Rough Sleeping

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) [V]]

The Secretary of State was right to praise councils for their role. Here in Chesterfield, we have seen a big reduction in the amount of rough sleeping during the pandemic as the council has utilised the money provided by Government well. I agree with many of the issues that he raised about the causes of rough sleeping and homelessness, but I was alarmed that the role of welfare policy was missing from that list. I am concerned that in Chesterfield many of the rough sleepers I have spoken to tell me that, while they are aware that council flats are available for them, the amount of benefit they receive means that the rent would be unaffordable and they would end up being evicted again. I fear that once the eviction ban ends, we will see a big increase in the number of rough sleepers again. Can the Secretary of State say a little bit about the role of welfare policy and whether, by looking at issues such as the bedroom tax and the levels of rent being paid, we can take steps to ensure that this welcome progress is not lost when the eviction ban is ended?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We must have brief questions if I am to get everybody in, because we have two big debates and a Select Committee statement after this. So, brief questions and fairly succinct answers please.

[Robert Jenrick]

I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise some of the other causes of homelessness and rough sleeping. That is why we increased the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile, and why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor uplifted universal credit during the height of the pandemic, and of course we brought forward the furlough scheme and others to support vulnerable people over the course of the year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I will look into the case that the hon. Gentleman raises. I have seen concerning evidence about some providers of supported housing. That is why we are doing the work at the moment to see what the true situation is, whether a tighter regulatory environment is required, and, if so, how we deliver that. I would be happy to take his advice as to how we move forward. I take the opportunity to praise his council in Birmingham for its hard work. Birmingham is one of the shining examples of success over the course of the last year, and its rough sleeping count, announced today, of just 17 individuals for a large city—England’s largest local authority—is a huge achievement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and am suspending the House for two minutes to allow for the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Coronavirus: Supporting Businesses and Individuals

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

I am pleased to speak in this debate and to confirm that the Scottish National party will support the motion if it comes to a vote. I do not want to eat too much into the time available for the large number of Back Benchers who wish to speak, so I shall look in detail at only a small number of the items in the Labour motion. Given that so many of the main asks in the motion have been publicly supported by some highly influential Tory MPs, including a number of members of the Treasury Committee, I look forward to the Government’s supporting the motion if a vote is called later.

We support the call for business rates relief to be extended. Scotland’s Finance Secretary, Kate Forbes, made a similar request in a letter to the Chancellor on 27 January, ahead of the Scottish Budget. The SNP Scottish Government have led the way in reducing the rates bills of businesses in key sectors and of small businesses in particular. For example, the small business bonus scheme meant that last year 117,000 business properties in Scotland were paying no rates at all. Some 95% of all Scottish business properties have a lower rate poundage than they would have anywhere else in the United Kingdom. In addition, the businesses worst affected by covid restrictions—those in retail, tourism, hospitality and aviation—will pay no rates at all during the next financial year.

Given that the leader of the Tory party in Scotland and his colleagues demanded, ahead of the Scottish Budget, that

“retail, hospitality and leisure businesses”

be given

“certainty that they will not face full business rates in the next financial year”,

it is a wee bit disappointing that they do not seem so keen to speak up in this debate for hard-pressed businesses in other parts of this precious Union of theirs. I am sure they will do the decent thing and support the motion later.

We fully support the call to extend the 5% VAT rate, but I do not think it goes far enough, because if the sectors we are talking about currently have a 5% VAT rate, for all they know, their VAT bill could increase by 300% in just five weeks’ time. Nobody can run a business with that degree of uncertainty, so the Government need to make it clear tonight—not next week or in two or three weeks’ time—that that 5% VAT rate will be extended.

We need to start to take decisions now, based on the long-term interests of the economy, about the unprecedented levels of debt with which millions of businesses are saddled. They have had to borrow heavily, often through Government-backed schemes, to survive the first year of lockdown; they are not going to be in a position to repay those debts next year, or any time in the next two years.

In addition to supporting the call for small businesses to be allowed to defer the repayments on their loans, the SNP wants to go further. In the previous economic crisis, the Government spent huge amounts of our money on bailing out the self-same banks that were responsible for the problem; surely, it is not too much to ask that we should now give the same kind of support to the more than 5 million small businesses that have done nothing wrong and could play a vital part in our post-covid recovery. We therefore call on the Government to agree to write off the bounce back loan debts of small and medium-sized businesses and to look carefully at proposals from organisations such as TheCityUK that covid debts should be converted into equity or contingent tax liability, so that the public sector retains an interest in the business and the business is not forced to go to the wall because of a lack of cash.

