 17 September, the Government issued a statement setting out the circumstances in which we would use the powers provided for under clauses 42 and 43: the Government would

“ask Parliament to support the use of the provisions in Clauses 42, 43 and 45 of the UKIM Bill, and any similar subsequent provisions, only in the case of, in our view, the EU being engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith or other obligations, and thereby undermining the fundamental purpose of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that those who object to the clauses he has just mentioned should bear in mind the language that has been used by the EU in recent weeks in terms of what it interprets the Northern Ireland protocol to mean? It has denied the existence, as it is written on the face of the Northern Ireland protocol, of matters such as the internal market, unfettered trade and so on. So these provisions are necessary as a safety net—nothing more than a safety net. I say to the critics, “Just look at the language of the EU” and if they look at the language of the EU, they will see that these measures are perfectly reasonable.

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful for that, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. These are reasonable steps to act as a safety net.

In the statement I referred to, the Government also make it clear that

“in parallel with the use of these provisions it would always activate appropriate formal dispute settlement mechanisms with the aim of finding a solution through this route.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paul Scully]

I have a lot to go through, and I know a number of speakers—

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will happily give way to the mover of that amendment. [Interruption.]

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Actually, to be fair, the Minister has just been dealing with new clause 8, which I have moved. I am very grateful for what he has said. He seemed to suggest that the new clause was not in itself wrong, but was not necessary. But will he accept that, certainly when this Bill goes to the House of Lords, it might be helpful for the Government to produce an idea like this as another arrow in the armoury to reassure those who want to use international law in the right way, if the EU acts unreasonably? The advantage of a unilateral interpretive declaration under the Vienna convention, is that we can do it in this way, so I am grateful to the Minister.

[Paul Scully]

I thank my right hon. Friend. It is right that he gets to speak as it is about his amendment. He is trying to be helpful in this regard, and I know that Ministers in the other place will take heed of his comments as they engage with colleagues there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

Yes. [Interruption.]

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to come in at this point. There is no need to consider what steps would be taken in that scenario, given this new clause. It is open to the Government to accept the new clause and thus give clarity and comfort to businesses in Northern Ireland who do not know, but suspect, that there may be divergence, difference and associated costs. Nothing that he has said thus far would be injurious to his position or frustrate his hon. Friends in supporting the new clause this evening.

[Paul Scully]

I heard cries from the Opposition Benches, but I think it is fair that I give way to Members who have tabled amendments.

We will obviously consider how we reduce the burden further, but we do not think it necessary at this stage to make such reporting a statutory requirement or, notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman said, to frame it in the very broad terms set out in the new clause.

Amendment 17 deals within the mutual recognition of authorisations granted under the EU’s REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—regulation. It would automatically allow substances authorised to be placed on the market in Northern Ireland under REACH to be placed on the market in Great Britain. The acceptance of mutual recognition that we have introduced for chemicals in schedule 1 is there to allow the relevant authorities to respond to local factors. Authorisations granted by the EU after the end of the transition period will not take into consideration local conditions such as lower river flows or exposure levels where those chemicals are used in Great Britain. I would like to emphasise that authorisations relate to the use of substances of very high concern, such as chemicals that can cause cancer. It is important that the Government and devolved Administrations can take local factors into account in order to prevent avoidable harm to human health or the environment from the significant risks posed by such chemicals.

[Gavin Robinson]

That response is in precisely the same terms as the one we received last week in Committee, but we are not touching on, or interested in, what the local considerations may be. The fact is that this Bill, even though we are talking about non-discrimination and the implications that there could be for business, envisages businesses having to adhere to and satisfy two separate regulatory regimes. We cannot square the circle between discrimination and non-discrimination in two separate and distinct legal regimes, whether there are local factors or not; we should have to adhere to only one. From a business perspective and an animal welfare perspective, it would be useful to have clarity. We can have one or the other, but definitely not both.

[Paul Scully]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and obviously we are moving towards that one regime, when we can, but we are also already committed to working on a common framework for chemicals and pesticides policy. That common framework is being co-created by the Government and the devolved Administrations, and will allow us to co-ordinate policy making on matters such as REACH authorisations. Through this framework, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations will be required to set out the strategic direction for the UK regulatory regime, ensuring that existing environmental, human health and workplace standards are maintained, or exceeded where possible.

Finally, I want to discuss the amendments that address the power to provide financial assistance. By creating a new power for the Government to provide financial assistance in the areas of infrastructure, economic development, culture and sports, and education and training activities, the Government will deliver on the commitments upon which they were elected: levelling up, delivering prosperity for all our citizens and strengthening the ties that bind our Union together.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The Minister did not seem to mention amendment 16 when he went over that area. The amendment would remove clause 45, because legal experts fear that if the clause stands as it is, it will set up the Government against the courts. Will he explain why he thinks that is not the case?

[Paul Scully]

I think I have covered why those clauses should remain, although I did not specifically talk about the amendment.

I want to turn to amendments 18, 29 and 13, which together seek to remove the power to provide financial assistance. The Government are determined to deliver on those commitments, as I was saying. It is important that we strengthen the ties that bind our Union together, that we level up and that we deliver prosperity for all our citizens.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will not give way at the moment.

Part 6 of the Bill, which includes clauses 46 and 47, helps us to achieve that. This part of the Bill confers a power to ensure that the UK Government can invest UK taxpayers’ money nationwide on UK priorities. In terms of immediate relevance, it would allow the Government to support people and businesses across the country to recover from covid-19. The Government have a responsibility to people, businesses and communities across the whole of the UK.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I want to make some progress.

This part of the Bill will allow the UK Government to complement and strengthen the support given to citizens in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales without taking away responsibilities from the devolved Administrations. New clause 6 will require by law all financial assistance given under part 6 to take into account the applicable climate, nature and environmental goals and targets. It will require that any financial assistance be accompanied by the Minister’s assessment of the project’s climate and nature emergency impact statement.

The Government are committed to ambitious climate targets, and next year we will lead the world in discussions at COP26. It is also crucial that the UK meets its domestic obligations under the Climate Change Act 2008 and its international obligations under the Paris agreement. The Climate Change Act requires Governments to set five-year carbon budgets towards meeting our target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, covering the whole of the UK.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

Not for the moment.

Any net emissions increase from a particular policy or project is therefore managed within the Government’s overall strategy for meeting carbon budgets and the net zero target for 2050, as part of an economy-wide transition. Moreover, through the Environment Bill that was introduced into this House in January, the UK Government will have a power to set long-term, legally binding environmental targets across the breadth of the natural environment.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

That whole section of the Minister’s speech was a perfect example of why he should not be objecting to this amendment. It is a helpful amendment that would simply ensure that the financial contributions would actually support all those lovely climate and nature objectives he has just talked about. EU structural funds have a requirement to align with sustainability. His Government keep telling us how Brexit gives us the opportunity to go further than EU environmental policy, so in that case, why does he not accept the amendment? Why is he flunking his first test?

[Paul Scully]

I have had non-viability and flunking today—I am doing well! I will come to this in a moment. We are framing this in a number of pieces of legislation. I have talked about the Environment Bill, which was introduced in January. It will require the Government to set at least one target for each of four priority areas: air quality, biodiversity, water and waste reduction, and resource efficiency. It will also protect the environment from future damage by—

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman keeps wanting to intervene. At least he has had the decency to put his name down on the speakers list this time, so maybe he will have a chance to make his points when he speaks later.

The Environment Bill will protect the environment from future damage by embedding environmental principles at the heart of policy development across Government, with clear and pragmatic guidance on their implementation. The environmental principles will be used by Ministers and policy makers to ensure that policy and legal frameworks help minimise the ill effects of human activity on the environment. Given the Government’s strong commitment already to meeting their ambitious climate targets, and the frameworks established under the Climate Change Act and proposed under the Environment Bill, I do not think that it is necessary to put such a legislative requirement in this Bill.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I know that a number of people want to speak. I hope that I have set out the rationale for the Government’s amendments to the Bill, and that hon. Members will support them. I trust that I have addressed in sufficient detail the Government’s objections to the amendments put forward by other hon. Members, and that they will therefore feel able to withdraw them. I look forward to engaging in the debate on this crucial Bill.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak to the new clauses in my name and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends.

Here we are again—day five in the new House of Commons series, “The Internal Market Bill Debates”. While the coronavirus crisis rages on, here we are again, watching Ministers justify a Bill that breaches an international agreement signed only months ago and that threatens to break up our United Kingdom. It is a shame that we will not hear from the Prime Minister again today on Third Reading, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was hoping for a sequel. He will have to make do with the Prime Minister’s understudy, the Business Secretary—what fun.

If Government Members have not been tuning in to the previous episodes, let me repeat our position on this Bill. We support a strong, successful internal market that underpins a vibrant, prosperous Union, with the UK Parliament as the ultimate arbiter of that market. We do not want a Brexit rerun; we want to get on to the next series—you know, the one where the Prime Minister delivers on his oven-ready deal and gets a good trade deal with the EU? That one. That is what the trailers promised us, anyway, and it is what the Prime Minister promised us, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate, and I once again thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have engaged with the Bill during its stages. This is likely to be my last contribution on this particular Bill—[Hon. Members: “More!”] I know, but I only have five minutes, and I want to pay tribute to my colleagues, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who have played an amazing role and worked so hard. I also pay tribute to my Bill team—Jon Robinson, Jeff Yen, Satchi Mahendran, Dom Entwistle, Henry Hutton, Phoebe Gould, Dominic Bull, James Frisby and, in my private office, Ollie Benbow-Wyke.

