Contingencies Fund Advance

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Written Statements

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

I hereby give notice of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy having drawn an advance from the contingencies fund totalling £2,819,000,000 to enable expenditure in connection with the Governments’ response to covid-19 support packages for business to fight the virus and build back better, to be spent ahead of the passage of the Supply and Appropriation Act in March 2021.

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £1,459,000,000, additional capital of £1,110,000,000 and additional cash of £250,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £2,819,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

The cash advance will be repaid upon receiving Royal Assent on the Supply and Appropriation Act.

[HCWS775]

Bereavement

Paul Scully Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing tonight’s debate and on the interesting way in which he framed the three asks. I echo his condolences to the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) following the loss of his daughter. That must be so painful.

The debate is on a pertinent issue, so I was so grateful to the hon. Member for Easington for bringing it to Parliament and continuing his work in this area. We have heard of the painful impact of bereavement on individuals and families, and we have seen it over the past year in particular. I sympathise with anyone who has lost a loved one. It is deeply painful to lose a person who has played a special role in our lives. It is a sad truth that we will all experience loss or bereavement in our lives, so the hon. Gentleman speaks of many of our personal experiences. That inevitability does not make those feelings easier to manage, and many of us will feel overwhelmed with the sense of loss, but it highlights the importance of ensuring that consumers dealing with bereavement face the minimal amount of difficulty as they carry out their necessary business. It is intuitive that we want to improve the bereavement process, to make dealing with the accounts of the deceased more efficient and streamlined. After all, that time can be better spent on handling our emotions and continuing with our day-to-day lives. I am grateful for the many companies that already excel in supporting consumers in vulnerable positions, particularly those experienced with bereavement. But the hon. Gentleman spoke from the heart, and I am grateful to him for continuing to raise awareness of the issues facing consumers.

We are all aware of the far-reaching impact that covid-19 has had on our lives and the suffering that it can bring—whether the personal loss of loved ones or simply hearing about the virus’s mortality rates in the media. The Chamber may recall that, like many in the House, I am all too familiar, unfortunately, with the heavy toll that coronavirus has taken: sadly, my mother died just before the first lockdown and two uncles have died. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) talking about industrial diseases; my father died of mesothelioma after having inhaled asbestos when he was doing his apprenticeship on the docks. That was in Yangon and Glasgow, so it was even more complicated and difficult to work through that process. It is important that in such complicated situations, we see what more we can do to help.

People around the country are supporting one another during this trying period—friends, families, charities and businesses. We must reach out and take the opportunity to thank them. It is also a trying time for many in business, yet many continue to excel in meeting the complex needs of consumers. Many firms across the sectors offer emotional training to staff, dedicated channels for the bereaved and clear access to information. I am grateful to those businesses for supporting their consumers during an already stressful time.

But bereavement is not one moment in our lives; it is a deeply personal experience. We can live with bereavement all our lives and feel various degrees of emotion at any given moment. It is important that we acknowledge that when we respond to the issues facing those who experience bereavement. Closing accounts and settling estates is a small snapshot of that experience. The Government continue to support those dealing with loss across the piece.

Due to the excess numbers of deaths, especially now that we have reached the tragic point of 100,000 covid-19 deaths, and the increasingly complex grief for many people due to the disruptions to normal grieving processes, we expect a significant increase in demand for bereavement support during the medium to long term. We are taking a cross-Government approach to supporting bereavement services as the pandemic highlights the essential work that these organisations provide and the significant strain that they are under.

When a bereavement is particularly debilitating or likely to have a longer-term impact on an individual’s mental or physical health, they have access to our excellent national health service. In May 2020, the Government announced £4.2 million of additional funding to mental health charities and charities providing bereavement support. That was part of a £750 million package of support for the voluntary sector, announced by the Chancellor in April 2020. As part of our support for those experiencing bereavement, the Government continue their commitment to improve outcomes for consumers in vulnerable positions.

Bereavement is the prime example of how we can all be vulnerable at some point in our lives. The Government frequently work with regulators to ensure co-ordinating support for those in vulnerable positions—whether the consumer is struggling to pay their bills, suffering from a medical condition or struggling to engage with the market in some way. Those regulated sectors rightly recognise bereavement as a vulnerability and regulated firms are expected to treat consumers fairly, with dignity and respect. Many of them do meet very high standards in this regard. Research shows that consumers often receive excellent, compassionate service from their providers when dealing with end-of-life administration. Numerous provisions are made by the regulators to embed that good practice across the essential service sectors.

In energy, Ofgem is committed to protecting consumers in vulnerable circumstances and has a comprehensive consumer protection framework in place. It works with a flexible definition of vulnerability, enabling a spectrum of consumers to seek the necessary support from their provider. Ofgem has explicitly mentioned bereavement as a personal circumstance that can make someone vulnerable. Firms are therefore expected to treat consumers experiencing bereavement fairly and compassionately, as many do. That is a trend across the sectors. Water companies are expected to better identify and support customers in circumstances that make those customers vulnerable, including bereavement. Telecoms companies are expected to be dynamic in their approach to vulnerability and to treat consumers fairly and appropriately, responding sensitively to changes in circumstances such as bereavement.

[Grahame Morris]

The standard is enormously variable. I am losing what little hair I have left in a row with a telecoms company. It is so difficult even to speak to a human being, at times. Would it not be advantageous for the companies concerned to have a simpler system that works for consumers? Some 80% have indicated in a survey that they do not think the current arrangements are satisfactory. Will the Minister consider giving free passage to a private Member’s Bill—not necessarily from me, but perhaps from a Government Member—for this proposal?

[Paul Scully]

There will always be stories, and it is important that we work through those stories and the evidence with regulators. I will come back to that in a second. I appreciate the case that the hon. Gentleman cites, but we must welcome the good pieces of work from the independent regulators. The Government also welcome industry innovation, particularly when it addresses such pertinent issues.

It is important that we recognise the work of regulators and businesses to improve outcomes for the bereaved, but there is still more work to be done, as the hon. Gentleman has just pointed out. I am grateful to him for seizing the initiative. It is essential that we give these issues the time and attention they deserve. The deeper our insight, the better equipped we are to explore the most valuable options for the consumer. A hastily developed approach may mean a worse outcome for consumers. For example, pursuing standardisation whereby all sectors must meet the most stringent security requirements for account closures may be unnecessary and add hassle for consumers at an enormously difficult time. It is costly to business and harmful to consumers who are in a vulnerable position.

In November last year, I convened the regulators and sponsor Departments to discuss what work can be done around the important issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We are working with regulators, industry and charity experts—

[Sir John Hayes]

Part of the issue is that too many services have gone online, which is to some degree a consequence of the current crisis. We need to encourage such businesses and agencies, particularly when they are dealing with older people, to have face-to-face or phone-to-phone contact. As far as e-government is concerned, we want more p-government, where p stands for people.

[Paul Scully]

My right hon. Friend talks about people, and people are at the heart of any business, service or organisation. Whether it is e or p, we cannot lose the personal.

