Planning and House Building

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend makes a good point—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are getting very upset about the clock, and I apologise, but do not worry, I will come in at well under four minutes anyway.

My third and final point is indeed about national parks. The local authority that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) is bisected by a national park. If a housing needs assessment is made on the basis of the local authority area but it then has to be heavily disproportionately implemented in the area outside the national park, that causes two sets of problems. First, inside the park, in areas such as Petersfield and Liss, housing will become more and more unaffordable over time. Also, just outside the national park, in places such as Alton and Four Marks, there will be a great deal of pressure and it will be difficult to keep up in terms of service provision. If two different parts of an area have very different constraints, a separate housing needs assessment should be made for each one. The Minister is a good Minister and a good man, and I take it very much at face value that this is a consultation. I encourage him and the Government to think again about some of these important matters.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We seemed to be having a bit of a problem with the clock. I will keep my eye on the four minutes, so if hon. Members would like to look at me, I will gesticulate appropriately when it gets towards the end of their time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. As colleagues can see, a large number of right hon. and hon. Members still wish to speak, so after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.

Town and Country Planning

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now come to the three motions on town and country planning, which will be debated together.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 632), dated 23 June 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 June 2020, be revoked.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this we shall discuss the following motions:

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 755), dated 20 July 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 July 2020, be annulled.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 756), dated 20 July 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 July 2020, be annulled.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for finding the time for this debate in response to the prayer motions that Her Majesty’s official Opposition have laid against these regulations.

I will start by telling Members a story, one that is real and with which some across the Chamber will be familiar. It does not have a happy ending, and given the Secretary of State’s radical extension of permitted development, it is about to get a whole lot worse for many people in many of communities up and down this nation.

Over the weekend, the Minister may have read an article in The Observer about permitted development. It began by talking about the experience of a woman, Katya, who lives in a block of flats created under the existing permitted development regulations. All Katya wants, like many of us, is a place to call home, to bring up a young family and to feel secure, space for her children to play safely, somewhere to shelter during this pandemic and to be able to travel to work from, and some communal green space. Yet Katya is one of thousands of residents who are crammed into former offices and industrial units that were not built for human habitation. Some have no or few windows, some are as small as 10 square metres—the average car parking space is 11 square metres—and many are on the outskirts of towns, with few amenities such as shops and schools.

Katya is not alone. Up to 60,000 units have been built under the previous extension to permitted development, many of which are unfit for human habitation. I am certain that neither the Housing Minister nor the Secretary of State would like to find themselves or their families in them.

This debate is about three further ways in which the Government want to create poor-quality housing by bypassing the local community, local democracy and local control: by adding new units on top of flats; by allowing developers to demolish and rebuild empty buildings; and by allowing people to add multiple floors to their homes in a village, town and city near you.

Let me take Members on a visual journey up north to Leeds, where Abbey, a young professional, bought her leasehold flat only to discover that it had been cladded with flammable material. She is one of many thousands affected. She cannot sell it. It is zero-rated for a mortgage and she has to pay thousands in waking watch and insurance fees. There are also massive problems, with which the Minister and the Secretary of State are very familiar, with the EWS1—external wall survey—forms.

What is the Government’s solution? Instead of building back better, safer, healthier and greener for Katya and communities up and down our nation, the Secretary of State will go down in history not only for his unlawful planning direction in Tower Hamlets, with the Westferry affair, but as Bob the bad builder, coming to wreck a village, town and city near you.

Instead of having a relentless focus on making people like Abbey safe in a cladded building, he has rammed through a negative statutory instrument to lob an extra two storeys on blocks of flats, overnight giving some freeholders and overseas investors a multi-million pound windfall of up to £42 billion.

At the same time, this very SI has added an additional cost for leaseholders who may want to buy the freehold. No need for donors to attend the Carlton Club dinner circuit anymore and exchange chummy texts—just sneak the windfall through Parliament via an undebated instrument. What does that instrument deliver a year? Just 800 flats per year; that is 8,000 over a decade.

To make matters worse, because permitted development bypasses the planning system, we could have a ludicrous situation where high-rise buildings extended by two floors do not go through gateway 1 of the draft building safety Bill. Have the Government learned nothing just three years on from Grenfell? Oversight, regulation and rules protect lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

A number of colleagues want to get in on this debate. I will start by having two speeches with a limit of five limits and then reduce the limit to four minutes in an attempt to get as many people in as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We are now moving to a four-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that the 300,000 dwellings per year target is indeed delivered, and that, as part of that, some innovation in the planning system, with the right controls, is needed? Does he also agree that we would not be in such a challenging situation if it was not for the failure of the Mayor of London to deliver housing in the centre of London, and our businesses are paying a terrible price for the failure to make London a proper live-work city?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We need interventions to be short. Lots of Members want to speak, and they will not be able to do so if there are lots of interventions, and long ones.

[Robert Halfon]

I go back to my previous argument: we need quality housing. We need a lighter planning regime, because I want affordable houses for my constituents, but I want them in the right place. I therefore welcome what the Secretary of State said to me in our meeting yesterday: the introduction of a prior approvals process for these new rights, and local planning authorities and the community will now have a say over any new redevelopment, with the ability to object to plans. Local authorities can also now consider the external appearance of the building, the development’s impact on transport and neighbouring premises, as well as the provision of adequate natural light.

I understand—I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation of this—that a time-limited PDR allowing for the conversion of warehouses and buildings on industrial estates lapses today and that the Government will not be renewing this right. It was noted by the shadow Minister that the rights introduced today are so limited that this is just to deliver around 800 homes per year.

On the basis that the Secretary of State is putting an end to rabbit-hutch housing and creating a level playing field by prohibiting unwanted through-the-backdoor developments, I will support the Government. However, as I have said previously to my right hon. Friend the Minister, I ask that the Government hold to account those councils that are socially cleansing their boroughs by moving people to strange areas without any links to their families and friends. If councils must make out-of-area placements, they should contribute financially to the receiving councils’ associated costs, so that Harlow does not bear the brunt financially.

Extended PDRs have caused irreparable damage to Harlow’s landscape, social cohesion and reputation. There are unintended consequences to the drain on our local resources, which is why I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s moves. I note that we will be able to repair some of the damage because of our £25 million bid for the Government towns fund, and I very much welcome the £1 million of accelerated funding for Harlow, announced last week, to regenerate our town centre and make sure that what has gone wrong in the past can never happen again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate, secured by my Front-Bench colleagues.

As others have laid out, the regulations have been subject to widespread criticism. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns that they would result in a lighter touch prior approval process and that the changes could lead to the construction of low-quality housing. In fact, there has been report after report, piece after piece of evidence, in that regard. Even the Government’s own research, published in July, shows that permitted development rights lead to lower quality development and worrying impacts on space and overcrowding. It noted that only 22.1% of dwelling units created in this way would meet the nationally prescribed space standards, compared with 73.4% of units created through full planning permission. Furthermore, in January, the Local Government Association found that thousands of affordable homes had been lost through permitted development rights. It called for permitted development rules to be scrapped and for local communities to have a vital say on new developments in their area.

It is obvious that the consequence of removing the requirement for planning permission results in the removal of the requirement for affordable housing at the worst possible time—all in the name of the Government’s planning reforms, which have already been aptly described as a developers’ charter. Many are concerned about the watering down of what some perceive to be already limited requirements for developers to build affordable housing, known as section 106 requirements. The housing and homelessness charity Shelter points out that the majority of social homes being built now are being built under those requirements and warns that we desperately need to build more social homes, not to put the already pitiful trickle at risk.

What the Government call red tape is what housing experts recognise as important protections against unsafe and low-quality housing. Will the Minister explain why he has seen fit to pursue measures, such as the regulations before us today, that are likely to result in poorer quality housing and a reduction in affordable housing?

It is no surprise that the planning reforms were announced just weeks after the controversy surrounding the Westferry Printworks development in my constituency, which many saw as further evidence that the Government are more interested in serving billionaires than the interests of local people. Tax haven-using Northern & Shell’s ongoing clash with Tower Hamlets council has shown that the system is not fit for purpose and that we need more transparency and accountability in planning processes, not the deregulation that the measures today represent.