Those of us on the Government Benches have heard and participated in the passionate debates on the Bill during the past two weeks, and I pay tribute to all their considered contributions. My right hon. and hon. Friends have made some impassioned speeches about the need for business certainty and about why the Union is so much better together than apart.

The debates have obviously been passionate, because of the importance of the Bill, but some of the other speeches in this Chamber today, and on some of the Committee days, have been somewhat circular. We have heard that there will apparently not be a US trade deal, but that we will get chlorinated chicken. We have heard that we love devolved spending, but that we would rather it be done from Brussels. We have heard people celebrating 62 countries having left the UK at various points in their recent history. Not one of those has the UK pound or wanted to join a bigger political union such as—oh, I don’t know—the EU, for example.

None the less, we want to make sure that we can get on with the Bill, because it is so important to continuing to provide certainty for businesses as we seek to recover from covid-19, prepare for the opportunities after the transition period and protect jobs. The Bill will ensure UK businesses can trade across our four home nations in a way that helps them invest and create jobs, just as they have for hundreds of years. We will do that in a way that supports and enables one of the largest transfers of power in the history of devolution, while maintaining that certainty for businesses. That will be done in a way that preserves our high standards, whether environmental, food or animal welfare, and in any number of other areas. It is therefore crucial that we pass this Bill, and I commend it to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I put the question, there are likely to be Divisions, so, please, will only Front Benchers go out through the door in front of me? All Back Benchers must leave behind me, go down to Westminster Hall and join the queue. I am going to ask the Doorkeepers and the Whips to enforce that strictly, because we have to have social distancing.

I apologise to the seven MPs who were unable to get in. If anybody wishes to withdraw from Third Reading, please come and see me during the Division.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 4 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Office for the Internal Market panel and task groups

“(1) The CMA may authorise an Office for the Internal Market task group constituted under Schedule 4 to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 to do anything required or authorised to be done by the CMA under this Part (and such an authorisation may include authorisation to exercise the power conferred on the CMA by this subsection).

(2) Schedule (Constitution etc of Office for the Internal Market panel and task groups) contains provision about the Office for the Internal Market panel and Office for the Internal Market task groups.” —(Paul Scully.)

This new clause enables functions of the Competition and Markets Authority under Part 4 to be carried out on the authority’s behalf by Office for the Internal Market task groups constituted under Schedule 4 to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013: see NS1. This new clause would be inserted after Clause 28.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Withdrawal Agreement and Rule of Law Duty

‘(1) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part (Northern Ireland Protocol) applies must—

(a) respect the rule of law;

(b) allow for the possibility of judicial review of an enactment, decision, act or omission by the appropriate authority;

(c) use the provisions of Article 16 of the Protocol to protect the interests of the United Kingdom.

(2) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part applies must comply with the obligations of the United Kingdom under international law.

(3) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part applies must comply with—

(a) the requirement under Article 5 (Good faith) of the Withdrawal Agreement for the EU and the United Kingdom to assist each other in full mutual respect and good faith to carry out the tasks which flow from the Agreement;

(b) the requirement under Article 167 (Consultations and communications within the Joint Committee) for the EU and the United Kingdom to endeavour to resolve any dispute regarding the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Agreement by entering into consultations in the Joint Committee in good faith, with the aim of reaching a mutually agreed solution;

(c) the requirement under Article 184 (Negotiations on the future relationship) of the Withdrawal Agreement for the EU and the United Kingdom to use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration of 17 October 2019 and to conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition period;

(d) the requirements of the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations, which is annexed to the British-Irish Agreement of the same date.

(4) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part applies must comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.’ —(Lucy Powell.)

This new clause is intended to replace Clauses 42, 43 and 45 of the Bill, to require Ministers to respect the rule of law and uphold the independence of the courts and the practice of judicial review, and to require UK Ministers to implement the Withdrawal Agreement.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman makes that call, but we should not be relying on the Members of the House of Lords; they are unelected. The fact is that this place has not done its job to defend the rule of law, or to protect devolution. I feel for Labour Members who were responsible, under Blair’s Government, for bringing devolution in, because everything that was established under that programme has been undermined. There is a real call to everyone in Scotland, regardless of whether they voted for the SNP in the past, to recognise the maxim that power devolved is power retained.

People in the past have said to me, “Could Westminster shut down the Scottish Parliament?” I have argued in the past that that would be fanciful. Nobody could believe that our Parliament could be attacked in such a way, but what is happening with this Bill is that our Parliament, which has had the support of the people of Scotland—

[Paul Scully]

Is getting more power.

[Ian Blackford]

It is being usurped. It is not getting more power—read the Bill. Read clauses 46 and 47, and read clause 48, which takes away from Scotland the powers that we have over state aid. When I look at the Government Benches, it really is Trumpesque—twisting the truth beyond reality.

Public Interest Disclosure (Protection) Bill

Paul Scully Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 25th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

At the start of my remarks, may I associate myself with the words of others in sending my condolences to the family, friends and fellow officers of the police officer who lost his life in the Croydon Windmill Road custody centre? The centre is shared by my borough’s police officers, and I know that many of them will be going home tonight saying, “There but for the grace of God go I”.

I commend the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) for enabling this debate on a really very important topic. We have heard the passion and the concern of Members on both sides about whistleblowers. She has spoken on previous occasions about the experience of whistleblowers and advocated the need for reform. I have only four minutes, so unfortunately I will not be able to do this important debate the justice it requires, but I want to cover as much as I can directly.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of the burden being on the employee at the tribunal in particular. That is not necessarily the case in many examples, because if the worker can show that their disclosure was protected and that they suffered detriment, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the detriment was not covered by whistleblowing. That must be a qualifying disclosure, which basically means any information that in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure is in the public interest. This helps to protect against spurious claims and it means, in particular, that personal grievance complaints are not usually covered by these rights.

It is really important that all workers should feel confident that they will be listened to, that actions will be taken to respond to the concerns and that they should never suffer criticism or detriment for speaking up. In response to the 2015 “Freedom to Speak Up” report, the hon. Lady raised the issue of speaking up in the NHS, and we did establish the independent national guardian to help drive positive cultural change across the NHS so that speaking up becomes business as usual.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the Minister accept, however, that the national guardian is not statutory? She sits inside a regulator in the form of the CQC and therefore does not always have the powers she would need.

[Paul Scully]

I appreciate that it is not a statutory position, but I would just say that nothing is perfect. I must preface my remarks by saying that with all these things we need to keep reviewing the effectiveness of the whistleblowing framework within the NHS, as we are continuing to do with whistleblowing in general.

The most recent results, published last year, for the National Guardian Office’s freedom to speak up index, which measures how NHS staff and trusts perceive making disclosures in their organisations, showed that 180 trusts had improved their freedom to speak up index score over the past three years. That does indicate an overall improvement in the speaking up culture, which is so important. More than 19,000 cases were raised with freedom to speak up guardians in trusts between 1 April 2017 and 31 March 2019, and 87% of those who raised issues with freedom to speak up guardians in 2018-19 and gave feedback said they would be prepared to speak up again. However, as I say, there is clearly more we can always look at doing to make sure that this is working effectively.

In the two minutes remaining, I will turn to the provisions of the hon. Lady’s Bill. There are a number of issues that we are going to find difficulties with, but, as she readily admitted, this is a starting point for the discussion. She raised PIDA, which does protect workers from dismissal or detrimental treatment by their employers. On whether we should look at extending the scope of those covered by PIDA—for example, to foster carers, volunteers and public officials that people may be concerned about—we would need to consider expanding the definition of whistleblowing. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) who talked about whether we understand the definition of whistleblowing. As we look to specify that, or at whether we should change or expand it, we must look at whether we are going beyond the employment sphere and at what that would mean for enforcement and redress. That is currently for employment tribunals, but we will obviously look at—

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bim Afolami]

I rise in support of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

Hear, hear.

[Bim Afolami]

I am glad that the Minister is in favour of the Bill as well; that is good news.

In the modern world, trade matters just as much as—if not more than—it ever has. There has been much talk about trade, not just over the days in which we have considered the Bill, but over the past couple of years. I do not want to put us through the last couple of years again, but we spend a lot of time talking about tariffs. Although tariffs are important, the biggest obstacles in modern trade are often non-tariff barriers such as professional standards, standards for goods or different standards relating to services. The whole Bill seeks to address these aspects of trade, particularly through these clauses.

We need to consider not just trade between the United Kingdom and other countries, but trade within the United Kingdom. We all have businesses in our constituencies that trade. I was talking to a business in my constituency this summer about the places with which it is trading. I said, “Are you trading with China or the United States?” and the people from this business said, “With Aberdeen.” It is easy to forget that we need to ensure that our internal market—some people may prefer the term “internal single market”—is as seamless and as free as possible, and that is what this Bill does.

The Bill also ensures the principle of non-discrimination within the United Kingdom internal market. It allows businesses to expand within the UK as well as trading abroad, and helps businesses to access procurement from across the United Kingdom. For example, the Scottish Government may procure goods from a Welsh company, or Hertfordshire County Council may have a procurement contract with a Northern Irish business. Our trade within the United Kingdom is of paramount importance, and this House should not forget how much trade happens within our nation.