This is exactly the kind of work that I want to continue with our regulators and sponsor Departments, to make sure that we can raise these issues, develop our understanding and put in any necessary action to support businesses in delivering the caring, simple processes that bereaved people need. I assure the hon. Member for Easington that improving outcomes for bereaved consumers remains a priority for Government.

As well as talking about the standard, the hon. Gentleman spoke about digital copies of death certification, and clarity for business and consumers to allow the markets to function more effectively. The Government are working with regulators to understand what we can do to provide more clarity and confidence for firms on the use of digital copies of death certificates. For the record, and to avoid conflating concepts, it should be noted that digital death certificates do not exist; digital copies of death certification refer to the scanned copies of documents.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about bereavement leave. I hope that with me, he will welcome Jack’s law, which came into force last year, on parental bereavement leave and pay. It is a good start. I know that he wants to go further, but we should bear in mind that this is a statutory minimum. When we look at workers’ protections and workers’ rights, which have been the subject of debate over the last few weeks, we see that all these things are statutory minimums. As a former employer who has run businesses, I know that doing the bare minimum is not good business practice; we invest in our people. We will always ask employers to go further.

The Government are working to better understand what issues and problems bereaved consumers persistently face in the essential service sectors. We support and value the good work that the regulators in those sectors have done and are doing on these issues, and we know that many businesses already offer bereaved customers both compassion and efficient service.

We remain committed to improving outcomes for all consumers experiencing vulnerability, including those facing bereavement, and we will continue to work through the issues that the hon. Member has raised and carefully consider his suggestions. We encourage all businesses to treat all consumers with compassion and understanding, particularly when those consumers are faced with emotional hardship, and we thank those that are already doing exactly that.

I thank the hon. Member once again for his contribution to the debate. I also thank the other hon. and right hon. Members who intervened and contributed, and everyone who continues to work hard to raise awareness of issues facing consumers dealing with bereavement and loss.

Question put and agreed to.

Coronavirus-related Assistance: Industrial Development Act 1982

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2021 Written Statements

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

I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. Members to bring to their attention spend under the Industrial Development Act 1982. In addition to the obligation to report annually on spend under the Industrial Development Act, the Coronavirus Act 2020 created a new quarterly reporting requirement for spend which has been designated as addressing the effects of coronavirus. This statement fulfils that purpose.

The statement also includes a report of the movement in contingent liability during the quarter. Hon. Members will wish to note that measures such as local authority grants, the coronavirus job retention scheme and self-employed income support scheme, and tax measures such as the suspension of business rates are not provided under the Industrial Development Act 1982 and hence are not included below.

This report covers the second quarter of 2020, from 1 April to 30 June 2020, in accordance with the Coronavirus Act. The Q1 written ministerial statement was published on 9 July 2020.

Under the Coronavirus Act 2020, there is a requirement to lay before Parliament details of the amount of assistance designated as coronavirus related provided in each relevant quarter.

Domestic Abuse Victims: Workplace Support

Paul Scully Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Written Statements

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

I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members, to bring to their attention the Government’s report into support in the workplace for victims of domestic abuse.

This report, which I am publishing today, sets out the key findings from the review conducted by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy this year, as well as the areas of work which Government will take forward as a result of this review.

This review is part of the Government’s agenda to raise awareness and build understanding about the devastating impact of domestic abuse on victims and their families. The landmark Domestic Abuse Bill, led by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, aims to ensure that victims have the confidence to come forward and report their experiences, safe in the knowledge that the state will do everything it can, both to support them and their children and to pursue the abuser. The Bill includes a wide range of measures to better protect and support victims of domestic abuse and their children for the long term.

Alongside the measures in the Bill, we know that accessing and remaining in work is vital for victims of domestic abuse. Work provides not only an income, and the security that brings, but also opportunities to make social connections, and maintain health and wellbeing. For individuals experiencing domestic abuse, the workplace itself can also be a place of safety and respite from the abuser, and a place where they can make the arrangements they need and contact specialist services.

To inform this report, BEIS launched a call for evidence in June seeking evidence of how workplaces can most effectively support victims of domestic abuse. This received 126 written responses from individuals, representatives of victims, employers and their representatives, trade unions and others with interest. We also held a series of roundtables and meetings to discuss the issues in more depth with the designate domestic abuse commissioner, the victims commissioner, trade unions, specialist charities and service providers, employers and their representatives across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

With the right support and encouragement, employers can play a key role in helping to lift the lid on this often hidden and always hideous crime. The report considers what pragmatic, effective new measures could be put in place in the workplace by Government and employers. It is structured around three main themes:

Raising awareness and understanding of the impacts that domestic abuse can have on individuals and employers.

Building and sharing best practice among employers.

The role that employment rights play in addressing the needs of victims of domestic abuse.

The work does not end with this report. We will work together with employers, representatives of victims and trade unions to continue to build awareness and understanding of domestic abuse and drive good practice across the board. The evidence provided showed that flexibility can help victims in situations where they need to access services. We will take forward the manifesto commitment to consult on ways to ensure that flexible working becomes the default for everyone, which we know will benefit individuals experiencing domestic abuse. We will also prepare a consultation on further steps to help victims of domestic abuse in the workplace, for example on how to support them to access existing employment rights such as flexible working more effectively.

I shall place copies of the report in the Libraries of the House.

[HCWS711]

Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: Contingencies Fund Advance

Paul Scully Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Written Statements

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

I hereby give notice that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will draw an advance from the contingencies fund totalling £5,023,479,000 to enable expenditure on covid-19 support packages for business to be spent ahead of the passage of the Supply and Appropriation Act in March 2021. The funding will go towards the following schemes:

Local Restrictions Support Grant (LRSG) (closed)—grants of up to £3,000 per four weeks for closed businesses:

The Closed Businesses Lockdown Payment—one-off grants worth up to £9,000 per business property;

a £500 million top up to the Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG) scheme in England.

Hospitality Industry: Government Support

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Mr Stringer, I will do. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on securing the debate and representing the petitioners so well. They are understandably crying out for help to get across the line, after such a difficult period. Hospitality has undoubtedly been one of the hardest pressed, if not the hardest pressed, sectors over the pandemic. I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate for the way in which they have put the case for their constituents.

Since taking on responsibility for food and beverage hospitality businesses in March last year and establishing a dedicated sponsorship team within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, we have worked extremely closely with representatives from across the sector, so there has always been development. I will come back to the question of a dedicated Minister in a second, but essentially, this was split across a number of Departments and we now have a dedicated hospitality team that is working really hard.

I also put on record my gratitude to the sector itself for how its representatives have engaged with me and my officials throughout the pandemic. It is important to recognise that the hospitality sector is not just pubs and restaurants: cafés, the wedding sector, nightclubs and all the associated businesses that we have heard so much about today, including specialist suppliers, are also going through this. I thank them in particular for how they engaged with the safer workplace guidance to allow essential businesses to stay open, but also to allow these businesses to reopen at various points. Understandably, as we have discussed, the fact of the matter is that there has been opening and closing depending on the tier system, and that has been a source of frustration for everybody, especially—as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) says—those that have had to pour away beer and throw away food at various points during this period.