My support, and that of my party, for the excluded 3 million is well documented, so I will not go into it in detail. All I will say is that, when I have raised the exclusion of those people with representatives of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs through the Public Accounts Committee, I have been given the excuse that it was not possible to set up a scheme quickly. It is now almost a year since the first lockdown was announced. The reason so many self-employed people and owners of small businesses are still excluded is nothing to do with the Government’s not being able to help them; it is to do with the Government’s not being prepared to help them. For the party that claims to be the party of small business, that is an absolute disgrace.

In the interests of brevity, I bring my remarks to a close with a final observation: the British Government are the only one of the four UK national Governments who have the full range of taxation and borrowing powers necessary to deliver on what the motion asks for. I cannot speak for the people of Wales or Northern Ireland, but I know that as far as my constituents and the people of Scotland are concerned, if the British Government are not prepared to use their powers to get Scotland’s businesses back on track and back into business, they should devolve those powers to a national Government who will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I remind hon. Members that there is now a three-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. When that limit is in effect, a countdown clock is visible on the screens of hon. Members participating virtually and on the screens in the Chamber. For those participating physically in the Chamber, the usual clock will operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]]

The Government’s approach to business support through this latest lockdown does not match the scale of need. The hair and beauty industry has been severely impacted by the pandemic. Some parts of the industry were not able to open after the first lockdown, and businesses were operating at a significantly reduced capacity in order to adhere to covid-safe practices. Those that were eligible for grants and loans have found that they have not covered costs. Bills still need to be paid and, where rent is covered, energy bills, insurance, website costs, booking system costs, pay, national insurance and pension contributions are not.

The owner of Beauty of Bedford wrote to me, saying, “The hair and beauty industry contributes £9.2 billion annually to Britain’s economy, with a workforce of over 288,000. The beauty industry plays a big role in our high street.” To ensure the survival of SMEs, the Government must introduce targeted financial support packages for industries such as hair and beauty.

Business support should not be a postcode lottery, and the burden should not be placed on local authorities, whose pandemic costs have nowhere near been met by central Government. In Bedford and Kempston, for instance, businesses that do not have commercial premises have lost out on grants. That is hitting small businesses such as self-employed beauticians and others who have home offices or operate outside, such as self-employed taxi and private hire drivers. The self-employed—especially those who have yet to receive a penny of support from the Government—are facing ruin. Once upon a time, the Tories claimed to be the party of business, but they have left millions of self-employed people to rot. If these people are ignored again in the Budget, there is little hope left. Many of them cannot limp on until 12 April. Taxi drivers certainly cannot.

This week, taxi and private hire drivers in Bedford and Kempston had their licence fees waived by the council, but that is just a sticking plaster for most. It does not put money in their hands, which is what they need to look after their families. The additional restrictions grant system is just not working for them. Too many are falling through the gaps, and there is not a welfare safety net to catch them. What do the Government expect these people without income to do? They need help, and they need help now from this Government. The self-employed business owners I have spoken to are a resilient bunch. They have worked hard to get where they are. They really do not want to be reliant on the Government; they just need some support—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We have to move on because time is very tight.

Towns Fund

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Bristow]

As I understand it, 101 areas could benefit from that investment. If the Labour party had not ignored those towns and cities, perhaps it would still be representing them.

This fund has happened when the Government are tackling an unprecedented public health crisis. Covid-19 is the biggest challenge this country has faced since world war two. Some might have forgiven the Government if they had paused the initiative while they focused on the pandemic, but rather than doing that, they have powered ahead, giving hope and optimism to places such as Peterborough and helping communities to build back better as we overcome the pandemic.

This funding also includes the future high streets fund, which aims to renew town centres and high streets to make them more attractive places to visit, increasing footfall, driving growth and supporting local businesses. That is exactly what Lincoln Road, Westgate and other parts of Peterborough need. The pandemic has kept people away from the high street. People are eating takeaways and restaurant meals at home, and they are shopping online. My mobile phone boasts not just Deliveroo but, as a result of the pandemic and lockdown, Just Eat and Uber Eats. As convenient as that is, and as good as the hospitality in Peterborough has been at adapting, there is a real fear that hospitality and retail will suffer as we come out of the pandemic because people’s shopping and leisure habits have changed. That is why we need to think differently about town centres and high streets and make them a destination.

We need to create new, innovative high streets offering different things, such as pop-up shops, entertainment, interactive experiences, culture, leisure and mixed use including residential, as well as fun, safe and changing nightlife and hospitality. The towns fund is the catalyst for change, because private sector money and investment will follow, unlocking the potential of our towns and cities.