It is important to address some of the criticism of the Bill. I have been listening to the debate over the last couple of weeks, and, frankly, I find it rather odd hearing SNP Members criticise the Bill on the basis that the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Irish Assembly would not be able to have their own say vis-à-vis certain standards. On some level, one could argue that that is an argument for independence. Obviously that is the SNP’s stated position and they are entitled to have it, but contained in the same breath SNP Members are saying, “But we want the European Union to impose common standards.” We are talking about a European Union that, even under the most generous terms of electoral governance it may devise, would give the Scottish people, the Welsh people or the Northern Irish people—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. As Labour has been arguing throughout this crisis, local decisions are how we are going to overcome this virus, if we can make them effectively.

Many of the Government amendments are a tidying-up exercise and we have no quarrel with them. However, as learned Friends on the Labour Benches and in the other place, as well as on the Government Benches, know, Government amendment 66, which we will be voting on tonight, still amounts to tearing up an international agreement and breaking an international treaty that the Prime Minister has himself just signed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said in his excellent speech yesterday, the breach of international law is not when we enact the provisions of this Bill, but prior to that. The Government could not answer the point made by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) yesterday regarding the point at which this international treaty is being broken. Many would argue that even publishing these measures breaches article 5 of the withdrawal agreement. Can the Minister clarify that for us today?

The ink is not even dry on the bilateral treaty between the UK and the EU—a treaty that is about and for dealing with some of the difficult issues that we have debated over four days. Reneging on that treaty so soon, and the loss of trust resulting from that, is not comparable with a disagreement arising from a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, as was the case with, say, prisoner voting, which was raised by Members across the House. Government Members do not have to take our word for it. They should listen to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who delivered the most scathing rebuke of this Bill yesterday, saying that the Government were “acting recklessly and irresponsibly” and warning of “untold damage” to the UK’s international reputation.

It could have been all so different. The Government could have worked cross-party and in a respectful way with the devolved Administrations to build a strong internal market based on mutual respect, to deliver the “oven-ready” deal we were promised, to enhance our reputation around the world, not diminish it, and to strengthen our precious Union, not put it at risk. Ministers could accept new clauses this evening and introduce further amendments on Report that unite the whole House. They could drop the clauses of the Bill that are so divisive and against the national interest. I hope that, for once, this Government will remove their blinkers and listen.

[Paul Scully]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and to conclude this debate. We have heard a number of passionate contributions, not least from my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Derek Thomas), for North West Durham (Mr Holden), for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who were passionate about the Union and the need to ensure that businesses can continue to trade in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England without interruption.

Before I address the details of the clauses and amendments, let me explain what that means to each of the nations in the UK. About 50% of Northern Ireland’s sales are to Great Britain, and nearly 60% of Scottish and Welsh exports are to the rest of the UK, which is about three times as much as their exports to the whole of the rest of the EU. That is £51.2 billion worth of trade for Scotland, £10.6 billion for Northern Ireland and £30.1 billion for Wales. The Bill secures and clarifies the internal market, which has been the bedrock of our shared prosperity for centuries.

The Bill will establish a market access commitment by enshrining mutual recognition and non-discrimination in law. The principle of mutual recognition is that goods and services from one part of the UK will continue to be recognised across the country, and that ensures that the devolved Administrations will benefit from freedom outside the EU. As the transition period ends, they will gain increased powers to set their own rules and standards across a wide range of policy areas within their competence. At the same time, this provides firm assurances to our businesses, which they have been asking for, that their goods can continue to flow freely throughout the United Kingdom.

Non-discrimination ensures that there is continued equal opportunity for companies to trade in the UK regardless of where in the UK their business is based. Measures in the Bill will also ensure that Northern Ireland qualifying goods benefit from the market access commitment and receive mutual recognition in the rest of the UK. That means that we are going to fulfil our commitment to legislate for unfettered access, as we promised the people and businesses of Northern Ireland.

In addition, the Bill will ensure that the same principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination continue to apply to services, and it will establish a process for the recognition of professional qualifications across the UK internal market, allowing professionals such as doctors and teachers qualified in any part of the UK nations to continue work in any other part, as all hon. Members would expect.

A couple of canards kept coming up during the debate, including one about teachers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out, someone needs to have a qualification in the first place for it to be recognised in another nation of the UK, but it is true that the General Teaching Council for Scotland will continue to regulate teaching in Scotland, as happens at the moment, uninterrupted. This package guarantees a continuation of the centuries-old position that there should be no economic barriers to trading within the UK. Businesses need this—they are asking for this. Citizens need this. That is why it is right that we deliver this Bill.

I turn to the amendments in question today, starting with some of those tabled by the Government. Government amendments 90, 91 and 92 are technical drafting amendments that I hope the House will be able to pass.

Government amendments 5 and 6 are designed to ensure that local sanitary and phytosanitary measures are based on science and are technically justified to prevent barriers to trade arising that go beyond what is necessary to effectively prevent pests and diseases spreading to pest and disease-free areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitford]

Does the Minister not accept that trying to improve public health, reduce waste and protect the environment are perfectly good reasons for a derogation?

[Paul Scully]

As I say, we are trying to keep this narrow so that one part of the UK does not face discrimination in another. We want to make sure that we get the balance right between having the benefits of the UK internal market and having legitimate aims on an environmental basis, on public health or on any number of other areas.

Amendment 36 seeks to alter the process by which the list of legitimate policy aims may be changed in the future. These aims allow for an exemption from the requirement prohibiting indirect discrimination, and that could therefore be cited as necessary for implementing a measure that is indirectly discriminatory. The aims are tightly drawn, but the Government recognise that it is important to retain flexibility for the future—for example, to reflect the experience of the effect of the market access principles in practice and based on business feedback. That is why the power is necessary and we cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment 80 seeks to exclude fisheries in Scotland from the market access principles. It is essential that the Scottish industry is able to maximise the return on its fish by being able to access a diverse range of markets and a wide range of consumers. Scottish fish is sold across the UK. However, this amendment would create new barriers to trade, going against the fundamental purpose of the Bill. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) talked about procurement. With regard to amendment 87, the Government intend to deliver measures on procurement through a wider package of procurement reform that is being implemented shortly after the Bill. A procurement rules reform Green Paper has been drafted and there will be a formal consultation. The aim is for separate primary legislation to follow.

I turn to new clause 5 and amendment 40. The protection of our environment and maintenance of high food standards are of great importance, and the UK Government are committed to maintaining standards across the UK in all these areas. The intention of the amendments appears to be to prevent Ministers from developing standards that differ from those in the EU, even where UK standards better serve the needs of the UK. On that basis, I urge Members not to move the new clause and the amendment.

I thank the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) for tabling amendments 81 to 85, as they raise the important issue of the recognition of professional qualifications in the common travel area. However, I must oppose the amendments as set out. This Bill is not the vehicle for honouring our commitments in relation to the common travel area. I can reassure the hon. Members that the UK Government acknowledge that the recognition of professional qualifications is an essential facilitator of the right to work associated with the common travel area. My officials are progressing work in relation to the common travel area so that the UK can continue to meet its commitments.

Amendment 27 seeks to give devolved Ministers the ability to decide which qualifications can be accepted as part of the internal market. By giving devolved Ministers the power to decide which qualifications should benefit from these provisions, we could reduce the number of professionals who can move within the internal market. The alternative recognition process outlined in clause 24 grants the flexibility, and will enable authorities to assess on a case-by-case basis whether a person’s existing qualifications and experience are sufficient evidence of the skills required for the profession in question.

I turn to new clause 10 and thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is no longer in her seat, for her contribution. As I have tried to highlight, the protection of the environment is hugely important and something to which this Government are very committed. However, passing this amendment would not be the best way to protect the environment. We have made sure that there are exemptions from indirect discrimination where the health of animals and plants and humans is concerned. Further to this, the powers in the Environment Bill will mean that future Governments must be open and transparent about the impact of future primary legislation on environmental protections.

Amendment 88 seeks to prevent the Bill from being placed into schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998, thus preventing it from being protected from modification or repealed by the Scottish Parliament. If the Bill were to be modifiable by one or more devolved legislatures, it would not be able to provide consumers and businesses with the vital certainty that they currently enjoy. Businesses trading in Scotland would need to consider how the Scottish Parliament may seek to amend or repeal elements of this legislation. That would create disruptive uncertainty, which must be avoided, particularly as we seek to support the UK’s economic recovery from the covid-19 pandemic.

I turn to amendments 9 and 39, and new clause 9. We will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations to understand and respond to their concerns. In accordance with the Sewel convention, the UK Government have requested legislative consent motions for this Bill from all the devolved legislatures. New clause 9 in particular would place intergovernmental structures in statute, limiting the capacity for discussion among all Governments and the capacity to adapt to this change.

New clause 11 seeks to provide Parliament with information on the working of the Act in a context of developing common frameworks. It is essential that the Office for the Internal Market is available and able to perform its functions at arm’s length from political interference from the UK Government and devolved Administrations.

[Deidre Brock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I must bring my response to a close. The amendment risks undermining the independence of the CMA and its global reputation for producing credible, impartial and expert analysis.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Scully]

I cannot at the moment, I am afraid. I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments to a Division, for the reasons that I have given, and that they will support the Government’s amendments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst talked about amendment 66, and I assure him that we will be moving it. I thank him for his work on resolving this issue.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who is not in her place, talked about the concerns over the Belfast agreement. The Bill does not interact directly with the Belfast agreement. It does interact clearly with the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, but it seeks to make the Belfast agreement work in certain given circumstances.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Earlier, my hon. Friend mentioned the Sewel convention. Could he set out exactly what influence it has on legislation that is made in Brussels?