Although approval for the Westferry Printworks development has been withdrawn, I understand the case remains live and is to be decided soon. Will the Minister commit to publishing viability assessments in future relevant cases where affordable housing and site values are contested? Will he commit to do so for the Westferry Printworks development before the case is decided by another Minister, and confirm that he will not simply let companies do their own viability assessments, untested?

Local people really need assurances. Many people in Poplar and Limehouse cannot understand why luxury development after luxury development continues to pop up, given the local housing crisis and the fact that the borough is so overcrowded and densely populated. It is utterly incomprehensible that, at this juncture in time, the Government are further empowering developers at the expense of local people.

When will the Government ensure that developers make their buildings safe, given that there are still 300 high-rise residential and publicly owned buildings with unsafe cladding, including in my borough, and not offload costs unfairly on to residents and leaseholders? Perhaps the Minister can explain how on earth recent history has led to the decision that further deregulation of the housing sector is needed, along with less scrutiny of developers. I would also like the Minister to explain to me how these regulations will impact on the BAME community in particular.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I need to ask the hon. Lady to bring her remarks to a close now, I am afraid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I rise to oppose these three SIs. The planning system exists specifically to address and balance often conflicting demands: public versus private; local community versus national requirements; environment versus the economy; and financial capital versus human need. Every planning application is judged against clear policies and clear demands, and every planning decision considers quality as well as quantity. It is a transparent and accountable process that enables community involvement. Permitted development rights were introduced to reduce bureaucracy in specific, clearly understood circumstances, but these SIs put a coach and horses through the normal system of judging and determining a proposed development.

I had 30 years of involvement in the town planning system before being elected to this place, and these instruments give me a terrible sense of déjà vu. In 2013, the Government introduced an extension of permitted development rights; then, as now, there was cross-party and cross-sector opposition. Why? Because extending PDR created, and will create, new slums of substandard housing, over which local planning authorities have little or no control and there is little or no opportunity for community input.

Now the Government have come back for more, ignoring the conclusions of their Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. Although they have conceded, after a lot of pressure, on minimum light and space standards, there are still major concerns about issues such as neighbour impact, access, parking, play and amenity space, and of course the proposals remove section 106 contributions from larger developments to the community on things such as affordable housing, traffic and transport improvements. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, I also share the concerns of my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), and of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) about the implications for leaseholders.

Where is the evidence that these SIs will deliver more homes? There are 318,000 homes granted planning permission between 2011 and 2018 that remain unbuilt. The Government say that these measures will provide affordable housing for younger people, but there is no evidence that suggests they will. In my west London constituency, even a substandard rabbit hutch would still be affordable only to a young person working on a City of London salary who has a chunky deposit from the bank of mum and dad. As usual, families on UK average and below-average incomes remain invisible to Ministers.

There is, of course, inconsistency between the high-falutin’ intentions in the White Paper about sustainability and quality, and what will actually happen when these SIs are implemented. Speculators and owners will be able to use these regulations to avoid all the normal conditions that are to be expected when someone goes through the normal application process, which are there to address the principles of planning that I listed at the start of my speech, and of course they will avoid community engagement.

If the Government think that we are worried unnecessarily about these issues around standards and that it will all be all right, why do this in the first place, when we have a perfectly adequate planning system? We will see yet more homes that are bad for those living in them now, bad for their neighbours, and bad for those living in them in the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Rachel Hopkins—I need you to sit down at 6.27 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank Members from across the House for all the powerful contributions made today. I am sorry that I cannot acknowledge them all, but I am limited in time. Although we recognise the Government’s last-minute concession on space, resulting from our motion, and the work of campaigners from across the country in the housing and planning sector, the fact remains that this is a developer’s charter. It will enrich them, freeholders and overseas investors to the tune of billions. As has been said eloquently by Members from right across the House, it will create vandalism in our streets, communities, villages and high streets; lobbing two storeys on semi-detached houses and on flats—flats cladded with flammable materials—is nonsense. It is not building back better, building back safer—it is nonsense. As for affordable housing, 6,400 social houses last year—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Colleagues will see that many Members want to speak in the debate. We simply will not be able to get through everyone unless speeches are brief. My advice would be for Members to limit their remarks to five or six minutes, but if they do not, I will have to impose a time limit. I would rather not do that, but I am keen that we get as many people in as possible. I call Drew Hendry.

[Drew Hendry]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although I will try to be as quick as I can, this Bill fundamentally affects Scotland, and therefore I have a lot to say about it. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who chairs the Justice Committee. It is always a pleasure to listen to him, to the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and to the Minister, who is an affable and normally very helpful chap. I have great sympathy for him as he tries bravely but barely conceals his embarrassment at having to drag this shabby Bill through the House.

Before I get to my party’s amendments and our reasoned amendment, let me report on the Bill so far. This Bill sets out to break international law. It sets out to break devolution. It sets in train the biggest power-grab since the Scottish Parliament was reconvened and a race to the bottom on health protections and environmental standards. The flood of amendments simply proves that the Bill lacks credibility. It is reckless, and it is absolutely typical of this Tory Government and their entire process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Just another reminder: I am conscious that many of the initial contributors are speaking to amendments, so it is important that we are flexible, but I say again that if we want to get in the many Members who want to contribute to the debate, it is important that at this stage, Members are as brief as they can be while getting their important points in.

[Sir William Cash]

There has been a heated and, in many respects, misconceived debate about the question of our compliance with international law. I had something of an exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) on Second Reading. I made the point that UK law has, in the past, breached international treaties. That stands, because it is important for us to recognise that that has been the case.

Indeed, it is often forgotten that the EU guidelines of 29 April 2017, which my right hon. Friend’s Government allowed to happen, unilaterally imposed on us requirements contravening article 50 of the Lisbon treaty and insisted that we should obey the basis of the EU’s idea of the conduct of negotiations. As Clausewitz said, diplomacy is war by other means; I believe the gloves are about to have to come off.

The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration recognise the autonomy of the EU and the UK, but whereas the UK is a sovereign state, the EU is merely an international organisation. UK sovereignty is expressly recognised by the EU as of its own kind—sui generis. The EU manifestly contradicted that by insisting on European Court jurisdiction, thus subverting the constitutional status of Northern Ireland itself. It was even reported that that was the price we would have to pay. The EU continually denied our sovereignty during the negotiations with a wanton disregard of our unique, unwritten constitution and sovereignty, which it is bound to understand because we have been in a relationship within the same legal order for the last 40 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

I must not take up too much time. I wish to develop my argument quickly.

We have to recognise what we are dealing with here. The EU withdrawal agreement was pretty unsatisfactory and one-sided because the previous Parliament stopped the Government putting a strong British case and getting the support of this Parliament in the way the British people wanted. The Prime Minister wisely went to Europe and did his best to amend the withdrawal agreement but it was quite clear from the agreed text that a lot was outstanding and rested to be resolved in the negotiations to be designed around the future relationship, because we used to say that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and that the withdrawal terms had to run alongside the future relationship.

The EU won that one thanks to the dreadful last Parliament undermining our position all the time. This Prime Minister is trying to remedy that and the only reason I was able to vote for the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—much of it was an agreement that I knew had lots of problems with it—was that we put in clause 38, a clear assertion of British sovereignty against the possibility that the EU did not mean what it said in its promises to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and did not offer that free trade agreement, which was going to be at the core of the new relationship. We therefore needed that protection, so I am pleased that the Government put it in.

That made me able to vote for the measure to progress it to the next stage, but I was always clear that the EU then needed to get rid of all its posturing and accept what it had said and signed up to—that the core of our new relationship was going to be a free trade agreement. We were going to be a third country, we were not going to be under its laws and we were not going to be in its single market and customs union, but it has systematically blocked that free trade agreement. The UK has tabled a perfectly good one based on the agreements the EU has offered to other countries that it did not have such a close relationship with, but it has not been prepared to accept it. Well, why does it not table its own? Why does it not show us what it meant when it signed up to having a free trade agreement at the core of our relationship? If it will not, we will leave without a deal and that will be a perfectly good result for the British people, as I said before the referendum and have always said subsequently.