We continue to work together with the sector across Government to make sure that we can strike the right balance between the covid-19 restrictions and the corresponding business support measures. As we have heard, we responded with an unprecedented package of support worth a staggering £280 billion, which included the grants, the furlough scheme, the various loan schemes, the business rates holiday, VAT deferrals, and of course the eat out to help out scheme. On top of that, we released additional funding worth £4.6 billion to help businesses through the current lockdown, which we estimate will help 600,000 hospitality businesses. We have also taken action to protect businesses by placing restrictions on landlords using commercial rents arrears recovery to enforce unpaid rents on commercial leases. Importantly, we have kept all the support measures under review to ensure that as far as possible, they have kept pace with the changing covid-19 situation and the need to flex restrictions accordingly.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will not give way, just so that I do not run out of time, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a second.

Like those who have taken the time to sign a petition, and those right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate, I recognise the importance of the hospitality sector, not just to local areas but to whole communities and to the country as a whole. We have heard that the sector employs around 3.5 million people overall, and in normal circumstances generates revenues of around £63 billion a year. It is strategically important to the UK, as well, traditionally being the first sector to recover following an economic downturn and acting as a catalyst for wider economic recovery and regeneration.

Most importantly, the sector lies at the heart of communities, providing jobs and places to enjoy companionship and supporting mental health and wellbeing, social cohesion and cultural integration. It is important that when we talk about culture—about meeting people—we remember that that is what hospitality is there to do, and it is really sad that the restrictions and lockdown itself are there to stop people meeting people. As we have heard, though, that is not to say that hospitality in itself is the vector for transmission. It is really important that we do not scapegoat the hospitality sector, which has done so much—it has spent a lot of money and put in a lot of effort—to make its venues covid-secure.

Turning to the question of establishing a Minister for hospitality, responsibility is currently split between BEIS and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport: BEIS is responsible for the food and beverage industries, and DCMS is responsible for accommodation, primarily hotels, as part of its tourism remit. There is clearly some overlap between these important industries, and I work closely with the Minister for Sport, Tourism and Heritage at DCMS, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), to ensure that the interests of this sector as a whole are fully represented across Government.

The close collaboration that we have means that the policy levers in both DCMS and BEIS can be employed effectively to the benefit of the sector. Clearly, it is not within my gift to create a new ministerial post—that power rests solely with the Prime Minister—but I can assure hon. Members that the two of us are doing all we can within Government to understand and represent the interests of the sector. Whether or not we have a dedicated Minister for hospitality, we need to ensure that the sector is in the best possible place to bounce back from covid-19, so that it can play a leading role in the UK’s economic and social recovery.

We know that the hospitality sector has often shown great resilience and innovation in adapting; such adaptation is not a new phenomenon. We saw that hospitality was one of the first sectors to recover after the 2007 financial crisis, which helped drive the UK’s recovery more generally. In order to achieve the same level of recovery that we saw following that crisis, we are committed to maintaining support to the sector until the vaccines are rolled out and businesses can open without restrictions. However, we also need to think about and plan for the longer-term recovery.

The UK has a world-leading net zero target. I want to see the creativity that helps define the hospitality sector put to good use in helping to tackle climate change, by developing and utilising new technologies and processes to minimise emissions and, importantly, waste. Although this is a challenging time for the sector, it is essential that, as we bounce back, we work with hospitality businesses to build back their industry so that it is stronger and greener.

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who was unable to attend the debate today but sent me a statement from hospitality businesses in her constituency, supporting the creation of the ministerial position and emphasising the important role that the sector will need to play in our economic recovery and growth. I hope that I have addressed both those points.

We have had a very interesting debate, starting with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). One of the regular calls that I have with the industry includes Colin Neill from Hospitality Ulster. We also heard from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who talked about Van Morrison. Actually, a Van Morrison gig was one of the last gigs that I went to at the O2, to raise money for the Royal Marsden Hospital. The O2 itself is now one of the nightingale hospitals, and one of the people who set it up was the chief nurse at the Marsden—everything comes around in a circular fashion, which shows the unusual times we are in.

With regard to the coffee culture that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) talked about, we should not forget that takeaway coffees also play a part for shift workers, who need such extra support, so not everything that is seen as non- essential is non-essential to certain people.

There is no way we can have a one-size-fits-all policy. Certainly what I have learnt about the hospitality sector over the past nine or 10 months is that a lot of work is being done behind the scenes, whether with me or with my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, or through lobbying by Colin Neill, Kate Nicholls or Emma McClarkin, or through lobbying from the chief executives of the larger pub businesses, the independent pubs, the restaurant groups and all those sorts of businesses. That means we can address issues such as the 10 pm curfew, which was a blunt instrument, as has been outlined. It clearly stopped restaurants having second sittings, but it also stopped pubs selling a lot of alcohol at that time—a lot of their profit is created at that time but it was also pushing people together. I am also the Minister for London and I saw at that time a 40% increase in the use of the tube between 10 pm and 10.15 pm. The curfew was clearly pushing people together, doing the opposite of what we wanted. It was therefore right to make the case against it and have it reversed.

[Dr Huq]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will not give way, because I have only a couple of minutes left and I want to give the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North a little time to respond to the debate.

From my business role through to my work with the hospitality sector, and in my work as Minister for London, I can see that any town centre, any city area or any retail area is an ecosystem. People do not go to a hotel, such as those within a mile or two of where we are now, just to sleep in another bed; they go because they want to spend time in the pubs, restaurants, theatres, museums, galleries and all the things that a city such as London has to offer. It is the same with Newcastle, Manchester or any of our fantastic towns across the country, and clearly it is also the same for rural areas such as Cornwall, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) mentioned when he talked about tourism in his part of the world.

Indeed, that is a really interesting point about tourism in coastal or rural areas in particular, because we are now in the third winter of their three-winter scenario—we had the winter last year; then we had the summer, when they would expect to make a lot of their profits but effectively it was a winter for them; and now, as we can feel here in Westminster Hall today, this is really a third winter. It is important that we continue to work very closely with those areas.

I am more than happy to work with all hon. Members to ensure that we do not just hear the understandable cries of anguish from the hospitality sector, but work out what we can do, given the public finances, to continue to flex, work on the recovery and look at how we can stagger the reopening. In a few weeks’ time, we will get to the point with the vaccine roll-out, hopefully alongside the plateauing of the case load, at which we will have a better idea of the timescale and can start talking about a road map.

I know, because we talked about this last summer, that businesses, especially the bigger ones that have greater resources and can do that sort of forward thinking, will already be thinking about how to roll out the reopening of pubs, restaurants, cafés and, importantly, the wedding sector, which my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) mentioned. I would love to get to that point, whether through pilots or just through working with the wedding sector, which is understandably filling my timeline on Twitter and social media—I can see exactly why it is doing that. After that, we can deal with the nightclub sector—we heard about Sacha Lord, who does a remarkable job in raising these issues with me and colleagues—which is a really tough one to crack. Hopefully we can get to the point where it can open.