[Paul Scully]

Exactly. As my hon. Friend knows, it has none. Importantly, as we bring back power from the EU to the UK Government, we will work to pass on many, many powers to the devolved legislatures, whether it is the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly. They will be getting powers, and we will all work together as the UK to give businesses the continuity that they need with our UK internal market.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I have several pages of amendments and clauses that I will put before the House. At this stage, may I reiterate the Speaker’s stricture? I will do this now, and I will do it again before the vote, but people are normally already moving when we do this just before the vote, and nobody is moving at the moment, so I have a captive audience. I therefore use this time to re-emphasise that if Divisions take place on any of the clauses, new clauses or amendments, the Front Benchers can go towards the exit in front of me to vote and use the card readers. Let us hope that they are working this time; they should be. Everybody else, please—calmly and with social distancing—leave through the exit behind me and make your way towards Westminster Hall, where you will do a socially distanced conga towards the Division Lobbies to present your cards to the readers. I hope that that is understood.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

The mutual recognition principle for goods

Amendments made: 90, page 2, line 6, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) can be sold there without contravening any relevant requirements that would apply to their sale,”

The amendment makes a drafting correction to clause 2(1)(b) to cater more clearly for relevant requirements that take the form of a prohibition. The new wording means that the previous reference in parenthesis to a case where there are no relevant requirements is no longer necessary.

Amendment 91, page 2, line 15, leave out from “can” to end of line 17 and insert

“be sold by auction in the originating part without contravening any applicable relevant requirements there”.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

The amendment makes clause 2|(2) conform to the wording of clause 2)1)(b) as amended by Amendment 90.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Exclusion from market access principles

Amendments made: 5, page 42, line 5, leave out from “The” to “not” on line 6 and insert

“United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to (and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do”.

This amendment means that measures aimed at preventing the spread of pests or diseases are capable of being excluded from the non-discrimination principle for goods (as well as the mutual recognition principle for goods).

Amendment 6, page 42, line 26, at end insert—

“(6A) In determining whether the fifth condition is met the following consideration is to be taken into account: whether the legislation, taken together with any similar legislation applying in the restricting part, imposes measures of similar severity in response to threats of similar severity arising from the potential movement of the pest or disease into, or within, the restricting part (wherever those threats originate).”

This amendment means that, in assessing whether a measure aimed at preventing the spread of pests or diseases can reasonably be justified as necessary, account will be taken of whether similar threats are addressed with similar severity.

Amendment 7, page 45, line 2, at end insert—

“Fertilisers and pesticides

8A The mutual recognition principle for goods does not apply to (and section 2(3) does not affect the operation of) any of the following—

(a) a prohibition or condition imposed in accordance with Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 relating to fertilisers, as it forms part of retained EU law;

(b) regulations under section 74A(1) of the Agriculture Act 1970, to the extent that such regulations can reasonably be justified as a response to a risk to—

(i) the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or

(ii) the environment.

8B The mutual recognition principle for goods does not apply to (and section 2(3) does not affect the operation of) any of the following—

(a) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (etc), as it forms part of retained EU law;

(b) the Plant Protection Products Regulations 2011 (S.I. 2011/2131);

(c) the Plant Protection Products Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011 (S.R. (N.I.) 2011 No. 295).”—(Michael Tomlinson.)

This amendment excludes certain measures in relation to fertilisers and pesticides from the operation of the mutual recognition principle for goods.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Interpretation of other expressions used in Part 1

Amendments made: 93, page 8, line 38, after “thing” insert

“(including any packaging or label)”.

The amendment clarifies that “goods” for the purposes of Part 1 includes their packaging and any label attached to them.

Amendment 94, page 8, line 41, leave out

“significant regulated step in their production”

and insert

“significant production step which is a regulated step”.

The amendment, with Amendment 95 clarifies the rule for determining whether goods have been produced in a part of the United Kingdom for the purposes of Part 1.

Amendment 95, page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) A production step occurring in a part of the United Kingdom is “regulated” for the purposes of subsection (3) if —

(a) it is the subject of any statutory requirement in that part of the United Kingdom, or

(b) it is a step that could materially affect a person’s ability to sell the goods without contravening—

(i) any relevant requirement for the purposes of the mutual recognition principle for goods, or

(ii) any statutory requirement that is excluded from being a relevant requirement by section 4(1),

that would be applicable to a sale of the goods in that part of the United Kingdom (being a sale of a kind for which the goods are being produced).

(4A) A production step is “significant” for the purposes of subsection (3) if it is significant in terms of the character of the goods being produced and the purposes for which they are to be sold or used (but see subsections (4B) and (4C)).

(4B) A production step falling within any of the following descriptions is not significant (whether or not it is regulated)—

(a) activities carried out specifically to ensure goods do not deteriorate before being sold (such as maintaining them at or below a particular temperature);

(b) activities carried out solely for purposes relevant to their presentation for sale (such as cleaning or pressing fabrics or sorting different coloured items for packaging together);

(c) activities involving a communication of any kind with a regulatory or trade body (such as registering the goods or notifying the goods or anything connected with them or their production);

(d) activities carried out for the purpose of testing or assessing any characteristic of the goods (such as batch testing a pharmaceutical product).

(4C) A production step involving the packaging, labelling or marking of goods is not significant (whether or not it is regulated) unless the step is fundamental to the character of the goods and the purposes for which they are to be sold or used.”

The amendment explains terms used in clause 14(3) as amended by Amendment 94.

Amendment 92, page 9, line 27, at end insert—

“(10) “Contravening” includes failing to comply.”—(Michael Tomlinson.)

This drafting amendment ensures that references to contravening a relevant requirement cover a failure to comply with such a requirement (for example a failure to comply with a condition).

Corporate Transparency and Reform of the Companies Register

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Climate Change and Corporate Responsibility) Lord Callanan has today made the following statement:

The Government published its response to the 2019 consultation on options to enhance the role of Companies House and increase the transparency of companies and other legal entities on Friday 18 August. The consultation received over 1300 responses from all across business, academia and civil society and I am grateful to all those that took the time to submit their views.

The response outlines the Government intention to take forward many of the measures proposed in the consultation. Our vision is for a company register built upon relevant and accurate information that supports the UK’s global reputation as a leading exponent of greater corporate transparency. Companies House will play an even stronger role as an enabler of economic growth, whilst strengthening the UK’s ability to combat economic crime.

These reforms will support the Government ambition of making the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business. Businesses will benefit from more reliable information, streamlined and digitised processes and an improved user experience, reflecting the needs of business in the 21st century.

The key measures are:

Identity verification. We will introduce compulsory identity verification for all directors and beneficial owners—people with significant control—and individuals filing information on behalf of a company.

Reforms to Companies House powers. We propose giving the registrar much stronger powers to query, seek evidence for, amend or remove information and to share it with law enforcement partners when certain conditions are met.

Protecting personal information. We will give individuals more rights to remove personal information from the register, to help protect them from fraud and other harms.

Company accounts. We propose mandating electronic filing to bring the UK in line with international best practice and will look to simplify the filing of accounts with Companies House and HMRC. We propose a further consultation on options to deliver these reforms. These reforms will have a negligible impact on the speed at which incorporation and other filings are completed: we still expect the vast majority of companies to be able to incorporate easily within 24 hours. Costs will remain low by international standards. Where more information is being sought from companies, for example for identity verification, technological solutions will ensure that additional burdens on business and individuals are kept to a minimum.

The Government will consult on further reforms to make Companies House data more useful and usable, including reforms to the filing of company accounts and the registrar’s powers. Once the detail of all the proposals has been settled, the Government will bring forward legislation to implement the reforms when Parliamentary time allows.

[HCWS459]

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

This might be where we differ, as I was going to come on to say, because we believe that the ultimate arbiter of the UK internal market would need to be the UK Parliament. Our amendments seek to ensure that negotiations through common frameworks are conducted in good faith and given proper time and that this would need to come back to the UK Parliament in primary legislation, rather than secondary legislation, as is proposed.

Labour supports the need for some kind of independent body to arbitrate the effectiveness of the internal market. However, we want to ensure that this body is fully accountable to the views of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and, crucially, has proper teeth to be able to do what it needs to do. New clause 3 would therefore place a legal obligation on the CMA to monitor, to report and, most importantly, to consult with the devolved Administrations when discharging its new and enhanced duties.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the Scottish national party. While I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, it appears from the amendments that the SNP does not want a functioning internal market; it wants to frustrate one. I am afraid that some of its amendments would, in essence, give a veto to the Scottish Parliament of the internal UK single market. We cannot support that. We believe that the UK Parliament has to be the final arbiter of a functioning internal market because we believe in the UK, and the SNP does not. Its amendments would clog up the process and effectively offer one Parliament a veto.

As MPs, we have a responsibility and a duty to protect the interests of this country. The rule of law and the safety and security of our nation should be paramount. For the Conservative and Unionist party—let us remind ourselves of that name—to propose legislation that breaks the law and threatens the Union by putting rocket boosters under those campaigning for independence is near unthinkable. We hope that Ministers will accept our amendments to strengthen the Bill and to respect devolution as it stands and that they will table amendments at the next stage to strengthen the Bill further, so that we can keep our Union intact, get Brexit done, get the deal that this country was offered and move on.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I would like to thank all Members who have spoken today. Before I proceed to discuss part 4 in some detail and the amendments that have been tabled, I want to put the Bill into context, so that we can see where it sits. I would particularly like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash), for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) and for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for their support of the Bill. This is an economic Bill to ensure that UK companies can trade unhindered in every part of the UK, and their focus on the core issue of ensuring that free trade must be commended.