Of course, it would be better if we could resolve those matters through that free trade agreement. As colleagues will know, many of the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol fall away if we have that free trade agreement, and we are only in this position because the EU is blocking it.

Why is the EU blocking the agreement? It says that it wants to grab our fish. I have news for it: they are not on offer. They are going to be returned to the British people, I trust. I am always being told by Ministers that they are strong on that. The EU wishes to control our law making and decide what state aid is in the United Kingdom. No, it will not. We voted to decide that within the framework of the World Trade Organisation and the international rules that govern state aid—rules, incidentally, that the EU regularly breaks. It has often been found guilty of breaking international state aid rules and has been fined quite substantially as a result.

I support the Government’s amendments, and I support this piece of legislation. We need every bit of pressure we can to try to get the free trade agreement and the third-country relationship with the EU that we were promised by it and by the Government in the general election. We can then take the massive opportunities of Brexit. It is crucial that new clause 1 is not agreed to, because it would send a clear message to the European Union that this Parliament still wants to give in.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We have not done too badly, all things considered. However, after the next speaker, I will introduce a four-minute time limit, so that we can get in as many people as possible. I call Stephen Farry.

[Stephen Farry]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Regardless of that, I will try to honour what you just said about the length of speeches. I primarily want to speak to amendment 16, in my name and those of others, regarding the removal of the most offensive and dangerous clause in the Bill—clause 45—and I will touch on some other amendments.

At the outset, I want to be extremely clear: the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and most businesses in Northern Ireland do not want to see this Government breaking or threatening to break international law, period, and they certainly do not want to see it happening on their behalf. Let us get that straight. The Government are not doing this for the good of the people of Northern Ireland.

The breaking of international law undermines the Good Friday agreement, which is lodged with the UN and is part of international law. In particular, breaking the withdrawal agreement and undermining the protocol does not help our businesses one bit. Instead, it places them in a much more uncertain legal situation for doing business. That is not in their interests, because businesses need to operate in a long-term, sustainable legal framework, especially if they are trading internationally. It risks Northern Ireland being turned into some sort of rogue state.

Whatever happens today, it is important that this House ensures that nothing goes forward in the Bill that either threatens or breaches international law, because it is a very dangerous route to go down. The opportunity exists this evening in new clause 1 and my amendment 16. Any efforts to soften that or put hurdles in place to make the prospect of breaking the law more difficult or push it further down the line defeats the purpose, because the threat is still on the table. That is no way for this country to do business internationally, and it sends a worrying message around the world.

Some of the spin in relation to the Bill is extremely disingenuous. In another debate, we heard references to George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and doublethink, but the Government are taking that to a new level with some of the arguments used today and previously. In particular, we are told that this is about a safety net for Northern Ireland. I have already made the point that this is anything but that. This is about removing the safety net for Northern Ireland by undermining the Good Friday agreement.

The Minister talked about the businesses of Northern Ireland being supportive of the Bill. That is news to me, and I would certainly be keen to hear who those businesses are. He talked about people who are opposing the Bill wilfully misrepresenting the Good Friday agreement. I was there as part of the negotiations on the Good Friday agreement. I saw John Major, Bertie Ahern and others negotiating the agreement. I saw the role of the United States and the European Union. They understand what is at stake here and what the Government are potentially doing. It is extremely arrogant to suggest that people are wilfully misrepresenting the agreement when we are trying to defend it.

The principle of consent is embedded within the withdrawal agreement. The European Union is very clear and keen that that is the case. We can talk about other consent issues all we want, and if we are doing so, we go back to the very first principle: that Brexit itself was imposed upon the people of Northern Ireland against their will. That is when the issue of consent and pulling away from a carefully balanced set of arrangements began.

Some of the amendments tabled today seek to disapply the Human Rights Act in relation to clause 45. I remind the Government that the Good Friday agreement contains reference to the importance of the European convention on human rights, and the Human Rights Act puts that into domestic effect. The Government are talking about protecting the Good Friday agreement, in their terms, while at the self-same time putting in a clause that undermines it clearly and unambiguously. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission, two institutions named in the Good Friday agreement, have expressed deep concern at the amendments that have been tabled by the Government.

Breaching international law will be a dead end for the Government, and I am not sure what they are seeking to achieve by it. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) talked about those on the Opposition Benches undermining the negotiations. The Government are doing that all by themselves at present. This is not a tenable or sustainable direction of travel. Until the Government withdraw the threat of breaking international law, they are not going to get a proper future relationship agreement, or a free trade deal with the United States. It is no longer just an issue of the Democrats and such people as Speaker Pelosi or Vice-President Biden. We now have Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s special envoy, echoing those self-same comments. This is now a bipartisan issue in the United States. Whenever the Government have been out-Trumped, that is a very clear message of the danger of the route that they are going down.

In relation to us in Northern Ireland, we have to get the best route possible in terms of the protocol. The protocol is the direct outworking of the UK Government’s decisions around Brexit, so the protocol arises from what the UK has decided to do. It is imposing, essentially, binary choices on a society in Northern Ireland that works only through sharing and interdependence. We do not want any borders, but we have to try to work to mitigate the impact of the protocol. The way we do that is through building the trust and confidence of the European Union, so that we can ask for waivers and other forms of mitigations, not through unilaterally seeking to breach the terms of the protocol.

A very clear example is around the issue of export declarations and other export procedures. As part of the withdrawal agreement, the Government have already recognised that that is the prerogative of the European Union under its customs code; however, waiving that would not really threaten the integrity of the EU’s single market or customs union, unlike some other potential aspects. That may well be a fairly easy thing for the EU to give, but we are not going to achieve that if the Government cannot establish that confidence to work in good faith with the European Union and their partners going forward.

I will make two more points. The first is on new clause 7 from my DUP colleagues in Northern Ireland. As Members may have noticed, the Alliance party does not always follow the DUP on Brexit—indeed, we take radically different positions, including on this Bill—but there is common ground in a number of areas, in terms of trying to ensure that we have unfettered access from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. I recommend that the House approve that amendment if it goes to a vote. I do not think that it does any damage to the protocol or the withdrawal agreement, but it tests on a periodic basis the commitments that the Government are making and that are reflected in the withdrawal agreement itself. I have probably gone on for slightly too long, so I will end on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Devolution has allowed us in Scotland to carve out a path that is different to that of the rest of the UK wherever necessary for the past 20 years. To understand exactly how this Bill attacks devolution, we need to read only clause 46, which states:

“A Minister of the Crown may…provide financial assistance to any person for…infrastructure”.

Subsection (2) goes on to say that infrastructure includes: health, education, transport, court and prison facilities, housing, water, electricity and the provision of heat. The Bill will allow UK Ministers to dictate and spend money wherever they like and in whatever devolved area they want, as long as it can be justified as they deem it to “directly or indirectly” benefit any area of the UK. We already know that the reality of that is Tory Governments funnelling millions into marginal Tory seats, as opposed to the areas that need it. I wondered why they had specifically included things such as heat and electricity and water, and then I remembered that the only reason why we are able to have publicly owned fresh water in Scotland is that the Scottish Parliament has made it so.

The Bill will explicitly give any Minister of the Crown permission to run riot with the very assets of Scotland that our Scottish Parliament has protected, and nowhere in the Bill—nowhere—does it state that permission must be obtained from the devolved Governments to do so. I have watched this Parliament hand over £40 million for ferries to a company that did not own any ferries. Are we really supposed to expect and rely on this Government to spend money on our behalf? Let us be clear: this would not be some benevolent donation to Scotland from Westminster, because clause 47 says that financial assistance may be subject to conditions, including repayment. We will be expected to pay back money that we never even spent. That is like being asked to take out a car loan even though you cannae drive.

To those who say that we are represented here and that we can change things, I say this: we have tried and we are outvoted at every turn. This gets to the crux of why independence is the only option left for Scotland. Let me give some context: Scotland has 59 MPs and the city of London 73 MPs. This is a Union that England dominates. The only reason why there is not an English Parliament is that the people in Westminster view this place as the English Parliament. We cannot afford to be naive. The only way to protect our Parliament is to become independent.