I could go on forever, but I want to leave some time for the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North. Hospitality brings people together. We have heard a lot of calls for the evidence for why various measures were put in place. If hon. Members look at the infographics and the rules and guidance for this particular part of the lockdown, they will see that there are three words at the top of pretty much every page: “Stay at home.” Unfortunately, that is what everything is about. It is not about meeting. This will be a really tough few months, because it is miserable outside. With regard to exercise and so on, it is not going to be good. We need to offer hope to those businesses and get them across the finishing line so that we have a better summer and ensure that we do not have a fourth winter.

The hospitality sector represents friendship, generosity, enjoyment and happiness. It is a tonic for loneliness and a warm welcome for visitors at the heart of our communities. In short, hospitality matters. We will continue to work with hospitality businesses to get them through the immediate crisis and then help them to build back stronger and greener.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Paul Scully Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Written Statements

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

The UK Internal Market (UKIM) Bill is fundamental to providing a reliable legal basis for the effective and coherent functioning of the UK internal market. It guarantees that businesses and consumers across the UK are not subject to harmful internal trade barriers following our exit from the EU single market regime. Legislation of this kind must be in place across the whole UK in order to provide businesses and consumers from all parts of our country with the same legal protections and advantages.

From the outset, it has been the UK Government’s objective to legislate for the UK Internal Market Bill with the consent of all the devolved legislatures. At every stage, we have followed the spirit and letter of the devolution settlement and worked hard to secure legislative consent for this vitally important piece of legislation for all of the UK. We have also engaged with businesses, business representative organisations and wider stake- holders, such as academics, across the entire country since the Bill’s introduction to better understand expectations, needs and concerns. The UK Government regret the Scottish Government’s decision to withdraw from UK-wide work on the internal market in spring 2019.

The engagement with the Welsh Government, in particular, has resulted in tangible changes to the Bill to accommodate concerns as well as strengthen devolved involvement within the machinery of the legislation. This includes putting the relationship between the market access principles and common frameworks on the face of the Bill as well as ensuring that the Secretary of State is obliged to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations when panel appointments are made to the Office of the Internal Market (OIM). We have also agreed to have an annual meeting to review the operation of parts 1to 4 of the UK internal market legislation with the devolved Administrations, including the Office for the Internal Market’s reports and new developments that might require the use of delegated powers, using our intergovernmental structures.

The UK Government do however deeply regret that the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru have both refused to provide their consent for the Bill. We have maintained, throughout the Bill’s passage, that the Government are open to discussing the concerns of each devolved Administration, and would make changes to the Bill where it is possible, without undermining the necessary purpose and integrity of the legislation. Proceeding with the Bill to Royal Assent is necessary to put the legal structures in place which provide clarity and consistency for businesses and citizens working across the country.

The Sewel convention envisages situations where the UK Parliament may need to legislate for the whole country in this way. The exceptional circumstances of our departure from the EU, and the need to provide a UK-wide legal underpinning for the internal market, is clearly one such situation. This Government are fully committed to the Sewel convention and the associated practices for seeking consent. Indeed, in the current legislative session of Parliament alone, the UK Government have secured (to date) 37 LCMs from the devolved legislatures; this is in addition to the hundreds of other LCMs passed by the devolved legislatures over the last 21 years of devolution. We will, of course, continue to seek legislative consent, take on board views, and work with the devolved Administrations on all future Bills that engage the legislative consent process, just as we have always done.

The UK Internal Market Bill will allow people to do business reliably and seamlessly across all parts of the UK and enable the UK Government to boost our economic recovery, increase investment across the whole UK, create new jobs and be stronger as a country as we emerge from this pandemic. The UK Government stand as the conservator of this great Union—the most successful political and economic Union in history—as a force for bettering peoples’ lives, with devolution delivering clear benefits for all UK citizens. The UK Internal Market Bill will help to ensure that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland remain more prosperous, stronger and safer together.

[HCWS665]

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Paul Scully Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House agrees with Lords amendments 8P, 8Q, 8R, 8S, 8T and 8U.

I am delighted to be able to come back to the House today with positive news for business and for our constituents. As I have said before, I am immensely grateful to colleagues across both Houses for their constructive discussions with Government, and I would like to extend my thanks to all colleagues in both Houses for working with the Government to reach agreement on how we can best ensure that the frictionless intra-UK trade we enjoy today can continue into the future, especially as we recover together from covid-19. As we have made clear, this Bill is about protecting businesses and livelihoods—real people and real jobs—and I am pleased that both Houses have worked constructively to do that. I want to again extend my thanks to colleagues on the Opposition Benches in this place, and in the other place in particular, for their engagement.

As I set out to the House yesterday, the Government are committed to the common frameworks programme. We attach enormous value to the fora that they provide for collaborative working with the devolved Administrations. The Government have also been clear that the market access principles will work in tandem with common frameworks. We have been asked to provide as much clarity as possible on our continuing commitment to the programme, and we have thought long and hard about this over recent weeks. It is important that we respect the flexibility, and also the commonality, of common frameworks, paying close attention to the interests of all parts of the UK involved in the common frameworks programme and protecting the voluntary and consensus-driven nature of the programme. Indeed, these aspects are key to the effectiveness of the processes. The Government have listened carefully and reflected on the points put forward in both Houses about putting common frameworks on the face of the Bill, and we have now done so through these Lords amendments.

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

Obviously we welcome some sort of concession on common frameworks, but the Minister said yesterday that enshrining common frameworks in the Bill would create uncertainty for business, so what has changed from last night to today?

[Paul Scully]

What has changed from last night to today is the convivial and constructive discussions we have had to allow for amendments that are worded to the satisfaction of, certainly, the other place and I hope this place, that will allow us to progress with both the common frameworks as a voluntary process and the certainty of the internal market.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

Before the Minister starts launching the fireworks in celebration of the progress in the Lords yesterday, I would like to remind him that the Welsh Government remain deeply dissatisfied and have announced that they intend taking the UK Government to court over the provisions in the Bill, not least the state aid provisions and the economic intervention proposals. Will he explain how the common frameworks process will work and where power will reside within the common frameworks, because there is a degree of ambiguity about that? Will he also commit the British Government to bringing forward a statement on the common frameworks to the House of Commons for scrutiny in the new year so that we can have a discussion about whether this is actually the best way forward?

[Paul Scully]

Clearly it is disappointing that the Welsh Government have chosen to issue that statement, especially in the light of the productive working relationship that we have enjoyed with their Ministers and officials during the passage of the Bill. I know that the common frameworks have been subject to much debate, and I hope I will be able to clarify this as we go through. There will be more discussion in the new year about the frameworks and how they will work moving forward, because they have been productive in a number of areas to date, and I know that that will continue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, thank the Minister for what he has brought forward, but I seek clarification, as I often do, on the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. Will the final decisions on any movement of goods, east-west, north-south, or whatever it may be, lie with the Northern Ireland Assembly or with this place? Also, what discussions has he had with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment?