It is a message of hope, and it shows these communities that the Government and their local MPs have not forgotten them. Will the Minister remain committed to the plan? Will he confirm that there are chances for more towns and cities beyond the 101 already identified to submit bids for the future? Will he stress the importance of local MP engagement and ask all MPs from across the House to get on board with the towns fund and its potential to transform lives?

To conclude, I am all pumped up for Peterborough in 2021, ’22, ’23 and beyond. We have a new university coming, Fletton Quays and a new Government hub; the station quarter, a new cinema and Queensgate expansion is planned; and the Embankment will become an all-year-round destination—and now we have £23 million through the towns fund. We are making the decisions now that will guarantee our future health, wealth and happiness in the future. I am so excited that we are going to unleash our potential, but I am just as excited about this country’s potential, and as we level up and build back better from this pandemic, this is what the towns fund can deliver.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The three-minute time limit will now come into force. I would remind hon. Members who are participating virtually that a countdown clock will be visible on their screens. I do advise them to stick to that because we have a lot of people who want to contribute. Obviously, in the Chamber, there is the usual clock for Members to look at.

Holocaust Memorial Day 2021

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

The theme for this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is:

“Be the light in the darkness”.

It challenges this generation to shine a light whenever we encounter darkness, whether we encounter it internationally in Xinjiang or when we hear the chants of antisemitism in the street, community or workplace. In the fullness of time—[Inaudible.]—it is easy to assume that we would never see the horror of a country actively seeking to destroy and wipe out any trace of the Jewish community ever again. “Never again”, we were told, but each time we have conspiracy theories on the internet around Jews, we take a step back towards the hatred that brought the Nazis to power in the 1930s. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to tell the stories of those who survived the unimaginable cruelty and horror of the holocaust.

Today, I want to tell the House the story of one of the amazing individuals who showed courage and acted as a light in the darkness, and who I hope will be an example to this generation. It is the story of Manfred Goldberg and his teacher Herr Bacher. Manfred and his family were transported to the Riga ghetto. When they arrived, Manfred found that his primary school teacher Herr Bacher was also there. As Manfred’s father had escaped to England, Herr Bacher prepared Manfred for his bar mitzvah. Miraculously, a scroll was found. Manfred said:

“On the Saturday of which I speak a prayer service was held in a private room. I was not aware of any prayer services before that week, nor did I experience any subsequently during my three and a half years in various camps. My teacher had somehow organised the required quorum of ten men, and I read the portion he had so kindly taught me. Organising the quorum was a major achievement, as practically everyone had to do slave labour daily, seven days a week.”

For Herr Bacher to ensure Manfred had his bar mitzvah, even during all the chaos and upheaval in their lives, is a simple but hugely powerful form of resistance.

The story of Manfred is a story of resistance to the efforts of the Nazi party to eradicate Jewish presence, culture, and communities. People strove to celebrate their faith, observe their culture, continue to educate their children and form communities. Each of these acts was a way of claiming agency over the way they lived their lives in the face of the darkest of situations. The holocaust reshaped our understanding of global responsibility, the meaning of human rights and fundamentally altered our view of democracy. Holocaust Memorial Day gives us all an opportunity to remember our responsibility to work for a better and safer future for everyone, regardless of geography, race, religion, or sexuality.

I want to highlight the words of the Holocaust survivor, Dorit Oliver-Wolff, as she implores us to “put politics aside” and recognise the atrocities that are ongoing in Xinjiang. In her words, “this is a genocide” and:

“It is inhuman and it was equally inhuman”—

when—

“all my family was killed”.

Holocaust Memorial Day reminds us to do all we can to prevent human rights abuses such as the forced labour, the religious persecution and the forced sterilisation that the Uyghur population in China are being subjected to. It is imperative that we act as quickly—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I call, by video link, Dr Matthew Offord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]]

It is an honour to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I was privileged to join the online commemorative ceremony to mark Holocaust Memorial Day yesterday to honour those who were murdered for who they were and to stand against prejudice and hatred today.

Holocaust Memorial Day reminds us that there are fewer people around the world with direct lived experience of that hellish extermination. It is crucial to hear the deeply moving testimonies of the remaining survivors, because the message of suffering, pain, trauma and human cruelty must never ever be forgotten. Those testimonies remind us of the impact of the holocaust: the lives cut short, the families ripped apart, and the courage and bravery of those who survived who seek to ensure that their suffering informs a better future for every one of us. The theme of the Holocaust Memorial Day this year is “Be the light in the darkness”. It encourages everyone to reflect on the depths that humanity can sink to, but also the ways in which individuals and communities resisted that darkness to be the light before, during and after the genocide.