We regularly hear the Tories brag about how we have the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, but I have a new thing for them to brag about: the UK is in the Guinness book of records as the country from which most countries have gained independence. Since 1939, 62 countries have gained independence from Westminster and not a single one has asked to come back. Only one country decided to stay and look where we are. In 2014, the idea of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister was a warning. Now, it is a reality.

The Bill provides a framework to allow Westminster to bypass the Scottish Parliament in the hope that we do not notice it, but we are noticing it. It took us 300 years to get our Scottish Parliament and 20 years for this place to put a bulldozer right through it—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I thank the hon. Lady.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

I rise to oppose new clause 1. The Bill seeks to preserve and protect the internal market of our precious United Kingdom, having taken back control from the EU. Our membership of the EU predates much of the devolution journey on which our Union has been, and as we break free from Europe, we must put in place the protection that is essential to preserving the marketplace in our own internal market and, in turn, protect our Union.

This Parliament was elected to deliver on the will of the British people. The people of Darlington want to see Brexit done. I know, too, that they want us to have a great free trade deal with our European neighbours. They know that trade benefits us all.

The Bill serves to protect our internal trade, and also makes provision for a situation in which the withdrawal agreement’s provisions prevent our internal trade. I welcome the Government’s intention to seek parliamentary approval for the “notwithstanding” clauses. It is right that our European neighbours should negotiate with us in good faith as we seek to protect our internal market, and it is right that Parliament has the opportunity to debate and vote on such measures. It is my hope and wish that negotiations progress and a deal is secured, such that we do not have to invoke these measures. I regret the coverage that these provisions have attracted generating the unfortunate view that the House is intent on breaking the law.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speakers.

Clause 1

Purpose of Part 1

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

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 90.

Amendment 89, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out from “requirements)” to end of line 10 and insert

“must meet the relevant requirements of the part of the United Kingdom with the highest level of standards for that sale of that good.”

This amendment would ensure that any good produced, or imported, into the United Kingdom would have to meet the level of standards for sale of that good in the part of the UK with the highest level standards.

Government amendment 91.

Clause 2 stand part.

Amendment 34, in clause 3, page 3, line 24, leave out “consult” and insert “gain the agreement of”.

Clause 3 stand part.

Amendment 73, in clause 4, page 3, line 35, leave out “not”.

The intention of this amendment, linked to Amendment 74, is to ensure that mutual recognition applies to existing legislation as well as future legislation.

Amendment 74, page 3, line 36, leave out from “principle” to end of line 10 on page 4.

The intention of this amendment, linked to Amendment 73, is to ensure that mutual recognition applies to existing legislation as well as future legislation.

Clauses 4 and 5 stand part.

Amendment 35, in clause 6, page 5, line 22, leave out “consult” and insert “gain the agreement of”.

Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.

Amendment 86, in clause 8, page 6, line 40, at end insert—

“(c) the promotion of environmental, social and labour standards.”

This amendment would expand the definition of “legitimate aim” that could permit discrimination against incoming goods to include the promotion of environmental, social and labour standards.

Amendment 36, page 6, line 41, after “State” insert

“, after obtaining the agreement of the devolved administrations,”.

Clause 8 stand part.

Amendment 76, in clause 9, page 7, line 4, leave out “not”.

The intention of this amendment, linked to Amendment 77, is to ensure that the non-discrimination principle applies to existing legislation as well as future legislation.

Amendment 77, page 7, line 8, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

The intention of this amendment, linked to Amendment 76, is to ensure that the non-discrimination principle applies to existing legislation as well as future legislation.

Clause 9 stand part.

Amendment 78, in clause 10, page 7, line 17, at end, insert—

“(2A) In making these regulations, the Secretary of State must have special regard to the need to maintain the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom internal market.

The intention of this amendment is to ensure that further exclusions from the application of the access principles have regard to safeguarding unfettered access of NI businesses to the UK Internal Market.

Clause 10 stand part.

Government amendments 5 and 6.

Amendment 79, in schedule 1, page 44, line 40, at end, insert—

“(6A) In the case that there is one REACH authorisation process for Great Britain, an authorisation that is lawful for the Northern Ireland market will be valid for the Great Britain market.”

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

Government amendment 7.

Amendment 80, page 45, line 2, at end insert—

“(8A) The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to fisheries within the jurisdiction of Scottish Government Ministers.”

This amendment would exempt fisheries in Scotland from market access principles.

Amendment 87, page 45, line 23, at end insert—

“11 The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to (and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do not affect the operation of) any legislation so far as it relates to public procurement.”

This amendment would include specific reference to public procurement within those areas of regulation that are exempt from market access principles under Schedule 1.

Schedule 1 stand part.

Clauses 12 and 13 stand part.

Government amendments 93 to 95.

Amendment 40, in clause 14, page 9, line 26, at end insert—

“(8A) A reference in this Part to “regulations” must take into account the requirements of section (Maintenance of minimum standards).”

Government amendment 92.

Clause 14 stand part.

Government amendments 97 to 107.

Clause 15 stand part.

Government amendment 108.

Clause 16 stand part.

Government amendments 112 and 111.

Schedule 2 stand part.

Clauses 17 to 20 stand part.

Government amendments 109 and 110.

Clause 21 stand part.

Amendment 81, in clause 22, page 13, line 33, after “23)” insert “or frontier worker”.

This amendment would accord to frontier workers the rights accorded to qualifying UK residents under this clause, to have experience or qualifications awarded in one part of the UK to be recognised in another part.

Amendment 82, page 13, line 34, after “resident” insert “or frontier worker”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 81.

Amendment 83, page 13, line 39, at end insert—

“(3A) For the purposes of this Part, “Frontier worker” shall have the meaning given in Article 9(b) of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community.”

This amendment is linked to Amendment 81.

Clauses 22 and 23 stand part.

Amendment 84, in clause 24, page 15, line 2, after “resident” insert “or frontier worker”.

This amendment would accord the same rights to frontier workers as to qualifying UK residents under this clause.

Amendment 85, page 15, line 9, leave out “, the resident” and insert “or frontier worker, the resident or frontier worker”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 84.

Clauses 24 to 26 stand part.

Government amendment 96.

Amendment 27, in clause 27, page 19, line 42, after “training” insert

“that has been agreed and approved by the devolved ministers”.

Clause 27 stand part.

Government new clause 12—Guidance relating to Part 1.

New clause 5—Maintenance of minimum standards—

“Regulations under this Part must not result in lower food or environmental standards applying in any part of the United Kingdom than apply in the European Union.”

New clause 10—Environmental derogation for market access principles—

“The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to (and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do not affect the operation of) any legislation or other requirement so far as—

(a) its purpose is to protect the environment, and

(b) it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

The purpose of this new clause is to provide for exceptions and derogations that allow all four UK nations to put in place proportionate measures to protect the environment and improve environmental standards.

Amendment 72, in clause 48, page 38, line 49, at end insert “or

(b) has the effect of making Northern Ireland businesses less competitive in the Great Britain market.”

The intention of this amendment is to include within the definition of distortive or harmful subsidies a subsidy which has the effect of making NI businesses less competitive in the GB market.

Clause 48 stand part.

Amendment 88, in clause 49, page 39, line 2, leave out subsection (1).

This amendment would prevent the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 from being inserted into Schedule 4 of the Scotland Act 1998, meaning that this Bill would not become a “protected enactment” under that legislation.

Clauses 49 and 51 to 53 stand part.

Amendment 4, in clause 54, page 41, line 24, at end insert—

“(2A) The relevant sections of this Act come into force in accordance only if—

(a) a Minister of the Crown has moved a motion in the House of Commons specifying on which date a relevant section comes into force, and

(b) that motion is approved by resolution of the House of Commons.

(2B) The relevant sections for the purposes of subsection (2A) are sections 42, 43 and 45.”

This amendment would prevent any of sections 42 (Power to disapply or modify export declarations and other exit procedures), 43 (Regulations about Article 10 of the Northern Ireland Protocol) and 45 (Further provision related to sections 42 and 43 etc) coming into force before the House of Commons had approved by resolution the date from which they would take effect.