[Paul Scully]

Ironically, not particularly on common frameworks or the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, although I have taken over from my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), in the quad discussions with the devolved Administrations. We had my first one this morning, and I look forward to further conversations. As for what happens to Northern Ireland goods to GB and vice versa, we have had an agreement in the Joint Committee. I look forward to seeing the results of the talks that are continuing in Brussels, because ultimately if there is a pathway to a deal, that will help to smooth the transition process. Ultimately, however, the long-term aim of what happens to the workings of the Northern Ireland protocol will sit with the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, given their vote in a few years’ time.

The Government here are demonstrating their commitment to the programme by, first, placing common frameworks on the face of the Bill, through our amendments yesterday in the other place, and, secondly, clarifying the relationship that we see between agreements made under the common frameworks processes and the internal market principles established by the Bill. Specifically, we are making it clear, through amendments 8P to 8S, that delegated powers under clauses 10 and 17 may be utilised to, among other things, make provision to reflect common framework agreements. In such cases, the Secretary of State would be able to bring to the House a statutory instrument to exclude from market access principles a specific agreed area of divergence. That would follow consensus being reached between the UK Governments and all the relevant parties that that was appropriate, in respect of a specific defined topic within a common framework.

For parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, previous amendments are provided for consent to be sought from the devolved Administrations. If that is not forthcoming within a month, MPs and peers from all parts of the UK would thereafter be able to debate and, if appropriate, agree to the change. We do not currently expect such cases to arise very frequently, but want to be clear that appropriate means are in place to respect them when they do.

The amendments to clauses 10 and 17 are complemented by amendments 8T and 8U. In line with other Government amendments to enhance the overall transparency of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the role of the Office for the Internal Market, these amendments demonstrate our commitment to transparency and evidence building regarding the interaction between the market access principles and the common frameworks programme. As part of the OIM’s five-yearly review into the effectiveness of parts 1 to 3 in supporting a healthy internal market, the OIM will now also address how parts 1 to 3 have affected the operation of agreements under common frameworks, including the effect that those agreements have had on the operation of the internal market. This will ensure proper scrutiny of both regulatory changes and the progress made under common frameworks.

The Government are confident that these amendments provide an appropriate way to ensure that market access principles in the Bill can act to ensure certainty and a seamlessly functioning internal market for all British businesses and citizens. They do this while allowing a degree of agreed flexibility, reflecting different circumstances in particular parts of the UK. In reaching agreement on these amendments and thus agreeing on the final outstanding issues of the Bill, both Houses will be protecting and preserving the United Kingdom’s internal market, which has been the bedrock of our shared prosperity for centuries.

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

Well here we are again—groundhog day. Early on, I dubbed this Bill the infernal market Bill, and it has certainly lived up to that name. It is good to see the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in his seat again. I am not sure what he is going to do in a few weeks’ time after all his doughty energies tackling issues around Brexit. I am not sure whose fault it is all going to be in a few weeks’ time. Perhaps Ministers should watch their backs; they might find it is their fault once Brexit can no longer be blamed for all his ills.

Let me start by thanking Ministers and their officials for the discussions that we have had in recent days about how we can make the best of this bad Bill. Let us be honest: when it first saw the light of day, it was clear for all to see what a terrible Bill this was. It was wrong in seeking to break international law, and it was wrong in disrespecting the devolution settlement and failing to understand the way the UK now works through power sharing. That is why we have been so vociferously opposed to it in this House.

We led the way on that, starting, as you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) taking down every single argument of the Prime Minister, who was here himself on Second Reading. Through the Bill’s many stages in this House, we have been clear in our opposition to some of its serious flaws. It has been a long and difficult process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I would like to briefly add to what my colleagues have said. We welcome some sort of recognition of the common frameworks. There is a lot still to be teased out in terms of how that will work. We know that Westminster’s sovereignty will overrule things, and that is still a big concern, but we welcome that measure. I still do not understand how the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box yesterday and said that common frameworks could not be enshrined in the Bill, because it would be so bad and would cause businesses uncertainty, and now he says, “We’ve listened to the Lords, and everything’s okay.” It would be good if he could clarify that when he sums up.

Despite what the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) said, Labour did not lead the way on this. Labour gave up on devolution, and it gave up in the other place. Labour did not even back my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) in the Reasons Committee. Labour sat on its hands in the vote in that Committee. Lord Stevenson said, “We will not divide the House.” That is giving up. Labour gave up in the Lords.

Let us look at clause 48 and what Labour gave up on. Westminster is now allowed to provide infrastructure at places in the United Kingdom, including infrastructure connected with any of the other purposes mentioned. That infrastructure includes water, which is still publicly owned in Scotland, electricity, gas, telecoms, sewerage—also publicly owned in Scotland—railway facilities and roads or other transport facilities. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said, that paves the way for the glorious Union bridge or Union tunnel that we do not want and do not need, because we can invest better in transport infrastructure ourselves.

There is no doubt that the greatest improvements in Scotland’s infrastructure have come since the introduction of the Scottish Parliament, making decisions for the people of Scotland on behalf of the people of Scotland and representing the people who elected them. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Manchester Central want to intervene? No. As I was saying, the greatest improvements in Scotland’s infrastructure have come since the introduction of the Scottish Parliament. MSPs are answerable to the people who elected them. Unfortunately, we have a right- wing Tory Government who Scotland did not elect, and now they are free to overrule us. Labour backed down. It does not matter what the hon. Member for Manchester Central said; Labour backed down and gave up.

The Bill allows Westminster to spend not only in Scotland but in Wales, overruling the Welsh Labour Government on health, education, culture, sports facilities, court or prison facilities and housing. We are leading the way in building social housing in Scotland. We ended the right to buy. The Tories obviously still think that the right to buy is a good thing, forcing councils to get rid of their housing stock. How dare Westminster legislate to provide housing in Scotland—we have done very well without your help, thank you very much.

State aid is something else that Labour gave up on. It has been stated clearly that state aid was never a reserved function, and therefore it was devolved to the four nations, so why is Westminster taking it back? Does it think that that sends out a good message?

People are watching. Studies in Scotland have shown time and again that people in Scotland trust the Scottish Parliament to legislate and invest in these matters over Westminster, so why Westminster thinks it can do a better job is beyond me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, it looks like independence is the only way that we can protect the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Bring it on.

[Paul Scully]

Let me quickly answer a few points. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) asked for a bit more detail on the amendments. In the small number of cases in which the market access principles apply to divergence agreed under a common framework, clauses 10 and 17 could be used to exclude the agreement from the market access principles. The Secretary of State would be able to do so following a consensus agreement that that was appropriate under the common framework. That is the appropriate way to ensure that the market access principles in the Bill can ensure certainty and a seamlessly functioning internal market while still respecting agreed limited divergence under the common frameworks programme.