Holocaust Memorial Day is also a day for us to recognise and remember other atrocities that have taken place since that time, including in Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia and, most recently, the genocide of Yazidis by the evil that is known as ISIS. In the summer of 2014, as ISIS rampaged and rolled into Sinjar, the international community was still asleep and the Yazidis defenceless. ISIS perpetrated the unthinkable. Thousands of boys and men were slaughtered, while women and girls were enslaved and raped, with hundreds of thousands put on display, all because they believed in something different. Another genocide happened on our watch.

Thousands of Yazidis still languish in camps with the hope of returning home one day. Six years later, with ISIS defeated militarily and global recognition of ISIS’s atrocities accepted, efforts have failed to see Yazidis return in large numbers. Recognition of the genocide of Yazidis has not ended their pain and suffering. Thousands are still unable to return home and feel safer in the camps in which they live. They live in fear of ISIS resurging and constant Turkish airstrikes. What Yazidis want is accountability, justice and the reunification of families. Thousands of children and women are still missing, either enslaved or murdered.

Justice and peace go hand in hand, but bringing to justice those who committed these evil acts will dissuade future perpetrators while also breaking the cycle of violence by demonstrating that justice systems can work. The crisis for Yazidis is not over. Justice means more than perpetrators being tried for terrorism against the Iraqi state; it means, where possible, convicting ISIS members for crimes committed against Yazidis, for torture, kidnapping, enslavement, rape and murder. The crisis is not over if human rights of the Yazidis in Iraq are not respected in law and policy and by all members of society. Yazidis need more than remembrance—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Thank you. I call Dr Liam Fox.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

For many of us, as we contemplate the inhumanity, brutality and sheer scale of the holocaust, one uncomfortable question sits in our minds: how could ordinary people like ourselves collude with, acquiesce in, or support a regime that behaved in such a barbaric way and, perhaps even more uncomfortably, do the factors exist in our contemporary world that could allow it to happen again.

In national socialism, nationalism was the dominant partner in the marriage. National socialism regarded itself as a seismic political shift, which recognised a new and glorious image of humanity. Yet this world view was accompanied and counterbalanced by a systematic, ideological dehumanisation of other groups of people: those who oppose the regime, political activists, Gypsies, the disabled, homosexuals, Christians, religious objectors and, of course, the Jews.

Incrementally, but steadily over time, national socialist propaganda dripped poison into German society. The distortion and then the strangulation of democracy, the suppression of the press and the Church brought about this position inch by inch and step by step. Yet from Cambodia to Srebrenica to Syria, the horrors of extreme nationalism continue to ricochet through our recent history. Today’s attempts at ethnic cleansing, including China’s treatment of the Uyghurs, are part of this terrible continuum.

The basic template of extreme nationalism, a deeply distorted sense of identity and self-worth combined with the exaggeration of perceived slights and the identification of a suitable scapegoat, is still in play. Across the world, many of these stereotypical ideas are being played out again with varying degrees of sophistication and brutality. The dehumanising of opponents, internally and externally, is a timeless theme in the book of extreme nationalism. It is the beast that stalks its prey of plurality, decency and civility. Decades separate us now from the holocaust, but human behaviour still holds flaws and dangers. We must confront dangerous ideologies whenever and wherever they take root. Today of all days, we remember that we have been warned.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

May I just gently remind those who are participating virtually to keep a close eye on the clock? I do not want to have to cut people off, but we have a large number of colleagues who want to contribute to this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am afraid—

[Lee Anderson]

As I sat in his kitchen, I noticed a picture of a young man in a British Army uniform. I asked him who it was and he said, “That’s me, aged 18, during world war two.” I asked him what he did during the war, and he told me that he was with the British Army and helped to liberate Bergen-Belsen. He told me that he could not believe the horrors that he saw, the smell, and what human beings could do to their fellow man. He said that he cried and he cried and he cried, and since that day he had never cried again, and he finished by saying, “I left all my tears at the gates of Belsen.” I will never forget those words.

Council Tax: Government’s Proposed Increase

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. There is a lot of pressure on time, as I am sure colleagues know, so we will now be taking the time limit down to three minutes. I understand that those participating virtually have already been informed of that, but I wanted to inform the Chamber.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat, and he knows that. [Interruption.] This is just showing off. He should resume his seat, otherwise I will name him and order him to leave. [Interruption.] Does he want to be named? Is that what is happening? [Interruption.] If that is what is happening, we can do it. [Interruption.] Okay—I will name him. I know what he is doing. [Interruption.] Oh, for goodness’ sake! Very childish.