Amendment 9, page 41, line 25, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—

“(2A) The other provisions of this Act may not come into force (and in particular no additions may be made to Part 2 of Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (specific reservations), Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 (specific reservations) or Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (excepted matters)) until the Prime Minister is satisfied that resolutions have been passed in Senedd Cymru, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly in favour of those provisions coming into force.”

This amendment would ensure that no additional powers are reserved to Westminster through this Bill unless the devolved legislatures of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland give their consent.

Government amendment 66.

Amendment 39, page 41, line 26, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3) may not be made before a legislative consent motion relating to this Act has been approved by the each of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would require the remainder of the Act to have gained consent of the devolved legislatures before coming into effect.

Clause 54 stand part.

New clause 9—UK Council of Ministers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish no later than three months from the date on which this Act is passed a framework for a UK Council of Ministers to be agreed by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(2) The responsibilities of the UK Council of Ministers must include—

(a) considering the UK Government’s use of financial assistance for economic development in terms of section 46 of this Act;

(b) considering the terms of any reports prepared by the Competition and Markets Authority in terms of section 29 of this Act;

(c) considering the extent to which its members have acted in a manner consistent with the devolved settlement;

(d) reviewing and considering the impact of any aspect of the internal market of the United Kingdom on any part of the United Kingdom;

(e) requesting that the Secretary of State take specific necessary action to facilitate policy objectives in an area within the competence of the Secretary of State.

(3) The membership of the UK Council of Ministers must include representatives from all parts of the United Kingdom and its devolved administrations.”

This new clause establishes a UK Council of Ministers to ensure the effective functioning of the Internal Market and to examine spending under this Bill.

New clause 11—Review of the Act—

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

(a) was commenced; or

(b) is planned to be commenced.

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

(3) The Secretary of State must invite the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to contribute to the reviews in subsection (2).

(4) The reviews under subsection (2) must make an assessment of—

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

(b) the effectiveness of market access principles;

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

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

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

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

The intention of this new clause is to provide Parliament with information on the working of this Act in the context of developing common frameworks.

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

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie. This Cummings-directed Tory UK Government are breaking international law, and they are breaking devolution. Behind the innocent-sounding mutual recognition mechanism, the Bill simply starts a race to the bottom on standards with the UK Government imposing it against our will in Scotland.

The Bill will see the Tories mount an assault on devolution with the biggest power grab since the Scottish Parliament was re-established. People in Scotland are seeing through the contempt that the Tory Government and Westminster have for their democratic choices. They are not daft. They know that this shabby, illegal, dogmatic Bill is not designed to fix anything, but it is designed to game the system for vested interests.

It is a fact that existing mechanisms and simple changes to Standing Orders could have worked with consensus instead, but this Government do not believe in consensus, just in getting their own narrow ideological way.

The UK Government’s approach—the diktat—is the opposite of the democratic European single market approach. The development of the EU single market has been based on the principles of equality, co-operation, co-decision, subsidiarity and, of course, consent. Crucially, it sets a baseline of minimum agreed standards with which all member states’ own rules must be compatible. What a contrast with this hasty, badly written, contemptuous Bill. The Government are even having to amend their own Bill as they go along, so shabby is it. Government amendment 109 is necessary to remove clause 20—how slapdash is that?

On the mutual recognition mechanism, clauses 2 to 9 contain sweeping powers to compel Scotland to accept lower standards, set elsewhere in the UK, on animal welfare, food safety and environmental protections, among a host of other areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

Perhaps you should ask your hon. and right hon. Friends on your Back Benches who voted against your own Back Benchers’ amendments to protect—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not address another hon. Member directly. When he uses the word “you”, he is talking about me, and I am sure he would not want to do that.

[Drew Hendry]

You will notice, Dame Rosie, that it is a very uncommon mistake I have made, in that case. I take the scolding in good grace. Thank you, indeed.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to ask his colleagues why they voted five times on the Trade Bill and the Agriculture Bill against protecting these standards. We know—the Scottish public know—what this is all about. They are not daft; they see this. They see that this grubby attempt to make sure that we can get a deal—any deal as long as it is not with the EU—is the reason these things are being sacrificed.

This Tory UK Government do not care about the views of the experts that we have quoted here today or of the groups that are concerned about these issues. They do not want to hear those views. They simply want to oversee the biggest power grab in the history of devolution.

Clause 48 reserves state aid. We know that state aid provisions will mirror those of the World Trade Organisation, making an already diminished deal option with the EU even more difficult. Incidentally, Tory claims about the constraints imposed by EU state aid rules are inevitably always exaggerated. Automatic approvals applied to nearly 95% of state aid last year, and this year the EU acted swiftly to sign off on a raft of Government help to aid industry during the pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

It seems to be generally understood that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) will withdraw his amendment. I do not know whether that has been stated formally yet, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could take into account the fact that that appears to be the case. I do not know whether Mr Speaker is aware of that. Sadly, my hon. Friend is not in his place at the moment, so it is rather difficult for us to be absolutely precise. I wonder whether I could have a ruling from the Chair on whether the amendment has been withdrawn.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

It is important to remember, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that Sir Robert Neill is not in his place at the moment. It is a question of the amendment having to be moved and withdrawn, neither of which has happened, so I think we need to wait until he is here. At the moment, we work on the assumption, obviously, that it is something that can be discussed.

[Colum Eastwood]

Thank you, Dame Rosie, and I thank the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for his intervention. Regardless of whether the amendment is moved, the principle is utterly ridiculous, because only last week this House voted in full knowledge to allow this Government to break international law. It has voted down every single attempt to prevent this Government from breaking international law, so Opposition Members will be very cautious about waiting around for this Government to check back with this Parliament as to whether or not they are going to break international law.

Our amendments on frontier and cross-border workers are designed to address an anomaly that could have a serious impact on those living and working across our border region and beyond. Clause 22(2) seeks to ensure mutual recognition of professional qualifications within the UK internal market. However, that is limited to UK residents only. Constituencies such as mine are hubs of regional, cross-border economies, where frontier workers, according to the Government’s own European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, are supposed to be respected and protected. They should not face any barriers to continued working, which they would not if they were residents of the United Kingdom. These clauses will mean that someone who works in, for example, Derry, but who lives in Donegal may be unable to work on projects that are UK-wide because their residency is in the Republic of Ireland. These measures would mean that their professional qualifications were not recognised in Scotland, Wales or England. UK residency is not a precondition for practising their profession habitually and properly in Northern Ireland, so why should it be a precondition for them being equally eligible to serve in other parts of the United Kingdom?

Frontier workers are specifically mentioned in articles 9 and 26 of the withdrawal agreement, and the Government tell us that this Bill is in keeping with some undertakings in that agreement, even though it breaches others wholesale, as we have heard over the last two weeks. I am being very generous here; I do not want to presume that the Government have deliberately set their face against frontier workers in these clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and I have tabled our amendments to prevent inadvertent discrimination. Those who might be adversely affected include people who, alongside their quality professional services, also contribute to the community and public life on many levels. Indeed, some have been upstanding public appointees, including through nomination by UK Ministers as well as devolved ones.

An estimated 30,000 people cross our border every day for work. I am not sure that it is quite understood in this Chamber just exactly what it means to live in a border community in Ireland. In Derry, where I come from, we are bordered on three sides by the Republic of Ireland—by Donegal. We socialise on both sides of the border. I get my diesel in Donegal. We have familial ties that stretch across the border. Whatever people’s politics on the constitutional issue, we do not acknowledge the border in our day-to-day lives. That has been a terrific advance since the Good Friday agreement and the removal of the border installations. Although this Government seem determined to threaten to put some of those installations back up again, we are determined to continue to move on with our lives in a very normalised way. I sometimes wonder whether people who write these Bills actually have any understanding of life in a border area. I would prefer it if they came to our border areas, saw what it is like, and tried to understand what it is like for frontier workers and for the rest of us who work and live across that border every single day.