Originally, Lord Hope’s amendments would have required the Secretary of State to exclude any divergence agreed under the common frameworks process from market access principles; by contrast, the Government’s amendment makes it clear that this is an option open to the Secretary of State, thereby giving the Secretary of State the discretion to ensure that the disapplication of the market access principles would never lead to the emergence of unacceptable trade barriers within the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) talked about the CMA, the OIM and what would happen with international players. The CMA and the OIM have the flexibility to investigate and report on any issues that they choose, but they are not themselves decision makers on market access principles. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have made sure that both the OIM and the Bill itself will apply rules to each part of the UK—to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—equally.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the Minister for his response, but will he accept that, in the letter he wrote to the Scottish Affairs Committee after his appearance before the Committee in relation to the Bill, he was unable definitively to rule out foreign investors being able to take the UK Government to court, whether through the OIM or otherwise?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

In establishing the Office for the Internal Market through this Bill, I wanted to make sure that it was not the Office for the Internal Market itself that it would be able to work through, so that is within the purview of this particular part of the Bill.

The hon. Member for North East Fife talked about about the fact that when we talk about devolution it is not about Committees, and I totally agree: it is about dialogue, consensus and giving business certainty. This is in stark contrast to what we have seen from the Scottish National party, which walked away from discussions about the internal market in 2019. That is no way to build consensus and to have that dialogue. If the SNP and the Scottish Government want to talk about ending the right to buy and to go with that to the council house-owning residents in their electorate, that is up to them. We are not talking about devolved parts of housing; when we talk about spending or any of these other issues, it is complementary to what the Scottish Government, or indeed the Welsh Senedd or the Northern Ireland Assembly, are doing within their devolved rights.

[Drew Hendry]

Once again, the Minister has talked about the Scottish Government walking away from the internal market discussions; of course, the internal market discussions led on to this Bill—we knew it was going to be a bad move forward. The Scottish Government engaged constructively, and continue to be willing to do so, in the common frameworks discussions. The Minister should make that clear when he makes that point about the internal market discussions. On the matter of housing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) pointed out, the Government can now interfere in and overrule legislation in Scotland.

[Paul Scully]

No, this is about spreading. I readily accept that the discussions on common frameworks continue, and I very much welcome that. As I say, common frameworks go wider than just trade and the measures covered in the Bill. None the less, to walk away from discussions on the internal market a full year or 18 months before we reached this position is really to walk away from the responsibility to help to shape the discussions, as we have seen in the more fruitful conversations with the Welsh Senedd, including in recent days.

We heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) talk about pre-written barbs, but time and again when we have come back to this place it has just been a rehearsal of the arguments not about the devolution settlement or the Bill itself, but about independence. It has been the same debate time and again, instead of Members involving themselves in the detail of the Bill and giving certainty to business.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will not give way.

I finish by thanking everyone who spoke in the debate, and by once again thanking all hon. and right hon. Members and noble Lords who have engaged with the Bill over the last few weeks. I thank the Public Bill Office for its support to all Members and officials across Government. I pay tribute to the entire ministerial team across both Houses and all Departments, who have worked jointly to deliver the Bill—in particular, Lord Callanan, Lord True and the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, 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). I also pay tribute to Yasmin Kalhori and the team of the Leader of the House of Lords.

I welcome the contributions and the constructive discussions that we have had in recent days with Opposition Members in both Houses that have got us to this place. We have had some passionate debates on the Bill, because of the importance of the issues. However, the Bill will ensure that UK businesses can trade across the four parts of the UK in a way that helps them to invest and create jobs, just as they have for hundreds of years. I am therefore delighted to ask the House to agree to the amendments, and to complete our scrutiny and consideration of the Bill.

[Drew Hendry]

This is an outrage to Scotland. It is not acceptable.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Paul Scully Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 1F, 1G, 1H, 1K, 1L and 8M.

I am pleased that we continue to make positive progress on the Bill and that both Houses have continued to find agreement on a number of issues. In large part, this is due to colleagues from across both Houses continuing to have constructive and positive discussions with the Government. I want to put on record my thanks to colleagues on the Opposition Benches in this place, and the other place, in particular, for their engagement.

There are still a few outstanding areas, which have gone back and forth between the Houses, and I will outline the Government’s rationale for why we cannot accept the proposals as drafted. I will begin by speaking about the approach to exclusions taken by the Bill, which is a shared point across amendments 1F, 1G, 1H, 1J, 1K, 1L and 8M. I will then address the specifics of the common frameworks amendments and wider market access exclusions.

As I said last week, and as my noble friends Lord Callanan and Lord True said in the other place yesterday, the Government have been clear throughout these debates that we agree that there is a need for an exclusions regime. However, it has to be carefully drafted and provide certainty for business. In drafting the Bill, and clauses 10 and 17 specifically, the Government have designed an exclusions approach that achieves a careful balance. Both the noble and learned Lord Hope and Lord Stevenson have narrowed the scope of their amendments and I thank them both for their continued dialogue with the Government on those. Our assessment remains, however, that the approach in both sets of amendments goes too far both in the breadth of exclusions that it would require the Secretary of State to create and the uncertainty that it would lead to. These amendments would be detrimental to the clarity, simplicity and certainty that the Bill intends to provide.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

My reading of these amendments is that they are extremely watered down from what we would want. They essentially still give the Westminster Government a veto over the ability of the devolved Governments to legislate within devolved competency, so these are very meagre proposals. In refusing to accept even these proposals, is not the true nature of the Bill revealing itself? It is the British Government’s intention to use the Bill to impose uniformity over Wales and Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

The purpose of the Bill has been from the start and remains to give businesses certainty as we leave the transition phase—to have one single internal market.

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

The Minister spoke about certainty for business. Can he give an example of something that he thinks would fall in these exclusions that would cause widespread panic in businesses in the UK?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman needs to speak to Scottish businesses more to see that they are concerned. They want to have the Bill in place to have the certainty, with 17 days to go until the end of the transition phase.

It is important to reiterate that the common frameworks are processes, not outcomes, and therefore broad exclusions are not suitable in this legislation. That leads me to amendments 1F, 1G, 1H, 1J, 1K and 1L. The common frameworks programme facilitates a conversation about a common approach and thus provides for consensus-based decision making in sectoral areas of the economy. However, it is neither the purpose nor in the purview of common frameworks to determine whether matters should or should not be in the scope of the market access principles. It is only right that the UK Parliament and parliamentarians from across the UK have the final say on this matter.

The Government also believe that the system that they have designed creates a proper balance between the independent operation of devolved powers and the automatic application of the principles that protect the market and give certainty.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has quite properly said that it is a matter for Parliament to make these judgments. As Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I had hoped that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would come before my Committee. The Standing Orders quite clearly give us the right to examine questions relating to matters that are politically or legally important, and to report to Parliament accordingly. The problem that we have is that he has declined to do so three times in response to our written requests, and now this morning I have heard that he is not going to appear before the Committee. Would the Minister be kind enough to take that back where it belongs?

[Paul Scully]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have heard the message from the Chair of the Committee and his clear steer. It has been said many times in this House and in the other place, but it is worth stating again the Government’s commitment to the common frameworks programme. We attach enormous value to the forums that they provide for collaborative working with the devolved Administrations.