The United Kingdom’s internal market has been the bedrock of our shared prosperity for centuries. It has enabled businesses and individuals to thrive and has been the source of unhindered and open trade across the country. It has helped to demonstrate that, as a Union, our country is greater than the sum of its parts. The economies of our four nations within one United Kingdom are forged as one. Around 60% of Scottish and Welsh exports are to the rest of the UK, which is around three times as much as the exports to the rest of the EU. About 50% of Northern Ireland’s sales are to Great Britain. In some local authorities in Wales, over a quarter of workers commute across the border. So when we leave the transition period at the end of this year, and the laws made in Europe can now be made across the UK, hundreds of powers will flow from the EU to the devolved nations and the UK Government in an unprecedented transfer of powers. It is really important to remember that we are devolving powers down to those devolved nations.

The Bill will not limit the devolved Administrations from innovating, as some Members have suggested. If an Administration wanted to introduce minimum alcohol pricing laws in the future, as was mentioned earlier, our proposals in the Bill would have no effect on them as long as the rules did not have a discriminatory effect on goods from other parts of the UK. Nor would our proposals do anything to prevent any Administration from introducing rules and regulations on how and where products could be used, including bans on smoking in public places. As these powers return to the devolved Administrations and as we recover from covid, we must ensure that our economy is stronger than ever. That is why the Government have brought forward this legislation to guarantee the continued functioning of our internal market and to ensure that trade remains unhindered in the UK.

Our manifesto committed us to maintaining and strengthening the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market, and eight weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy presented to Parliament a White Paper that set out plans to preserve our internal market after the transition period. Since then, we have spoken to hundreds of businesses and business representative organisations across the UK to gather views and feedback on our proposals. Overwhelmingly, businesses supported our approach. For example, the British Chambers of Commerce stressed that a fragmented system would create additional costs, bureaucracy and supply chain challenges that could disrupt operations for firms across the UK. As these proposals progress, business communities will want practical considerations, not politics, at the heart of the debates on shaping solutions. I want to thank those businesses, along with colleagues across the devolved Administrations, for their engagement on the White Paper.

Turning now to the independent body that will be created by the provisions in part 4, we consulted on how to ensure that an independent monitoring and advice function could uphold the internal market. In response, to oversee the functioning of the internal market, the Bill sets up the Office for the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority. In some of the contributions today, Members have talked about who will serve in the Office for the Internal Market. I must remind people that the Competition and Markets Authority sits aside from Government and the directors of its board can be seen on its website. It is open to everyone to see their expertise in their fields. These are not people who are passed on through grace and favour; these are technical roles and it is really important that we have the greatest expertise in that body.

[Tim Farron]

I do not think that any of us doubt the integrity of the people on the board or on that body. We doubt their powers to be able to ensure that there is equity. Does the Minister not understand that there is a real difference?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but prior to his contribution, other Members did raise the point about how these people were being recruited and for what reasons.

This measure means that each devolved Administration will be fully and equally involved in the oversight of the UK internal market. It minimises the need to seek court action, thus ensuring the continued smooth operation of the UK internal market that businesses crave. The provisions set out in the Bill provide broad oversight on an equal basis for all Administrations. The new Office for the Internal Market will be able to provide non-binding, expert reporting, technical monitoring, regulations and proposals, which will provide robust evidence on the actual or potential impact of regulatory measures, thus ensuring enhanced transparency and accountability for decision making across all the Administrations, including the UK Government acting on behalf of England. It is important that by doing this, the Office for the Internal Market will add an extra economic impact assessment that could otherwise just boil down to a political debate, which would not provide the consistency and coherence that businesses are seeking at this time.

I turn now to the amendments, starting with amendment 28 to clause 28. The clause is important because it defines those regulatory provisions on which the CMA will report and advise. This will ensure certainty and transparency for Administrations, businesses and the general public. Regulatory provisions are in scope if they set requirements for the purposes of mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles in the Bill for the sale of goods and equivalent services, as well as recognition of professional qualifications, and if they apply to one or more nations but not the whole of the UK.

As we have heard, amendment 28 seeks to exclude Scotland from the benefits of the new Office for the Internal Market. It would carve out regulation that applies only in Scotland from the definition of regulatory provisions across this part of the Bill, which basically means that the Scottish Government could not proactively request advice and its regulatory measures could not be included in the regular monitoring of impacts and trends in the UK internal market. If the functions of the new Office for the Internal Market applied asymmetrically, as is suggested, its work would be severely undermined from the outset.

Full UK-wide coverage and relationships with all four Administrations will be vital in gaining and maintaining the confidence of stakeholders, so I strongly question how the office could effectively fulfil the functions given to it by the Bill if it cannot assess impacts across the UK internal market as a whole. Parity is a central principle in how the office for the internal market will conduct its affairs. It will be of service to all four nations of the UK, but in turn it will legitimately expect to consider the impacts of regulatory measures across all four Administrations. The clause empowers the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, as well as the devolved Administrations.

Equally, the amendment would deny Scottish Government policy makers an important support system for the development of regulation following the transition period. The expertise and analysis of the Office for the Internal Market, offered to all Administrations equally, should not be rejected in this way. Finally and most importantly, since this provision plays a key part in ensuring there are no trade barriers, businesses across the UK would suffer.

To ensure the ongoing smooth operation of the UK internal market, clause 29 will ensure that emerging trends and developments in the market are independently reviewed by the CMA. The CMA has a strong reputation for independence and impartiality, which the Government have striven to preserve in setting out the functions of the office for the internal market. The UK Government have no role in what I have described: the function of the office in reporting to this House, the other place and devolved legislatures, discussing such topics as intra-UK competition, free access to goods and services, and the impact of diverging regulatory conditions in different parts of the UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) raised other areas that the office could look into. It is important to know that the list is not exclusive; there are other areas, and the CMA has a great track record in championing the consumer, so the consumer point he raised is covered.

I said that there was no role for the UK Government in what I have just described. Truly independent scrutiny is crucial if anyone is to have faith in the office’s pronouncements on the health of the UK internal market, especially our business community at a time when those same businesses find themselves stretched thin by the impact of the coronavirus.

[Jonathan Edwards]

If the office for the internal market writes a report that says, for instance, that a regulation passed by the Northern Irish Assembly—if it was functioning—was contrary to the principles of the Bill, would there be legal recourse if a company was affected by that policy?

[Paul Scully]

As I say, the office will put forward non-binding reports to each devolved Parliament, but then there are the existing provisions for working intergovernmentally. We also have the common frameworks arrangement, as has been described, which has already provided good collaboration and co-operation, which I will come back to in a second. Ultimately, yes, the courts are there as a last resort, but if we have the inter- governmental relationships and build on those, as trusted partners, we will not have to resort to that.



The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) said that minimum alcohol pricing, procurement, health and tuition fees would be undermined or constrained by the OIM’s functions. That is just not true. None of the clauses set out in part 4 precludes the devolved Administrations from introducing policies in any of those areas. The OIM will not be empowered to bind Administrations or veto regulations. It will only be concerned with assessing the economic impact of regulation, never its merit.

When not acting at the request of an Administration for reporting or advice, the OIN would only ever be concerned with monitoring the health of the UK’s internal market, such as the flow of trade, the impact of regulations on intra-UK competition and investment, or the ready availability of goods and services for all our citizens. The CMA, which the OIM will be established within, already operates at a strict arm’s length from the Government and all devolved Administrations. It has built up a wealth of expertise and experience, and has a global reputation for promoting competition. That is why it is a natural fit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone mentioned, the Bill clearly sets out that the OIM would be required to provide access to its reports and advice to all four Administrations on an equal basis, enhancing transparency and accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister is doing his best job to front this up and to give some of the detail that the Prime Minister was not across yesterday, but does he not have the slightest bit of doubt when his own colleague, the legal representative on the Welsh Conservative Benches in the Senedd, David Melding, resigned saying that this Bill poses dangers to the Union and that those have been gravely aggravated by the decisions of the Prime Minister? When somebody of that standing has criticised the Bill in this way, does the Minister not have any qualms about what he is doing?

[Paul Scully]

That is why I am going through the clauses and amendments at Committee stage to keep the focus on what is so important—what businesses expect us to do. I will not go through all the clauses, for reasons of brevity, but I am happy to follow up with anybody who wants to do that as we go through the rest of the Bill’s stages.

Amendment 30 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the agreement of the devolved Administrations before the Secretary of State specifies the level of financial penalties in secondary legislation in cases of non-compliance with the information-gathering requirements of the CMA. I am happy to reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to not taking any steps to bring the financial penalties into effect by commencing the clause until there is clear and credible evidence that there is a need to do so to enable the CMA to fulfil its internal market functions under the Bill. The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to consult with other relevant persons before making the necessary regulations. I want to confirm that the devolved Administrations would be consulted as other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate, so they do fit within that.

On new clause 2, we are committed to maintaining high standards across the UK. That is absolutely vital. There are effectively two strands of this debate: first, the devolved Administrations; and secondly, concern—understandable concern—about standards. We have said repeatedly that we are committed to maintaining high standards across the UK, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out how we are already working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that this will be done.