As I have said already, I do not believe that this Bill can be fixed, but there is one part of the Bill that the Government could easily fix if they determined to listen to our amendments and make the changes required. Many people will be left out if they do not do so.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. It may be helpful for me to clarify a point for the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). Under the programme order that the House agreed on 14 September, today we are debating: part 1, “UK market access: goods”, except clause 11, which was decided yesterday; part 2, “UK market access: services”; part 3, “Professional qualifications and regulation”; and part 7, “Final provisions”, except clause 50, which was decided yesterday. We therefore need to focus on amendments and new clauses relating to those parts of the Bill. It is quite important that we do not re-run the debates that were held last week and yesterday, which were on: part 4, “Independent advice on and monitoring of UK internal market”; part 6, “Financial assistance powers”; and part 5 “Northern Ireland Protocol”. Sir Bob Neill’s amendment was, in fact, debated yesterday—for the clarification of the hon. Member for Foyle. I call Sir William Cash.

[Sir William Cash]

After that very helpful clarification, I have to say that the issues that I was going to raise would have been related to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). There appears to be some misunderstanding. In these circumstances, I understand that today we will not, in fact, be discussing amendment 66 in the name of the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). May I have your ruling on that, Dame Rosie?

[The First Deputy Chairman]

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that.

[Sir William Cash]

I shall refer, then, to the more general questions about the state aids that I have just heard and that I mentioned in an intervention.

I wish to explain the rationale behind the remarks that I made on Second Reading, when I spoke for only four minutes, and the short speech that I made yesterday dealing exclusively with questions relating to international law and the breaking of it, as is alleged by some. I made my position entirely clear then and wrote a piece published on “ConservativeHome” that has been seen and commented on by many people—with some approval, I am glad to say—and in The Daily Telegraph online. That is now out there, on the record. However, the question of state aids to which I referred in those articles was not really examined in a way that I regard as satisfactory by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). I say that because he made a lot of points about the manner in which the results would take place, in his view, under the new Office for the Internal Market, the new internal market arrangements and in the context of devolution.

At an earlier stage, with respect to the issue of the economic prosperity of the United Kingdom as a whole, which obviously includes the important issue of devolution, including our wanting to be properly aware of the issues for Scotland, I mentioned Adam Smith as a good example of a great Scot who really understood the nature of free trade. The problem is the EU itself. We must succeed in ensuring that the state aids policies of the EU no longer apply to the United Kingdom, including Scotland in this context. That is so important that, in the interests of the prosperity of Scotland, no attempt should be made such that Scotland could somehow find itself still following EU state aid rules. That is the burden of what I would like to address.

I have spent 35 years serving on the European Scrutiny Committee. I am Chairman of it now and have been for the past 10 years. I know a little bit about state aids and mentioned yesterday, in passing, my experiences, given the fact that I have been around for a certain amount of time, during the 1950s and ’60s, when I was brought up in Sheffield and witnessed the manner in which the European Coal and Steel Community acted. Of that supranational body, even Sir Con O’Neill, who was the prime negotiator for the United Kingdom in taking us into the European Community, as it was at the time, said in a book that I read fairly recently that nobody in Government really appreciated just how important, significant and, I would say, dangerous it was for the whole concept of state aids and all the things that went with the supranational policies that were imposed as a result of our membership of the European Community and the European Coal and Steel Community, and the effect it would have on jobs and businesses in England, Scotland and Wales.

Of course, in those days devolution was not an issue, but the comparison certainly still applies. The jobs of many people in the coal mining and steel industries in Scotland were decimated, as they were in Sheffield. The greatest and most important part of the world steel industry was in Sheffield. As a result of matters into which I do not need to go in detail, the bottom line is that the grandchildren of the coal miners and steelworkers, whom I got to know extremely well—I think I mentioned in an earlier debate that I played cricket and rugger with them; I knew these people—remember all this.



If we put the red-wall seats on a transparent map and placed it over a map of England, in particular, and Scotland, we would find a direct correlation with the seats where people even would not vote for the UK Independence party but voted Conservative because they knew that leaving the European Community was something they wanted to do, because their grandparents had been decimated by how state aid worked. State aid is not just about subsidies; it is also about taxation, incentives, free ports, carbon emissions and the whole of our trading relationships internationally. It is the most important specific question, which is why I congratulate the Government on what they are seeking to do, although I may prefer it to be a little tighter, but let us leave that for the moment because we have a Report stage to come. I simply say that the people of Scotland know and understand the impact of the policies of state aids in shipbuilding, for example, on Harland and Wolff, in Northern Ireland. These people are all well aware of the almost irreparable damage done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). As someone who opposed Brexit, I have bought into the fact we have left the EU. I accept exactly where we are. I guess that my frustration, like so many people around this place, is that we find ourselves at this crossroads, at this dangerous juncture, at such a late hour. I think all of us want a Brexit deal that protects our economy and protects jobs, regularises our standards and provides environmental protections, but foremost also secures our businesses, which are so dependent on relations with our nearest neighbours, within Europe.

I want to speak to new clause 11, but I will also address in passing amendment 86. We were told that we had an oven-ready deal. According to the Foreign Secretary, it was going to be a “cracking deal” for Northern Ireland. But of course, the Prime Minister was not talking turkey, certainly not in anticipation of Christmas, as we have just heard. This was a deal that the Prime Minister himself cooked up, yet now it is stated that this could break up our country—our Union. This is an historic admission of failure. New clause 11, put forward by my honourable colleagues, seeks to ensure that we get this Brexit deal done. It is a broad new clause that demands that the Government should review and report to Parliament on the workings of the Act, addressing the functioning of the UK internal market Act and the effectiveness of the market access principles that have been promised, as well as agreeing common frameworks with the devolved Administrations.

My concerns lie with the fact that the Bill, to my mind, frustrates a deal. The trade economists we on the International Trade Committee have heard from made it pretty clear that failure to get a deal will cause our manufacturing industry exports to fall by around 20%. For the automotive industry specifically, which I have a clear passion for, should we not have a deal by 31 December, we will, of course, fall to WTO rules, which will see 10% tariffs on all passenger cars, 22% tariffs on vans and trucks—another important part of our export mix—and 3.5% tariffs on components, which of course are intrinsic and critical to our manufacturing. The Government are talking about maybe getting, through our deal with Japan, a special arrangement that will enable any Japanese components that go into our products to actually count as being of UK origin. I would be amazed if the European Union would actually accept that.

Jaguar Land Rover has warned that it could be forced to close plants if the right Brexit deal is not agreed, jeopardising £80 billion of planned investment. Ford has said that no deal would be disastrous and would make it reconsider its investments in the UK. Nissan has said that its operations in Sunderland would struggle to survive the extra tariffs imposed by a no deal. Toyota has said it would be forced to halt car production in the UK, temporarily closing its plant in Derbyshire. BMW has said that it could shift production of the Mini from Cowley to the Netherlands if there is a no-deal Brexit. These are not idle threats; this is the reality faced by many multinational businesses.

I am afraid that the Prime Minister is prepared to play Russian roulette—hardly a surprise, given the nature of his sponsors—with our businesses, our jobs and our prosperity in this country. That has to be our concern. Although there might be talk about the possibility of a US trade deal, we have heard in recent days that the passing of this Bill would jeopardise any UK-US trade deal. It is very unlikely to pass through Congress, such is the strength and purpose of the Irish caucus in Washington.

Let me turn to international law and Britain’s reputation. This is not simply about Brexit. Do we want to be a trustworthy nation—one that stands up for the rule of law? Does the Prime Minister really want to throw that all away by disregarding international treaties, in particular one that he personally negotiated and signed up to? That will undermine our standing in the world.

I am reminded of the incredibly powerful speech yesterday by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who said:

“whether a decision to break international law is taken by a Minister or by this Parliament; it is still a decision to break international law. This can only weaken the UK in the eyes of the world… It will lead to untold damage to the United Kingdom’s reputation”.—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 667-668.]

We have heard it from Lord Howard, from Sir John Major, from David Cameron—from so many former Prime Ministers.