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

The Minister talks about consensus and involving the devolved Administrations. This is the opposite of consensus and agreement; it is imposition and constraint. These Lords amendments were his last chance to get this right. He has failed to do so. Will he now impose his will on the devolved Assemblies of the United Kingdom and force this Bill through the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I can force my will through both this House and the other place. What we have done throughout is to seek to collaborate. We continue to seek to collaborate on both the common frameworks and the internal market as we move forward. I hope that the Scottish Government will come with us on that journey, but the common frameworks process is just that—a process for agreeing and managing policy divergence in a variety of specific policy areas. As such, the programme is primarily concerned with ways of working, rather than determining policy outcomes.

The common frameworks programme will put in place durable arrangements for the intergovernmental working between the Government and the devolved Administrations in the policy areas covered by individual common frameworks. Those clearly defined ways of working will lend themselves to the common frameworks programme, and the individual common frameworks of which it is comprised are being considered as part of the business as usual discussions that will take place in our future intergovernmental relations infrastructure, and will benefit accordingly. Our intention is that these mechanisms for sector-specific co-operation will allow for coherent policy making between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations in those policy areas. I therefore ask the House to disagree with amendments 1F, 1G, 1H, 1J, 1K and 1L, and to vote instead to provide certainty for businesses.

Amendment 8M would cut across the Government’s objectives, and leave businesses exposed to new burdens and barriers. Despite a reduced list of aims, very broad areas of public policy could be excluded from the market access principles. Alongside the problems posed by the areas suggested for exclusion, there is a more fundamental issue with the approach taken. To be excluded under the approach proposed in the amendment, a requirement must only “make a contribution to” the achievement of one of the aims from the list, meaning that a policy need only have a tangential relationship to a social policy objective to be taken out of scope. The amendment would also lead to uncertainty as to when the market access principles apply, not least by a very unusual use of the term “proportionate”. It would fall to the courts to determine the relative extent to which different policies meet one of the aims, with no consideration of the burdens introduced. This will not deliver the certainty that business needs.

In addition, I want to stress one point that I feel has sometimes been overlooked. Market access principles do not prevent the devolved Administrations from introducing innovative policies designed to meet their own goals and objectives, including those relating to the environment and public health. They can do so in the context of mutual recognition, which is necessary to protect the free flow of goods around the UK. Without this, we would see a decrease in consumer choice, increased prices and additional costs for businesses. I do not believe that anyone in either House would support such an outcome, nor is it in the interests of business or our constituents. I have constantly heard claims in this House and the other place that the Bill would prevent charges on single-use plastics in Wales, for example. That is categorically not true, as the Government have repeatedly made clear across both Houses.

Manner of sales policies, which have typically been the most innovative types of policies, will not be impacted by the market access principles, as long as they do not discriminate and are not designed artificially to circumvent mutual recognition. This covers innovative policies such as plastic bag charging and minimum unit alcohol pricing. The Bill is also clear that the devolved Administrations would no longer need to notify and justify new measures to the EU Commission when they want to innovate and try new policies. What they will not be able to do is erect harmful and unwanted trade barriers between other parts of the UK. I therefore call on the House to support the Government and disagree with amendment 8M.

I end by saying that the other place, as is their right as a revising Chamber, asked the Government and the House to reflect on their approach. The Government have carefully considered the arguments put forward by hon. Members, right hon. Members and Lords across both Houses, and we have come to agreement on reasonable proposals in some areas. However, the Government cannot agree to these amendments as they stand.

I appreciate the constructive approach that peers in the other place have taken in discussions with Government, and we will continue to engage and find common ground. However, I am afraid that these amendments as drafted still do not provide the certainty that businesses need. I therefore call upon the House to support the Government and provide the clarity that our businesses need and, ultimately, preserve the UK internal market, which has been the engine of growth and prosperity for centuries.

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

I rise to uphold the Lords amendments that we are discussing today. It is a pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box, given that I have been cooped up at home self-isolating, having been pinged. I was not pinged as part of this ping-pong though; I was in fact pinged by the coronavirus app, so I was not here last week. I put on record my thanks to my boss, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who deputised for me on these occasions last week—and did so incredibly well, I hasten to add.

As ever, my right hon. Friend made a strong case against the Government’s United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which has been poorly drafted from the outset. Without the Lords amendments we are debating today, the Bill poses a real threat to the future of our United Kingdom. Even though I was not here last week, it does feel a bit like we have been in suspended animation with this Bill. I appreciate there have been welcome changes in the meantime as a result of the Government dropping part 5, but it still, I am afraid, feels a bit like groundhog day. Here we are, yet again asking where the oven-ready deal is for Brexit. We are still asking the same questions on market access principles. We are still seeking the same recognition in the Bill of the devolution settlement through the common frameworks process. As with every other groundhog day where we have been debating this Bill, we will soon be hearing from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is an honour to follow my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). Like other hon. Members on the SNP Benches, I welcome the amendments from their lordships to try to protect the devolved settlements from policy divergence across the UK. However, it strikes me as a rather bizarre state of affairs that we are desperately relying on the unelected and democratically illegitimate House of Lords to defend devolution and democracy. That irony is not lost on me, but I will return to that just a little bit later.

I rise today to speak in favour of Lord Hope of Craighead’s amendment on the common framework; I remain enormously frustrated that the Government are opposing it in this House in order to protect their grubby power grab on the devolved legislatures. Of course, that should not come as a surprise to the House: not only did this British Tory Government campaign against devolution in 1997, but they actively loathe it even now, and make no attempt to hide that view.

We have a Prime Minister who told his Back Benchers that devolution was “a disaster” and that devolving power was Tony Blair’s “biggest mistake”, which will certainly come as a surprise to those of us who opposed the war in Iraq. However, it is not just the Prime Minister who holds that anti-devolution view; it runs all the way through this Bill. The Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council is also on record as saying that,

“constitutional tinkering has weakened our Parliament and has helped to divide the United Kingdom”—[Official Report, 26 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 989.].

I would argue that the Government do not need much help with that, frankly.

We are where we are, and that is why I support the amendment to the Bill made by Lord Hope. We should not be surprised by the Tories’ anti-devolution rhetoric, but I must say I was surprised and disappointed to see the British Labour party withdraw its support for Lord Thomas’s amendment, which challenged clauses on direct spending in devolved areas. Perhaps it is a sign of just how out of touch the Labour party has become that Lord Stevenson, speaking for his party in the Lords last night, said that,

“the points made by the Minister on the shared prosperity fund were sufficient to ensure that we do not need to go back over this again. It is not our view, as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, that we need to divide the House on this issue again.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1476.]

It is hard—really hard—to imagine a giant such as Donald Dewar, for example, uttering those words in Westminster, but they reaffirm my belief that this place and its two biggest parties cannot be trusted to protect our devolved institutions. Perhaps that is why, yesterday, we saw the 16th poll in a row showing majority support for Scottish independence. Alongside my colleagues this afternoon, I will vote for the amendments, but the only way to truly empower the Scottish Parliament is with independence, not with Lords amendments. Scottish independence is only a case of when, not if, and I suspect the Minister knows that too.