Drew Hendry, Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, was named by the Deputy Speaker for disregarding the authority of the Chair (Standing Order No. 44).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 44),

That Drew Hendry be suspended from the service of the House.—(David T. C. Davies.)

Question agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker directed Drew Hendry to withdraw from the House, and the Member withdrew accordingly.

Main Question again proposed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We will suspend for three minutes, in order to allow safe exit and entry.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Minister, I should tell right hon. and hon. Members that, as they will see, we have one hour for this debate and a fair number of speakers, so it is likely that I will have to put a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of about four minutes.

After Clause 10

Further exclusions from market access principles

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

They do not have a clue. They are going to get clobbered—they really will—and they do not get it. They just want to go on about devolution without regard to the effect that all this will have. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

The Bill itself defines aid with reference to EU law—it refers to article 107 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. This is something that we will be affected by, because that amendment is not sufficient to enable us to maintain our sovereignty on all the matters relating to state aid rules. I look to the Prime Minister, I look to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I look to the Government and the negotiators to get this right. This is the moment to do it. We are at a crucial moment. I trust the Prime Minister. I believe he will deliver. He said he will, and we will hold him to that promise.

It would go against UK national interest to accept EU demands of agreeing to legally binding commitments to mirror the EU state aid regime, given that EU state aid rules are created on the basis of objectives of common interest of EU member states, which no longer includes the UK, and are tested by the Commission on the basis of compatibility criteria that it has developed. They are non-binding guidelines, and therefore they can be changed at will. Under article 132 of the protocol and article 174 of the withdrawal agreement, provisions of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol referring to EU law or to EU law concepts or provisions are to be

“interpreted in conformity with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.”

That duty continues beyond the end of the transition period on 31 December and includes European case law handed down after the end of that period.

There is a real problem here. This is down to the negotiators as well as to those who are responsible for this Bill. We are faced with a very difficult situation, which impinges on our sovereignty and on our necessity to avoid, indeed to prevent, EU state aid rules from continuing to apply to the United Kingdom. This is a crucial moment in our economic, political and constitutional history. We must maintain the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. That is the message that I send to the Government and I trust that the Government and the Prime Minister will deliver it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

This is what is going to happen. This debate has to finish at 3.10. I want to bring in the Minister at 3.06 to wind up. A lot of hon. and right hon. Members have been sitting in the Chamber from the beginning of the debate. If others come in and intervene, it does take time from those who have been trying to participate and have put their names down to participate. Before I bring in the SNP spokesperson, I have to say that I will now have to reduce the time limit to three minutes and, with that, I still may not get everybody in, so if colleagues want to take fewer than three minutes, I am sure that it would be appreciated by others.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will do my utmost to whizz through what I can here.

We welcome the Lords amendments seeking to protect both the devolved settlements and the policy divergence across the nations of the UK, but we also know that the Prime Minister and his Tory Government simply detest devolution. All pretence otherwise has been swept away by this Bill, as it puts into action the casual contempt that they have.

The Prime Minister, as we know, believes that devolution is a disaster. Well, we think the same about him. Last night, however, in the Lords, Labour opened the door for the Tories, as they hollowed out devolution, withdrawing support for Lord Thomas’s amendments that challenged the UK Government’s clauses on direct spending in devolved areas. Equally disappointing was Labour’s abstention on the vote for the amendment of Baroness Llandaff to halt the brazen power grab on re-reserving state aid. This is not currently reserved. It is not listed in the reserved powers under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. It is a devolved power being grabbed back, along with the measures in this Bill in place to overrule decisions taken in Scotland.

I have been quoting absolutely committed Unionists in the other place throughout this debate, and I am grateful to be able to quote them again today. Lord Thomas said:

“The power to control state aid is not reserved. If it were, these amendments would be unnecessary…I ask why the UK Government would not work together with them, consult them before the Bill was produced and try to find a common solution…I fear it is an example of Westminster saying that it knows best, rather than working with the devolved Administrations.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1486.]

But once again, the Labour Front-Bench team took weak words from the Government as assurances and chose to abstain on that important measure.

Lord Stevenson’s amendment alters schedule 1 so that environmental standards and public health are exempt from market access principles. He warned the UK Government not to make

“the market access principles, which operate automatically, too narrow and too prescriptive. That would fatally undermine the opportunities for devolved Administrations to diverge”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1457.]