It is clear that our Prime Minister is being reckless. Can Members imagine what the co-founder of the modern Conservative party, Robert Peel, would be thinking now—a person who championed law and order? In our Prime Minister, we have a man who is legendary for wrecking restaurants in Oxford. Does he not see that by his behaviour and actions, he is damaging Britain’s reputation—doing a modern-day Ratner? Members may recall Gerald Ratner, the entrepreneur who set up an incredible business empire and then destroyed his entire business with a few ill-chosen words. We risk not just tarnishing our reputation but seriously damaging it. We must be concerned about that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I turn to new clause 11(4) and the need to preserve the Union. It is clear that while we are in danger of destabilising the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, we also risk undermining the devolution settlement. With the Bill, the Government are seeking to usurp the process of agreeing common frameworks on key devolved matters such as agriculture and food standards. The Welsh Government have made it clear that this is seen as a power grab, a centralisation of powers and an emasculation of the devolved Government. They have described it as

“an attack on democracy and an affront to the people of Wales”.

The voice of the Welsh Government is echoed by the Scottish Government in Holyrood, who say that it is “impossible to recommend” that the Scottish Parliament give its consent to the Bill. It has been condemned by the First Minister and Scottish Labour.

Finally, let me turn to the situation with state aid. For me, this is a red herring. I listened closely to the comments made by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has served this House for many decades and championed the cause of leaving the European Union. To my mind, however, what I have witnessed over decades is how intelligently other nations have used state aid to their benefit. They have long provided aid, support, guarantees—call it what you will, even state ownership. I do not believe that this has been to their disadvantage and I do not believe it would be to the disadvantage of Northern Ireland either—I think it would actually be to its great advantage. I heard the comments by the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), but as I see it, both Germany and France have stronger steel industries, and they have made the system of state aid work for them. For all those reasons, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be opposing the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Just a gentle reminder that because we are in Committee, it is usually customary to call me “Chair” rather than “Deputy Speaker”. I know that it is difficult to follow, because we said this at the beginning and people are in and out of the Chamber, but that is just a reminder.

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

Thank you, Dame Rosie. It is my pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western).

I wish to briefly speak in support of the Bill, and in particular, on the significance of clause 54 and the importance of rejecting amendments that seek to limit the territorial extent of the Bill. Since the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707, the UK internal market has been a source of unhindered and open trade across the United Kingdom. Beyond the end of the transition period on 1 January 2021, divergence on policy on goods and services in the four constituent parts of the UK raises the threat that this seamless trade would come to an end, increasing costs and burdens for businesses and posing a sad state of affairs for the Union. It is common sense that we need to avoid this scenario.

As chair of the all-party group on Mersey Dee North Wales, I know how important the UK internal market is to businesses throughout the region, where 12 million daily cross-border commutes take place annually. In fact, a 2018 Welsh Government policy briefing noted:

“In the case of the UK internal market the economy in Wales is deeply embedded within the wider UK economy.”

It went on to say:

“Close proximity means natural transport routes and lower transport costs, shared institutional and business contexts, and cultural and historical ties”.

Parts 1 to 3 of the Bill propose a commitment to market access. This will guarantee that UK companies can trade unhindered in every part of the United Kingdom, ensuring the continued prosperity and wellbeing of people across the land. Qioptiq, a manufacturer of optical instruments, which has a base in my constituency, says:

“With the current economic uncertainty driven by the global pandemic, it is important for industry to be able to continue with a consistent approach to trade across all of the UK. Legislative stability and consistency, without additional barriers, are keys to success.”

Wales sells three times more to the rest of the UK than it does to the whole of the rest of the world combined. UK supply chains are also highly integrated. Data shows that almost three times as many intermediate inputs used by businesses in Wales come from other parts of the UK as from every trade market combined, and modelling shows that Wales would suffer a GDP loss five times higher than the UK as a whole from any reduction in internal trade due to unmitigated differences in regulation.

The clauses under consideration today are vital to provide certainty for businesses and ensure that we retain the status quo of no barriers to the movement of goods and services in all parts of the United Kingdom, so that companies can focus on their recovery and plan to invest and create jobs.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I should explain that in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speakers.

Clause 28

Functions of the CMA under this Part: general provisions

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

I beg to move amendment 28, page 20, line 31, leave out “, Scotland”.

This amendment would exempt from the operation of Part 4 (independent advice on and monitoring of UK internal market) regulatory provisions applying in Scotland which did not apply to the whole of the UK.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 28 stand part.

Amendment 29, in clause 29, page 21, line 3, at the beginning insert

“Following legislative approval from all devolved administrations,”.

This amendment would ensure that the CMA may only undertake a review following legislative approval from all devolved administrations.

Clauses 29 to 34 stand part.

Amendment 21, in clause 35, page 26, line 16, at end insert—

“(1A) Prior to publishing the information in subsection (1) the CMA must consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland about how it is to approach the exercise of its functions.”

The intention of this amendment is to ensure that the devolved administrations are consulted before the CMA determines how to exercise its functions in regard to the UK Internal Market.

Clauses 35 to 37 stand part.

Amendment 30, in clause 38, page 29, line 22, after “must” insert

“obtain the agreement of the devolved administrations and”.

This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State cannot decide amount for penalties with CMA without agreement from devolved administrations.

Clauses 38 and 39 stand part.

New clause 1—Dispute resolution mechanism—

“(1) Within the period of two months after the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland about how any disputes relating to the functioning of the internal market will be resolved between the four parts of the United Kingdom.

(2) Within the period of three months after the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report detailing how any disputes relating to the functioning of the internal market will be resolved between the four parts of the United Kingdom.

(3) Any dispute resolution mechanism established by the Secretary of State must provide for representation from each nation of the United Kingdom.”

The intention of this clause is to help resolve the functioning of the internal market between the four nations of the United Kingdom.

New clause 2—Limits on powers to override common frameworks—

“The Secretary of State shall not make any order or regulations under this or any other Act of Parliament that has the effect of imposing lower standards on Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, in any area for which a common framework—

(a) has been agreed,

(b) is in development, or

(c) becomes necessary,

unless, where subsection (b) or (c) above applies, the Secretary of State judges that a reasonable period has passed and the negotiations have failed to reach agreement, and a draft of the order or regulations has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause puts common frameworks on a statutory footing. Where there is a common framework agreed, Ministers would not be able to override them through secondary legislation to impose lower standards on devolved nations. Where a common framework was in development, or a new common framework became necessary, Ministers could not impose standards until the negotiation of common frameworks had taken place between the nations of the UK and failed to reach agreement after a reasonable period. The UK Parliament would be the ultimate arbiter of standards if reasonable agreement could not be reached.

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

“The CMA has a duty to consult with all relevant national authorities and shall produce monitoring reports on

(a) changes in standards, and

(b) assessments of whether standards have been met.”

New clause 4—Appointment of members to the Competition and Markets Authority board by the devolved administrations—

“(1) Schedule 4 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 is amended as follows.

(2) After sub-paragraph 1(1) insert—

‘(1A) The members appointed under sub-paragraph (1)(b) must include—

(a) a member appointed by the Scottish Ministers,

(b) a member appointed by the Welsh Ministers, and

(c) a member appointed by the ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive.’”

This new clause gives the devolved administrations the power to each appoint a member to the board of the Competition and Markets Authority.

[Drew Hendry]

Dame Rosie, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise to talk to amendments 28 to 30 in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

When the Institute for Government warned that

“it is not clear how disputes around the functioning of the internal market will be managed”,

it opened up the yawning and damning gap in the plans for the governance of the internal market. As a result of ditching co-operation over common frameworks, this Government propose to fill the gap with an Office for the Internal Market—an unelected quango. I will return to the composition of that body shortly. The Office for the Internal Market will have an effective veto over the Scottish Parliament, and the subsequent result is that devolution will be hamstrung. This is yet another step in introducing a system where standards are set by Westminster and they must be accepted by Scotland in devolved areas.

Analysis by the Scottish Government has revealed that successful Scottish policies such as alcohol minimum unit pricing, our policy on tuition fees and the ban on smoking in public places would be among the Bills referred to the Office for the Internal Market. That has been opposed by many bodies who have shone a light on this. The National Farmers Union Scotland has raised a series of concerns about the function of the Office for the Internal Market’s dispute resolution mechanism in managing policy differences, ensuring that the UK Government do not have the final say on areas of devolved policy, including agriculture, and enabling the devolved Administrations to act where it is considered that a policy aligning in a particular manner is unfavourable to devolved interests such as agriculture.