I thank the hon. Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) for their passionate remarks in favour of common frameworks and the high standards that we have here in the UK. The new clause, though, seeks to fundamentally alter the nature of the common frameworks programme, the design of which was agreed by the UK Government and devolved Administrations in October 2017 at the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations. The principles agreed made it clear that the common frameworks are based on consensus and are designed to establish continuing dialogue between the UK Government and devolved Administrations. This dialogue facilitates policy development in a range of policy areas where powers returning from the EU intersect with devolved competence.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire rightly asked what underpins those common frameworks. Common frameworks provide an agreed approach to ensuring regulatory coherence across the UK in specific policy areas where powers are returning from the EU and intersect with devolved competence. The Bill, on the other hand, works alongside these common frameworks to provide a broader structural underpinning, and offers additional protections to the status quo of UK trade, ensuring certainty for businesses and investors in the form of a backstop—if I may say that—of regulatory coherence. The UK Government continue to work closely and constructively with the devolved Administrations. It would not be appropriate to create a legislative underpinning for UK common frameworks because this is about consultation, collaboration and working together with the Administrations rather than legislating to push them to do so.

In conclusion, in the debate we have had today, we started off with some misunderstandings about common frameworks—we have five frameworks coming before Christmas, including for food standards. We have talked about whether water and the national health service were at risk in Scotland, both of which are not within the scope of the Bill. This is really important: when one starts reading the Bill, one has to get to the last page, because that is where the schedule of exclusions is. It is important to do that, before we posture here in this House about something. As I say, businesses are crying out, “Do not do the politics. Let us trade across the UK.” That is what they are crying out for. That is what they want. So I hope that the amendments will be not be pressed and then we can get on with getting this Bill through the House.

[Drew Hendry]

Mr Evans, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I must admit I am still reeling somewhat from the irony of the Government opposing amendment 29 on the basis of political intrusion.

We have heard today from those who support independence and from those who are diehard Unionists in this Chamber. We have heard the concerns of the Welsh Government. Can I say that it is not a manufactured grievance to have these concerns from the Welsh Government, because they are genuine concerns? But that is true for Scotland, too. These are not manufactured problems; these are real-world problems.

I have to say that the Labour Front-Bench speech was warmly welcomed by those on the Conservative Benches today. The party that brought devolution in—the party of John Smith—undermining devolution in the way it did during that speech deserves some proper reflection.

In this debate, we have heard some warm words, but again, we have had absolutely no detail on how this is actually going to be protecting devolution. It is not. We have had no detail on the Office for the Internal Market. Who is going to be in that unelected body? How can we vouch for the integrity of anybody when we do not know who is going to be on that body and who is going to elect them—or who is going to appoint them, I should say?

The Minister talked about alcohol minimum pricing, which by definition is a discriminatory policy in Scotland. How can that possibly be protected under these measures? It cannot be. If we choose in Scotland and if the Scottish people vote for policies aimed at public health that cause the problem, the Bill still undermines the ability to do that.

The Government are determined to continue with their programme of overriding the Scottish Parliament and its elected representatives, and this underlines the fact that Scotland will never be seen as an equal member of the UK. We do not accept this. The people in Scotland are saying, and it is reported in poll after poll, that the only way to protect our Parliament is to be an independent nation.

Mr Evans, I press our amendment 28.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Unpaid Work Experience (Prohibition) (No. 2) Bill

Paul Scully Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 11th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham]

No, we are running out of time.

Information received through a parliamentary question in June shows that since 2007, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs investigations have led to just 15 successful prosecutions of employers for national minimum wage-related offences, but there have been no prosecutions relating to internship cases despite more than 150 complaints received by HMRC from workers undertaking unpaid internships. And that is before we consider the large number of people who do not know they are illegal and are working for months on end under the illusion of it being work experience.

The Bill clarifies and tightens current legislation and ensures that those on unpaid work experience placements are not being exploited. One of the best ways to do that is to limit the length of time of a placement in law. A six-month unpaid internship will cost a single person living in London a minimum of £6,300, and in Manchester £5,300, just to fund their own placement. Not only are they not being paid, but their living expenses can put them into serious debt before they even get their first proper job. That is not a system that we should be advocating. One we could advocate is Mr Speaker’s own intern scheme, which ensures that the young person taken on is paid the London minimum wage, or the local minimum wage. We should encourage organisations to replicate Mr Speaker’s scheme. I would like to make it clear that the Bill does not apply to placements where a university course requires it. These are often unique circumstances in which the student is funded through other means, so it is not affected by my Bill.

Moving towards a conclusion, we in this place must first look to ourselves and recognise that Parliament needs to take a lead. It is a significant statistic that 31% of Westminster staffers have worked for an MP without being paid. How are we supposed to set the example when many MPs in this House think that having people work for us for months on end with no pay is even the slightest bit satisfactory? Out there, thousands of employers are offering such placements under the guise of work experience and most of them do not even know they are breaking the law.

The Sutton Trust found that up to 50% of employers thought most unpaid internships were perfectly legal. Many others were not so sure. We need to take the ambiguity out of this. We must make sure that the rules are not open to misinterpretation. We need to be firm and make it clear that long-term unpaid internships are not permitted. We need to ensure that those who can afford to work for free are not given a step on the ladder ahead of their less affluent peers. We need to make sure that young people are not being exploited by organisations that should be paying them a wage. We need to make sure that social mobility is a reality in this country. Passing the Bill will help in all those areas. It is simple, it is straightforward, and it provides the clarity needed by both young people and employers.

I would like to end by reminding the Government about their prior commitments. The response of the Government to the Taylor review of modern working practices was that they would introduce new guidance and increase targeted enforcement activity to help to stamp out illegal and exploitative unpaid internships, but they have not. When he served as Mayor of London, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to tackle unpaid internships. The Prime Minister also said on 25 July last year that he backed this exact Bill in the name of the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell. Now, however, it seems that instead of backing it, he has backed out.

Government Members have a choice today: back the Bill and work to thrash out the minor details, if necessary, in Committee. Take a stand today and acknowledge that we have not done enough to eradicate exploitative working practices and that the Bill makes the move to right the wrongs. All colleagues here should be aware and think of the teenager in their constituency who works hard but, because of a low socioeconomic background, cannot work for free. Help that teenager get on the ladder for a change. Many young people from poorer backgrounds face challenges that many of us in this House could not even imagine. Let us take down one more barrier in their way. Let us take one step further to improving access to the workplace. Let us end exploitative, unpaid work experience or internships once and for all. I commend the Bill to the House.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The Minister has indicated that he would like to speak next. That does not end the debate. Should he sit down before 2.30 pm, other Members will be called.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on his success in the private Members’ Bill ballot. Clearly, there is not a lot of time to respond to the detail, but I want to cover a couple of areas to show this issue the respect it deserves. I will mention one or two specific issues before I get on to the substance.

The hon. Gentleman talked about Members of this place taking on people and, as he rightly pointed out, the distinction that gets blurred between volunteers, interns and those on work experience. It is an uncomfortable truth, which we need to sort out ourselves. The W4MP—Working for an MP—website, from which some colleagues on both sides recruit their staff, states that, as a response to such campaigns in recent years, it does

“not generally accept adverts for work that does not pay at least the current rate of national minimum wage/national living wage”.

The exceptions include adverts for volunteers for political parties, including voluntary work for MPs, and any ad accepted for an unpaid role will include reference to its being voluntary. When we did a search for interns on that website, it showed 11 jobs that were all paid. A search using the term “unpaid” found no results and, similarly, “voluntary” and “expenses only” found zero results. We cannot be complacent and we must make sure that we are leading from the front, as he said.

The hon. Gentleman talked about national minimum wage prosecutions, and I think he was specifically talking about this aspect. However, in general terms of prosecutions—to update the House—there are currently seven cases at various stages of the criminal investigation process involving not paying the national wage across the board, although not necessarily in the field that we are talking about. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which tackles this, has issued seven labour market enforcement undertakings this year. Since 2007, 15 employers have been successfully prosecuted for underpaying the national minimum wage. Prosecution tends to be reserved for the most egregious breaches of national minimum wage law. In most cases, it is not necessarily the best approach to help workers. Criminal sanctions against companies can mean that workers, the ultimate beneficiaries of enforcement, end up waiting considerably longer for their lost earnings to be paid back.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman that it is wrong to exploit workers through unpaid work experience, including internships. The rights of workers to be paid at least the minimum wage must always be upheld. An individual’s entitlement to the minimum wage depends on whether they are deemed to be a worker for minimum wage purposes. If someone is deemed to be a worker, their employer must pay at least the relevant minimum wage rate from their first day of employment. I will come back to this if I have time, but I should like to provide reassurance that most internships or work experience placements are likely to constitute work, and therefore individuals are likely to be deemed to be workers who are entitled to be paid at least the minimum wage.

[Alex Cunningham]

I know we are short of time, but I would ask the Minister two things. First, will he work to raise awareness among employers that a lot of their activities are actually illegal through not paying the national minimum wage? Secondly, will he look at the fact that many complaints have been made but no prosecutions or action taken when students have objected to work experience being unpaid?