Baroness Bennett highlighted that much leadership on climate change has actually originated from the devolved Governments. Lord Hope explained that his amendments seek to ensure that the UK Government’s commitment to market access principles do not undermine the UK Government’s commitment on the common frameworks. On policy divergence, he warns:

“As the Bill stands, a measure that gives effect to an agreed decision to diverge can be ignored by traders bringing goods in from other areas. This undermines the opportunity to diverge, rendering it worthless and ineffective.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1446.]

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town provided this summary:

“When the case for Brexit was all about ‘taking back control’, we failed to understand that the Government meant taking control to themselves, even over issues that were fully devolved.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1447.]

Time and again, across all the nations of the UK, across all parties and none, and across all the affected industries, trade bodies, academia and the legal profession, this Tory Government have been told that the Bill grabs power from devolution and places it here in Westminster. The Bill allows UK Ministers to control spending in devolved areas of economic development, infrastructure, cultural activities, regional development, education, water, power, gas, telecoms, railways, health, housing and justice. The people of Scotland did not vote for the Tories to make these decisions at Westminster. Madam Deputy Speaker, you are far too young to remember the last time the people of Scotland did that, although your grandparents might just have—but only just!

This Bill was born bad to the bone, setting to break international law and break devolution. The Government have been forced to drop some of it, but it remains an aberration and continues its assault on devolution, Scottish public services and public life. The Scottish public, unlike this Government, are listening and watching. They will choose their own path to protect their Parliament and democracy in the near future.

--- Later in debate ---

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.

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.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now come to consideration of the message from the House of Lords on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which is to be considered in accordance with the order of the House of 14 September.

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 48B and 48C. If any Lords amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Before I call the Minister, I should say that hon. and right hon. Members will be aware that we have one hour for this debate, which means that I will impose an immediate five-minute time limit. However, that may end up being four minutes, depending on how long the Front Benchers take. I just want people to be aware of that.

After Clause 1

COMMON FRAMEWORKS PROCESS

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

I beg to move,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 1B, 1C and 1D.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 8B, 8C, 8D, 8F, 8G, 8H, 8J and 8K, but disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 8L, insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 13 and 56, and proposes amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendments 8L, 13 and 56.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 14 and 52 to 54 but does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 55.

That this House does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 44.

That this House does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 45, and proposes amendment (a) instead of the words left out by the Lords amendment.

That this House does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 47, and proposes amendment (a) to the Bill consequential upon the Lords amendment.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 48B and 48C.

That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 50B, but disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 50C.

That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 51B.

[Paul Scully]

I will try to be brief in going through the amendments—but with some detail, Madam Deputy Speaker—to make sure that others can speak.

I am glad that, since our last debate on the Bill on Monday, there have been a number of very positive developments. I am delighted that the peers in the other place and the Government have worked together constructively to agree on a number of areas. However, it is clear that there are still a number of outstanding issues, which I will address today. I will set out the Government’s rationale and I call on this House to support the Government’s proposals.

I want to start with some of the positive developments, notably on part 5 and Lords reasons 14B, 45B, 52A, 53A, 54A and 55A. The Government have been clear throughout that they were committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. We were also clear that as a responsible Government we could not allow the economic integrity of the UK’s internal market to inadvertently be compromised by the unintended consequences of the protocol. That is why, through clauses in the Bill, we sought limited and reasonable steps to create a legal safety net by taking powers in reserve, whereby Ministers could guarantee the integrity of the United Kingdom and ensure that the Government were always able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.

We sought those measures to guard against the possibility of not reaching agreement with the EU at the Joint Committee. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his EU counterpart have reached an agreement in principle, I am pleased to say that the clauses that provided for the safety net are no longer needed and the Government are removing them from the Bill: that is, clauses 44, 45 and 47.

I am pleased that the other place has now also agreed to clauses 42, 43 and 46 and consequential amendments, which are purely about protecting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK customs territory and internal market, delivering unfettered access in line with the Northern Ireland protocol and codifying in legislation existing practice in terms of the Foreign Secretary notifying the European Commission on state aid.

Alongside that, and in line with the agreement in principle, we have tabled a new clause that will require the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to set out guidance for public authorities on how the state aid provisions of the protocol will work in practice, as well as consequential amendments as a result of removing clauses 44, 45 and 47. Guidance must take account of any declarations made by the EU and the Joint Committee, which would include the proposed EU declaration that forms part of the package agreed in principle by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I call on the House to agree with the Government’s approach in this area.