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful for the forbearance of colleagues who have brought this debate to a relatively short end. I will not detain them for too long; I just want to thank everybody who has spoken today.

It is a shame that a number of the speeches veered from the amendments that we are considering today, but it was somewhat predictable. We are debating devolution, but in reality a number of hon. Members talked about independence, without using the word—I think in SNP bingo the word independence came up only once. The sentiment was that they are using this Bill to further their ambitions for independence, rather than concentrating on respecting the devolved Administrations through devolution and common frameworks.

We have before us today’s amendments, which the Lords considered and voted on, yet much of the debate was about yesterday’s amendments and an attack on the Labour party. I appreciate the opening words from the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), that it is important that we keep on talking to get this important Bill through, so that we can give businesses certainty.

[David Linden]

I do not want to intervene on this love-in of the Better Together alliance, but the Minister spoke earlier about using the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to divide the United Kingdom. Actually, opinion polling has shown a clear trajectory in terms of Scottish independence—16 polls in a row. Why does he think that is?

[Paul Scully]

I am not sure which amendment the hon. Gentleman is speaking to, but I note that the last poll was 52:48, which I am sure he will talk about; it seems to be a figure that keeps coming up.

Why do we need to give businesses certainty? This is not just about Northern Ireland, Wales and England; it is about Scottish business too. Some 60% of Scotland’s trade—more than £50 billion—is with the rest of the UK. Up to half a million jobs are dependent on that internal trade.

[Drew Hendry]

On that statistic about Scotland’s exports, will the Minister concede that 62% of manufactured exports from Scotland go outwith the UK, to the EU and the rest of the world?

[Paul Scully]

That refers to the 144,000 jobs, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would say, which were considered by the same institute that came up with the half a million jobs dependent on internal trade. He talks about the manufacturing trade; that is why we are better together as a United Kingdom. We have the whole gamut of skills, whether it is in manufacturing, services, culture, financial services or legal services—all those areas that we can provide as the UK which will make us a force to be reckoned with as we come out as one global Britain, with the opportunities that we will afford ourselves, in 17 days’ time.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will not, because I need to bring my remarks to a close.

The Government will continue to be reasonable in discussions on the Bill. We have made great progress so far in both Houses on finding areas of agreement—on what brings us together as one UK as we look to leave. I appreciate the constructive approach that peers in the other place have taken in discussions with the Government. We will continue to engage and to find that common ground, but we assess at the moment that the amendments proposed by the other place continue to go too far and run counter to the certainty that the Bill provides and that businesses need.

As we have made clear before, this Bill is vital in preserving our internal market and 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. I therefore call on the House to support the Government’s motion.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 1F, 1G, 1H, 1K, 1L and 8M.

Business Impact Target

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Written Statements

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

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

This statement sets the Government’s business impact target in respect of the economic impact on business of qualifying regulatory provisions which come into, or cease to be, in force for this Parliament, and covers related matters as required under section 21 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (“the Act”).

The manifesto undertook that Government

“will strive to achieve the right regulatory balance between supporting excellent business practice and protecting workers, consumers and the environment”.

The Government do not believe that the current methods of assessing regulatory impacts allow for this. Therefore, the Government will consult with business to ensure the impact of regulation is reflected more effectively, so as to continue to provide necessary protections without placing unnecessary burdens on business. Until the completion of the review the Government will set a target of zero. This will in effect be a holding target and will enable the Government to continue to monitor regulatory impacts and remain transparent to business on the impacts of the regulatory programme it is delivering in the immediate term. This holding target makes clear that Government remain committed to achieving regulatory balance and do not intend to increase the regulatory burden on business.

Upon completion of the review, the target and the methodology to be used for assessing the economic impact, along with any other related matters as required under section 21 of the Act, will be revised to reflect the findings of the review.

Business Impact Target¹

The Government are setting a net target of zero savings to business and voluntary or community bodies from qualifying measures that come into force or cease to be in force during this Parliament.

Interim Target²

The interim target covers the savings to be achieved from qualifying measures that come into force or cease to be in force in the first three years of this Parliament. The Government’s interim target is also set at zero.

Measurement of the Business Impact Target³

The impact of each qualifying measure will be assessed on the basis of its equivalent annual net direct cost to business (EANDCB) measured in 2019 prices and with a 2020 present value base year. As in the previous Parliament, the contribution to the business impact target will be the sum of the EANDCB over the first five years for which the measure will be in force, or the sum of the EANDCB over the full lifetime of the measure for measures that are, or will be, in force for less than five years.

Qualifying Regulatory Provisions⁴

Under the Act, the measures that are in scope for the business impact target are described as “regulatory provisions”. That includes both legislation and the activities of Ministers and listed regulators. The Secretary of State must determine the regulatory provisions that are to be scored against the target (“qualifying regulatory provisions”). Qualifying regulatory provisions are regulatory provisions that do not fall within any of the exclusions set out below:

a) Regulatory provisions that have been certified by Departments or regulators as falling under the de minimis rule, namely those that have an EANDCB of less than ± £5 million;

b) Regulatory provisions that implement new or changed obligations from European Union regulations, decisions and directives, and other international commitments and obligations, except in cases of gold-plating. This includes measures incorporating EU law into domestic law under the EU Withdrawal Bill and legislation made for the purpose of implementing the EU Withdrawal agreement, including implementation of new EU law during the implementation period.

c) Regulatory provisions that have been certified by departments or regulators as dealing with deficiencies in retained EU law (under the EU Withdrawal Bill and other legislation);

d) Regulatory provisions that are intended to deliver—or to replicate—better competition-based outcomes in markets characterised by market power;

e) Regulatory provisions relating to systemic financial risk;

f) Regulatory provisions relating to civil emergencies;

g) Regulatory provisions concerning fines and penalties, and redress and restitution;

h) Regulatory provisions that implement changes to the classification and scheduling of drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 where these follow the recommendations of the relevant independent advisory body;

i) Regulatory provisions that have been certified by departments or regulators as relating to the safety of tenants, residents and occupants in buildings that stem from, or relate to, Government’s response to the Grenfell tragedy, reviews, inquiries or working groups;

j) Regulator casework including specific investigation and enforcement activity, individual licence decisions, and individual advice;

k) Education, communications activities, and promotional campaigns by regulators, including media campaigns, posters, factsheets, bulletins, letters, websites, and information / advice helplines;

l) Policy development by regulators, including formal and informal consultations, policy reviews, and ad hoc information requests;

m) Changes to the organisation and management of regulators, except for those resulting from legislative changes or another policy change that is a qualifying regulatory provision;

Independent Verification Body⁵

The Government will reappoint the Regulatory Policy Committee as the independent verification body to verify the impact on business of measures in scope of the business impact target (and the list of non-qualifying regulatory provisions).

¹As required under section 21(1)(a) of the Act.

²As required under section 21 (1)(b) of the Act.

³As required under section 21 (3)(b) of the Act.

⁴As required under section 21(3)(a) of the Act.

⁵As required under section 25(1) of the Act.

[HCWS653]