[Paul Scully]

Indeed, we do work on both enforcement and awareness, but it is right that we continue to look at how much more we can do, including in making sure that employees and workers themselves are aware of what they are entitled to. Each year, as we address and set the minimum wage, we always have a campaign about that. It is important that we contact, yes, employers to remind them of their legal duties, but also workers to make sure they are aware of their own rights. That is absolutely key.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Since 2013, it had been Government policy to name employers who break the national minimum wage law. The naming scheme was suspended by the Government last year. Can the Minister tell the House whether that is back up and running, and if it is not, when it will be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

The naming scheme is something that we did bring in, and we are keen to reinstate it—it obviously has been postponed at the moment—up to its full potential. We are working with employers and sending out tens of thousands of letters to employers to remind them of their obligations, but we will certainly be returning to the naming scheme in due course.

It is important that we recognise that internships offer an important opportunity for young people to gain experience and improve their career prospects, and that is why young workers tend to be more likely to accept unpaid internships. Minimum wage legislation provides for a number of exemptions that recognise the importance of gaining work experience. Those clearly defined exemptions include: students on placement for up to one year as a required part of a UK course of further or higher education; pupils of compulsory school age; participants in certain Government programmes to provide training, work experience or temporary work; and, voluntary workers volunteering for a charity or voluntary organisation. All other internships are likely to constitute work for minimum wage purposes, with the individual entitled to be paid at least the minimum wage.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that it is important from a work experience point of view to consider younger children? When I was leader of Westminster City Council, I introduced the Westminster Lions scheme, which targeted 13 to 15-year-olds. That was about giving them experience not necessarily in the office, but of talking to employers and sectors about potential career opportunities for teenagers, ensuring that they could make the right career choices as they went to college and further education.

[Paul Scully]

I commend my hon. Friend for the work that she and Westminster City Council have done in this area, because it is so important to give opportunities. I will talk a little bit about social mobility, which is the point of what she did. Certainly on this side of the House, we like to remind ourselves that we are the party of opportunity. It is all about creating opportunities and making sure that everybody in this country—whatever their background, their family situation, their housing situation, their gender, creed or race—can grab hold of those opportunities and fulfil their potential.

That is why the Government share the concern expressed by organisations such as the Social Mobility Commission and the Sutton Trust, to which the hon. Member for Stockton North referred. Unpaid internships are a barrier to social mobility, for the reasons that he gave. I am also aware of the Sutton Trust report “Pay As You Go?”, which was published in November 2018. It recommended legislative changes to ensure that all internships longer than four weeks require payment of at least the national minimum wage.

In some sectors, such as the creative industries, unpaid internships have been seen as a key step to gaining experience in order to secure paid employment. However, the Government are clear that internships must not be used as a pretext to avoid paying qualifying workers the minimum wage, and that is why the Government’s focus has been on enforcing existing minimum wage legislation that protects workers’ rights to receive at least the minimum wage from day one.

Matthew Taylor considered unpaid internships in his review of modern working practices published in July 2017. He agreed that exploitative unpaid internships that damage social mobility in the UK should be stamped out. However, he argued that should be done by clarifying the interpretation of the law and by encouraging enforcement action by HMRC. He also argued that a separate intern status in employment law was unnecessary as the law was clear as it stood.

When enforcing the national minimum wage regulations, HMRC inspectors will consider the precise details of each case, such as internships or work experience, including what the worker is being asked to do. As I have indicated, entitlement to the minimum wage depends on whether someone is a “worker” in defined terms. Being a worker depends essentially on whether there is a contract—written or oral and expressed or implied—to work or perform services for a reward.

Most internships or work experience placements are likely to constitute work, as there will be some form of legal consideration, in that the parties have each agreed to do something or to provide something. On the employer’s part, that could include expenses, the promise of an interview or the promise of future work. Where HMRC comes to the view that arrangements constitute work under the minimum wage regulations, it will require the employer to repay any arrears to the worker and it will impose a penalty for underpayment. Even though interns are not defined in minimum wage legislation, they are generally already protected as workers and therefore already entitled to be paid at least the minimum wage from day one. It does not matter whether an individual is described as an intern or as on work experience; they still have that entitlement from the day they start.

That leads me, in the two seconds I have left, to the Bill.

Regulatory Impact Assessments (Legislative Scrutiny)

Paul Scully Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for bringing this important issue to the House. Parliamentary debate and the exchange of views reflect the importance of parliamentary scrutiny.

When a policy decision is made, it is informed by an assessment of the potential impacts of a range of different policy options. The evidence and analysis informing these decisions will inform consultation and engagement with stakeholders, and for legislative proposals, it is usually presented to Parliament in a regulatory impact assessment alongside the legislation. In the UK, regulatory impact assessments present the outcomes of evidence-based processes and procedures that assess the economic, social and environmental effects of public policy on businesses and wider society. Their use has contributed to better policy making and reduced the cost to business, which is so important.

Our commitment to conducting such impact assessments remains strong. The analysis that goes into impact assessments ensures that Government consider the need for and likely impact of new regulations to support legislative change. They ensure that we consider how regulation will affect the operation of markets and best enable businesses to innovate, and, in line with the subject of this debate, they inform parliamentary decision making.

Where Government intervention requires a legislative or policy change to be made, Departments are expected to analyse and assess the impact of the change on the different groups affected. That is generally published in the form of a regulatory impact assessment. However, attempts to conduct regulatory impact assessments for public policy making, particularly in the current climate of the coronavirus pandemic, could be problematic. That is because responding to emergencies requires legislation to be introduced at a much greater pace than during normal times.

The Coronavirus Bill, introduced in March this year, provided powers needed to respond to the coronavirus pandemic. The powers enabled the Government to introduce temporary emergency legislation to respond to the pandemic. To allow the Government to deliver at the required pace, formal regulatory impact assessments are not required for better regulation purposes for the temporary measures put in place in response to the pandemic. Further flexibility in the approach to impact assessments is appropriate where permanent measures need to be enforced urgently.

My hon. Friend mentioned some specific examples where we have assessed the impact in a different way. He is right to talk about the importance of regulatory impact assessments. Some of the guidelines that he mentioned fall within my area. The specific residential landlord and tenant issue that he mentioned falls to my colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but in terms of the commercial Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 changes, we found from listening and speaking to businesses over a period that some companies that were struggling to pay their rent were being wound up by some landlords, so we acted.

This is on the basis of detailed, long-standing conversation and engagement with businesses on both sides of the debate. In my short time as a Minister, I have had around 500 meetings with, I estimate, 3,000 to 4,000 businesses, so I think I have a reasonable handle on retail, hospitality, weddings and the beauticians who do eyebrows and beard trimming that my hon. Friend mentioned. It is a source of great regret that we are unable to allow wedding celebrations of more than 30 people to occur at the moment. I have seen at first hand and heard from people in the wedding sector, which is an enormous contributor to the UK economy, how badly they are suffering as a result.

[Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)]

I know that my hon. Friend has been working hard with a range of different sectors, including the wedding industry. Will he reassure the House that work is ongoing to try to find a way for wedding venues to reopen more fully, beyond the current 30-person limit, so that they can see a future ahead of them?

[Paul Scully]

I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point. He has been working tirelessly with his local wedding venues in Eddisbury to try to get a road map. We continue to work and engage on that issue to make sure that the sector, which is a really important contributor to the UK economy, can reopen, and that people whose special day is being put off, and in some cases ruined, can come together.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)]

I fully accept that in certain Departments, including the Minister’s own, Ministers are trying conscientiously to weigh up the different factors, come to sensible decisions and stick to them, but will he take the message back to the Government that the inability of Government at a very high level to choose policies that seem capable of withstanding gusts of public opinion or media opinion, which is something else, is undermining confidence in the process, at least in part of Government, because if a decision has to be changed in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) described in his rather splendid opening speech, that suggests that a certain degree of rigour is absent.

[Paul Scully]

I think that rather than gusts of public pressure, the Government have been working in what is, in effect, as close to real-time decision making as we are ever going to get, and it is based on health advice and the business response. My right hon. Friend talked about the press and the media; I direct him to the example with which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch started—male eyebrow trimming and beard trimming—because that was never actually in the guidance. The guidance, which I worked on, was such that male beard trimming could work out, apart from detailing at the front if there was close, face-to-face, near contact. That was exactly the same as female eyebrow trimming, so there was no sense that men could go and get their eyebrows trimmed and women could not. The rhetoric in the media that men were getting a better deal than females, which understandably upset beauticians, just was not the actuality—it was not what was happening—but unfortunately, as we know, it is sometimes difficult to work with the media to stop a good story.

We must continue to engage. We do want to get back to the formality of regulatory impact assessments but, as I say, we need to engage at pace, so we will continue to listen to businesses. Sometimes, the consultations on the guidance we have been working on have lasted literally 12 hours on a Sunday. That guidance has come to me, to the unions and to businesses and we have all been acting within the same time constraints. We have not been hiding things away from businesses and those people who are most affected by this situation.

[Jim Shannon]

I must say that I am impressed by the number of people and businesses the Minister has met; that is an indication of the knowledge that he has gauged from them. May I make a quick suggestion on weddings? It is possible, in a bigger venue, to have people self-distanced and to have more than 30 people. It is also possible at weddings to have clusters of families who live closely together: there could be tables of 10 people —genuinely—which could increase the numbers who can go to weddings. To go back to the issue of regulatory impact assessments, if that was done, more people could attend weddings.

[Paul Scully]

As I say, weddings have been a big source of concern for me and others and, understandably, that argument has been put to me. The huge difference between weddings and, say, restaurants—an example that has often been cited—is that the wedding parties tend to know each other, whereas in a restaurant people have little interest in speaking to those at the table next door. Clearly, if someone’s grandmother or extended family are sitting at the next table, as the wedding and the evening develops, social distance suddenly starts to fall by the wayside.