I turn now to amendments 1B, 1C and 1D. Yesterday, noble Lords in the other place once again commended the importance of the Government’s continuing co-operation with the devolved Administrations on the common frameworks programme and reiterated their support for it. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord Hope for his considered intervention yesterday, and for all his thoughtful work on the Bill. However, while his new amendments would clarify the interaction between divergence agreed under common frameworks in the market access principles, they would still potentially undermine the certainty that the market access principles are designed to provide for business, because of the possibility of differing interpretations of what is permitted under an agreement. Moreover, as I set out on Monday, the amendments could create a broad exclusions regime. In itself, that denies businesses and consumers much needed clarity about the terms of trade within which they operate.

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the House that common frameworks are processes for negotiation and reaching agreement, and are not in themselves a policy outcome. Wholesale exclusions from the market access principles of agreement reached through the common frameworks process could therefore lead to the unacceptable risk of harmful trade barriers being erected across the UK. Such barriers could not be erected under the EU system unless justified and notified to the Commission, and they are undesirable in our own UK internal market. For those reasons, I respectfully suggest that the approach put forward in the amendments is not appropriate.

I have said previously that the Government are committed to completing the delivery of the common frameworks programme and protecting these areas of co-operation to the benefit of jobs, people and livelihoods. We welcome the support of hon. and right hon. Members here in achieving that. However, amendments 1B, 1C and 1D have considerable drawbacks and I therefore call on the House to disagree with them.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 8L. I remind the House that, in drafting the Bill, and clause 10 specifically, the Government designed an exclusions approach that achieves a careful balance. It sits within the fundamental framework of the market access principles, which protect the UK’s highly integrated internal market, but allows the Government to remove very targeted and specific policy areas from scope, so it can continue to operate for the particular conditions, where they are needed, under the bespoke constraints that are relevant to those circumstances. Let me repeat the point for emphasis: we agree that there is a need for an exclusions regime, but one that is carefully drafted and provides certainty for business.

I am therefore disappointed that the other place has again voted to upset that careful balance with an altered, but still fundamentally flawed, expansive list. It would render the protections and benefits of the internal market proposals under part 1 meaningless. This would allow unnecessary trade barriers and unjustifiable costs to businesses and consumers.

Amendment 8L captures all kinds of public policy objectives and only requires a new regulation to make a contribution to any of the aims in the list. That means that almost any regulation that the UK Government or the devolved Administrations propose in the future could be excluded from the scope of the market access principles. I therefore call on the House to disagree with amendments 8L, 13 and 56, and agree with the Government’s amendments in lieu.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I appreciate that the Minister was as brief as he could be, given that he took interventions, but I think we will have to start with a time limit of four minutes rather than five minutes.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I will try to be as brief as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to say to the Minister that we should note the progress made in the removal of the law-breaking clauses from part 5. What has essentially happened here is that the Joint Committee set up to deal with the outstanding issues on the Northern Ireland protocol has dealt with the issues on the Northern Ireland protocol. We are in a slightly through-the-looking-glass world here. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this week described Maroš Šefčovič, the Vice President of the Commission, and his team as displaying

“pragmatism, collaborative spirit and determination to get a deal done that would work for both sides.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 847.]

These are the same people the Prime Minister described in his Second Reading speech in September as being

“willing to go to extreme and unreasonable lengths”.—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 42.]

He also said that they had engaged in an “extraordinary threat” and refused to take the “revolver off the table”.

There are two conclusions we can draw from this sequence of events. The first is that Mr Šefčovič has changed his whole character, attitude and personality in three months; the other is the Prime Minister has a man who will make up any old nonsense for political advantage. I tend to the latter view.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 48, 49 and 50. If any Lords amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Having given careful consideration to Lords amendment 50, which refers to state aid and the Office for the Internal Market, Mr Speaker is satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 14 September. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendment is therefore deemed to be disagreed to and is not available for debate.

After Clause 1

Common frameworks process

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendments 2 to 7.

Lords amendments 8 to 19, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendment 20 to 29.

Lords amendments 30 to 34, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendments 35 to 41.

Lords amendment 42, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 43, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendments 44 to 57, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendments 58 to 60.

Lords amendment 61, and Government motion to disagree.

[Paul Scully]

This Bill has generated a lot of debate in both Houses, and rightly so. It is a Bill that is vital in providing certainty for businesses and for protecting the Union. It is a Bill that allows the continuing smooth functioning of our UK internal market at the end of the transition period. Our approach will give businesses regulatory clarity and certainty and ensure that the cost of doing business in the UK stays as low as possible, and it will do so without damaging and costly regulatory barriers emerging between the nations of the United Kingdom.