I totally get the fact that wedding organisers know everybody who is there, so they can register and have test and trace working effectively, but it is a concern to the scientists. We are trying to balance the economy from the economic point of view, the human behaviour point of view and the science point of view, which is a difficult mix to deal with. Because we are working at pace, the regulatory impact assessments, which are the source of this debate, are not always easy to compile. For the reasons that the Leader of the House gave—I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about the way that was worded—when compiling a formal regulatory impact assessment while working at pace, it is not always possible to go through that procedure.

We are reminding Departments of the importance of ensuring that appropriate resources are invested in gathering and analysing evidence about the regulatory impacts of the affected policies, and to publish it, where appropriate, throughout the period, if not at that particular time.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

May I present a challenge to the Minister? Will he publish for our benefit a regulatory impact assessment on the issue of not allowing larger weddings? That would bring into the open all the issues with which he is familiar but which have not yet been exposed to public debate and scrutiny. Is that not what it is all about? This has now been going on for six months, and people want to know where the future lies for the small organisations involved in weddings. Will he offer to do that for us, notwithstanding the fact that his Department is very busy? That would be really helpful.

While I have the Floor, let me also say that I am concerned that the Minister seemed to distance himself from what is happening to individual landlords. Although they may not be incorporated, they are small businesses.

[Paul Scully]

To answer my hon. Friend’s last point, I am not distancing myself; I literally was not involved in that decision. I do not want to offer a line of thought on something that I was not involved in, but I understand his point.

On weddings and the public debate, my hon. Friend has clearly not been following my Twitter feed—totally understandably—which is full of such debates about the wedding sector. We are trying to work with the sector to make sure it can open. My primary concern is about ensuring we get our economy open again with a warm but safe welcome to people. The Government’s first priority has always been to save and protect lives, but restoring livelihoods, protecting jobs and protecting businesses are right up there, for the reasons that my hon. Friend set out. If we do not get this kick-started now, the effect on the economy will be huge, so it is important that we work together to give people not just confidence but joy, so that when they come out to use services in their local high streets and city centres they enjoy the experience and come back time and time again.

A one-off hit to our economy is not good enough. We know it is not going to go back to how it was in February, and there are some permanent behaviour changes that seem to be kicking in. None the less, we need to work with the new normal, which means working with the virus, because we will be living with it. My hon. Friend talked about a second wave, or spike or whatever he wants to call it. If we learn to live with it, there may be a third and a fourth until we get a vaccine, but live with it we must. There will be a new reality of the permanent behaviour change.

Well-designed and effective regulation, which my hon. Friend wants to see in our legislation, and which we are championing, enables markets and business to flourish, grow and innovate. It can provide certainty for investors and protection for individuals and society. The use of impact assessments in informing regulatory design can help us to achieve those outcomes. Excessive or poorly designed regulation can impede innovation and create unnecessary barriers to trade, investment and economic efficiency. We have sought to limit that by ensuring that regulation changes in response to the pandemic are targeted and time-limited.

[Bob Stewart]

One of the biggest things that the Government have insisted on is facemasks, which we have mentioned already. I would be intrigued to know whether there is a regulatory impact assessment on why we all have to wear facemasks in public and various other places, because I have not seen it. If there is one that could be made public, perhaps it could be put in the House of Commons Library. There are growing numbers of people in my constituency of Beckenham who are rebelling against that idea.

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I get the train and the underground into London each and every day, and the adherence of people to wearing face masks is, on the whole, good. Tube use, I am glad to say, is increasing substantially. London city centre—the central activity zone in London—is incredibly quiet. That is affecting the west end in particular, and the City.

The west end represents 3% of the entire UK economy—just the west end—so although we need to make sure that the whole country is able to restore the confidence and joy that I was talking about, it would be remiss of me, as Minister for London as well, not to showcase those areas that make up a massive amount of our capital city as a strategic and world city, so that it is ready for international travellers when they have the confidence to travel.

The Government’s focus has been on improving design and proportionality in regulation. That is done through the Better Regulation Executive, which is responsible for embedding smarter, more cost-efficient and better regulation across Government, and which has recently introduced new guidance templates and training to improve the quality of impact assessments. As a result, impact assessments have clearer presentation of results, better planning for implementation and more quantification of costs and benefits.

The better regulation guidance represents the agreed Government policy on evidence and independent scrutiny, including when to seek independent scrutiny. It is clear that legislation should be accompanied by robust evidence and assessment of impact.

[Bob Stewart]

Forgive me. The Minister is a really good friend of mine, but he did not answer my question. I would really like to see the Government’s justification, in writing, as to why so many people have to wear face masks. Can we know what that justification is in this House?

[Paul Scully]

There has been a long debate about the use of face masks, both on transport and in retail. There are arguments either side—whether it gives a false sense of security or whether people touch their face when they put on or take off their mask. None the less, we have a better understanding of the transmission of the virus and the aerosol nature of its transmission. That is why the World Health Organisation has changed its advice from the beginning, when it said people do not need to have masks or face coverings, to, “Yes, you do.” Actually, we can learn from history. In the 19th century, cholera was assumed to be transmitted by air, but by greater understanding and by working through it—they did not need a regulatory impact assessment to figure it out— eventually people found that it was the water supply that was causing cholera, so they were able better to tackle that particular issue at that given time.

The Regulatory Policy Committee undertakes the verification role that provides independent oversight of the quality of the regulatory impact assessments, as well as providing the Government with external independent scrutiny of evidence and analysis supporting regulatory impact assessments of the proposals. The RPC also has a role in scrutinising the quality of post-implementation evaluations of legislation to help the Government develop the evidence base on how regulation has worked in practice.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Is this body to which the Minister is referring going to look at the issue of face masks, or face coverings? In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) he has said that there are arguments on both sides of this. In those circumstances, why are the Government taking one side and criminalising behaviour instead of trusting people to reach their own decisions on the information provided by the Government?

[Paul Scully]

I am sure the necessary people will have heard my hon. Friend’s call for that to be examined, but on the use of face masks, it is the same as self-isolation as a result of the test and trace system: the number of people who are having to self-isolate at any one time means that millions of us can go about our relatively normal lives by going to retail, hospitality or our places of work, which we were not able to do for so many months.

Those changes are evolving. I, like my hon. Friend, do not take any infringement of our civil liberties lightly, but this is a situation—I am not going to use the word “unprecedented” even though I just have; it has been used an unprecedented number of times—that we have never had to face before. No Government have ever had to face such a situation, so we are learning as we go along. We will not always get it right, but we have to make sure we are using the best engagement, listening to both sides of the argument, and working through as the science evolves and as we see what is in front of us in terms of human behaviour.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch talked about the OECD, whose latest report acknowledged that better regulation is an area of strength in the UK. It notes that the UK has been a leader in regulatory policy in general, with the early adoption of the better regulation agenda. Our ambitious agenda is reflected in the results of the OECD’s monitoring of regulatory management tools, as displayed in the “OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2018”, with the UK displaying the highest composite indicator score for stakeholder engagement for primary laws. Our score for secondary legislation is also significantly above the OECD average. We also had the highest composite indicator score for regulatory impact assessments across the OECD. That includes strong formal regulatory impact assessment requirements in areas such as establishing a process to identify how the achievement of the regulation’s goals will be evaluated; assessing a broad range of environmental and social impacts; and undertaking risk assessments as part of regulatory proposals. So we should be justifiably proud of our world-leading reputation in this area.

These assessments are valuable documents, and the Government should be applauded for encouraging their production and the transparent scrutiny of them, but, as with some individual impact assessments themselves, there is always room for improvement. As with the principles underpinning better regulation, we are always looking for ways to learn and improve our approach.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Obviously, we are fortunate in having a bit of extra time this evening, which is great. Will the OECD be asked to opine on the effectiveness of the Government’s regulatory response to the coronavirus epidemic? For example, will the OECD be able to comment on the distinction, which my hon. Friend has made, between rules on face coverings, for which there are lots of exemptions, and rules about isolation and quarantine, for which there are no exemptions. I am afraid that there is an anomaly there.

[Paul Scully]

I am afraid I do not have the OECD on speed dial, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to ask it to look into all these things. I am glad that we have extra time, because there is nothing I like more than to discuss regulatory impact assessments—I am afraid that Hansard does not detect sarcasm. Although I make light, it is good that we have parliamentary scrutiny of an important topic to cover.

As I say, there is a further cultural shift in Whitehall to make on such impact assessments across the board. We do have a responsibility to monitor the extent to which the laws we have passed are implemented as intended and have the expected impact. My hon. Friend is justified in raising this important issue, so that we can consider, learn and move forward together. The planning for monitoring and evaluating regulatory changes could be more effective. There is a risk that laws are passed that result in unexpected consequences or inappropriately stifle innovation. I have seen that at first hand as we have been changing and tweaking various support measures for businesses; we have had to change them so that they are supporting businesses as intended, rather than with an unintended consequence. Better planning for monitoring and evaluating will help to ensure that there is sufficient information to assess the actual state of a law’s implementation and its effects.

In conclusion, regulatory impact assessments, in themselves, have evolved into an important and valuable component of the UK’s better regulation system. The transparent publication of impact assessments has added accountability to the analytical dimensions to policy development, which has increased the amount of evidence presented alongside policy proposals, and the existence of the independent scrutiny has increased both the transparency of the process and the accountability of government. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue.

Question put and agreed to.