In the other place, the Government and peers had good discussions and debates on the principle behind the Bill, and they have come to very reasonable proposals in some areas. It is right that both Houses work constructively to scrutinise and improve legislation, and the Government are therefore accepting a number of Lords amendments. That is why the Government are disappointed that in some cases amendments put forward by the other place would do the opposite and generate more ambiguity and uncertainty. Other amendments put forward go further, in hampering the Government’s ability to protect the Union and our internal market, to level up the country and to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the end of the transition period. That is why today the Government are disagreeing with a series of amendments, to which I will now turn.

Regarding Lords amendments 1, 19 and 34, the other place and Her Majesty’s Opposition in this House have been clear about their strong support for common frameworks. I am pleased to hear that, because the UK Government are strongly committed to them as well. Joint work with the devolved Administrations to develop common frameworks is progressing well, and the first three frameworks are currently undergoing parliamentary scrutiny. The common frameworks programme represents successful joint working, ensuring that our shared objectives of making coherent policy, upholding high standards and supporting the distinct needs of each part of the UK can advance as one. They are evidence of our mutual respect for devolution.

I am pleased that work is well under way on the 33 frameworks that we expect to conclude jointly with the devolved Administrations. Thirty of those will be provisionally agreed by the end of 2020 and will then be scrutinised by Parliament and the devolved legislatures. A small number are likely to clear scrutiny by the end of the transition period, at which point they will become full frameworks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I have not heard those words, so I will not comment on them. There has been a lot of commentary, but what is important is the reality. Northern Irish businesses want the certainty offered by this Bill and the unfettered access to the GB market.

I emphasise that the Government has been reasonable, and will continue to be reasonable, in discussions on this Bill. We have made many positive changes to the Bill and they are on the table, but the Government need to balance this with the need to deliver a Bill that provides the certainty that businesses want and need to invest and create jobs, to maintain high standards and choice for consumers while keeping prices down, to ensure that the Government can continue to continue to level up the whole of the United Kingdom and strengthen our precious Union, and, ultimately, to preserve the UK internal market that has been an engine of growth and prosperity for centuries.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Colleagues will see that there are a large number of right hon. and hon. Members who want to contribute to this debate. If we have any chance of getting them in, I will have to start with an immediate five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, but that may well have to go down.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be opposite the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). This big Bill began its life with the Prime Minister, then the Secretary of State and now it is a pleasure to be opposite him. I must say that I have enormous respect for him, but I did feel that I was living in a parallel universe when I heard him this afternoon. This Bill has been absolutely savaged in the other place. It has been absolutely savaged not just on international law, but on devolution as well, not just by Opposition parties, not just by Cross-Benchers, not simply by the former Lord Chief Justice or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but by the heart of the Conservative party—by Lord Howard, Lord Hague, Lord Clarke, Lord Cormack, Lord Lamont, and Lord Barwell, the former chief of staff to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) laughs from a sedentary position. He may not consider him exactly Conservative, but he is a Conservative peer. Believe it or not, Madam Deputy Speaker, even the Duke of Wellington spoke out against this Bill. I gather that he has recently left the Conservative party—and who can blame him?—but nevertheless, he said this:

“In a single piece of proposed legislation, the Government have managed to antagonise almost everyone, including a multitude of counterparties and international public opinion.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1342.]

The Duke of Wellington is right, and given his family history around our relationship with Europe, he is in a position to know. That is why we saw the largest defeat in a generation on this Bill, including 44 Conservative peers, seven former Conservative Cabinet Ministers and many other former Ministers.

I make that point because I think we heard the beginnings of the grinding wheels of the climbdown in what the Minister was saying. After three months of posturing, undermining our reputation in the world, today, an hour before the debate begins, we perhaps see some preparations for the brakes being applied before we go over the cliff. I am not going to give the Government any credit for that, and I do not take their word for it either. The one thing that this whole sorry saga has shown the world beyond any doubt is that this Government’s word is not their bond—they cannot be trusted, because they are willing to rip up international agreements they made less than a year ago.

Leaseholders and Cladding

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have heard the testimony of Ritu Saha and others in his constituency. I understand the point that he makes. I hope that in answering him quickly, he will not in any way think that I am diminishing that point, because it has also been made by colleagues across the House. We will work at pace to ensure that leaseholders who through no fault of their own find themselves in this terrible situation are not subjected to unfair costs. Costs ought to fall in the first instance to the developers and owners—and their warranty providers—who built the properties. The Government have set aside funds in this financial year to support those buildings that require immediate remediation and where there is no other means of so doing. We will continue to keep the situation under review, but we will work with the sector to ensure that remediation is done by those where responsibility lies.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive answers.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order 4 June)