Of course, it would not have to worry about that if the UK Government had simply continued work on common frameworks. Common frameworks are designed to manage cross-UK divergence where EU law and devolved competencies intersect, including in relation to the functioning of the UK domestic market, together with existing processes for regulatory impact assessment and existing structures for regulatory co-operation and information sharing. Let us be clear: they do not need to be supplemented or undermined by a new, unelected body.

--- Later in debate ---

We will have our own system, on our own terms, in accordance with the decision taken by the British people in the general election last December, which endorsed the decision that was made in the referendum. I do not want to go through that whole argument from beginning to end but it is relevant to this debate, because when we do leave the European Union in all its shapes and forms, we will be in a position to make decisions in the interests of all the people in the Union and with regard to the importance of the devolved Administrations. The provision for the markets authority will be a very fair way of conducting our proceedings. This will serve everybody a great deal of good and we will all benefit from it.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Claire Hanna has withdrawn so we go straight to Richard Fuller.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Dame Rosie—that was unexpected. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and to have the opportunity to raise some general points and specific questions relating to the clauses under consideration today.

Overall, I am very supportive of the Bill, but, as with any substantial change, caution, checking and prudence should be part of the Government’s process. When I look at regulations and regulatory frameworks—which perhaps I do a little too often—uppermost in my mind is the quality of the regulations or framework, their effectiveness, their relevance, and whether we have the correct allocation of decision authorities given the different parts of the United Kingdom or different groups for which the regulations are being made.

On that last point, I want to pick up on some of the issues that animated the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and perhaps others in their questions about the choice of a common approach compared with a common framework. I should perhaps know more about this area, but it is alluded to in paragraph 8 on page 5 of the explanatory notes to the Bill, which states:

“As part of its vision for the UK internal market, the Government is also engaging in a process to agree a common approach to regulatory alignment with the devolved administrations. The Common Frameworks Programme aims to protect the UK internal market by providing high levels of regulatory coherence in specific policy areas through close collaboration with devolved administrations.”

Where is that in the Bill or today’s considerations? What is the Government’s current thinking around engaging in a process to agree a common approach as part of their vision, as the explanatory notes state?

I did not get an answer from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey to my question about how disputes would be resolved in a common frameworks approach, which seems like a fundamental issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

Before I consider part 4, I wish briefly to set the context of the comments that I will make.

Yesterday, Scotland’s friends in the EU and the wider international community were concerned that a UK Prime Minister was prepared to sacrifice the rule of law in a vain attempt to save his own bacon. Of course, there is disbelief that this arrogance is voiced outside the Cummings bubble, but the deliberate trashing of the UK’s international standing is now endorsed by 340 parliamentarians so can no longer be regarded as the ravings of a few. They are all now complicit in this grand folly of legislation.

The Bill is a disgraceful piece of legislation led by a Prime Minister whose words mean nothing and a party that is lurching ever further to the right, breaking the rules, acting unlawfully and now rewriting its own laws, while rubbishing any moral authority the UK had to hold rogue states—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. I draw his attention to the fact that he needs to address the amendments before us. This is not a Second Reading speech all over again; it is important to address what is before the House today.

[Neale Hanvey]

Thank you, Dame Rosie. My preface to my comments was just to set the scene, which is what I am doing, but as I move on my comments will relate to the amendments.

The Prime Minister has presided over a summer of U-turns, U-turned on his own Brexit deal and turned away from the rule of law. The comments in terms of Scotland can be summed up by the Law Society of Scotland’s reflections on the Bill. It has stated that

“as a matter of principle”

the Bill should comply with the oldest principle of international law,

“pacta sunt servanda (agreements are to be kept)”.

Quite unfortunately, Scotland has a head start in knowing the hollowness of such a principle. [Interruption.] I’m sorry?

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot have conversations across the Chamber. I would be grateful if he moved on to the amendments before us as quickly as possible. Thank you.

[Neale Hanvey]

This debate is focused on part 4, in which the authority of the Competition and Markets Authority and the wide-ranging and poorly specified powers of the UK Government’s man in Scotland are nothing short of a British nationalist inquisition. There are wide-ranging powers that cut to the very heart of the devolution settlement across every policy area—powers that the Government claim they will never use; they are there just in case. Well, Scotland is not buying it, and we are not having any of it. Devolution is the settled and robustly expressed will of the Scottish people, and it must be for the Scottish people alone to decide whether it should ever be restricted or changed in any way.

Part 4 of this wrecking-ball Bill takes decision-making powers away from Holyrood and hands them to the unelected body of the Office for the Internal Market. This office of inquisition will have the power to pass judgment on devolved laws and could quickly become the target of rich corporate lobbyists determined to see activities such as fracking go ahead against the will of the Scottish people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Hunt]

Sorry, I was a bit keen. Do you agree that without the Bill—without the internal market structure—Scotland would be worse off? [Interruption.] Forgive me, but let me explain my point. I will not talk about whisky, because we always do that when we are talking about Scotland; I will talk about lenses for glasses, which are often made in Scotland. A large number of them are made in Scotland and go across the whole UK. If we did not have the internal market structure, then there could be tariffs—restrictions—on their being sold in, say, Wales or England. So why would you not want to accept this now?

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. May I just point out that it is very important not to use the word “you” to another Member? We speak to the Chair, so it is “the hon. Member” rather than “you”, just to clarify that.

[Neale Hanvey]

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

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Thursday 3rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk at the Table’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speakers.

Clause 1

Relief from non-domestic rates for public lavatories

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, line 6, after “day,” insert

“the hereditament is a publicly-owned library or community centre or a local authority property that is free of charge to enter and contains a public lavatory that is free of charge for anyone to use, or”.

This amendment would extend the rate relief to publicly-owned libraries and community centres, and local authority properties, which are free to enter and which contain public lavatories that are free to use.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 1, line 7, after “lavatories”, insert

“which are free of charge for anyone to use”.

This amendment would confine the rate relief to public lavatories that are free of charge to use.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 8, after “zero”, insert

“; and where, on a chargeable day, the hereditament consists partly of public lavatories, the chargeable amount for the chargeable day of the public lavatories shall be separately calculated and the chargeable amount for the chargeable day of the hereditament shall be reduced by the amount calculated in respect of those public lavatories.”This amendment would give rate relief to premises that consist partly of public lavatories according to the proportion of the premises occupied by those lavatories.

Clause stand part.

Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.

New clause 1—Assessment of the impact of Act on provision of public lavatories—

“The Secretary of State must within one year of Royal Assent conduct and publish an assessment of the impact of this Act on the provision of public lavatories.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of the Act on provision of public lavatories.

[Kate Hollern]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) for seeing the Bill through Second Reading with such enthusiasm, and I thank the Clerk of Bills, whose support has been, and continues to be, invaluable.

Public loos have been an integral part of our local communities for more than 150 years, in green spaces and on high streets and thoroughfares. In 1851, London’s Hyde Park welcomed more than three quarters of a million people to the Great Exhibition. The park gave organisers the space to absorb the vast numbers, but visitors presented a public health challenge, and so, in Victorian England, public conveniences as we know them were born. Several years later, in 1858, the man charged with supplying the loos at the Great Exhibition, George Jennings, wrote to the commissioner of sewers offering to set up public conveniences across the City of London.

Back then, conveniences were the preserve of men, but thankfully we have come a long way since then. However, anyone who has ever needed a toilet in public will know that public conveniences are no longer convenient, since there are simply not enough of them. The role of public loos in improving hygiene and health is more important now than ever, given the importance of maintaining high hygiene standards and access to appropriate toilet and hand-washing facilities in keeping covid-19 at bay.

Everyone needs to use the loo, which is a human right under the United Nations sustainable development goals. Women and girls in particular need somewhere to change their sanitary products; people with certain disabilities require accessible toilets, or more frequent use; while parents need to change young children. People who work outside, and homeless people who are now being turfed out of emergency accommodation and back on to the streets, also need somewhere to use the loo. Not only is the lack of loos a public health crisis waiting to happen, but the lack of loos on our high streets, in green spaces and elsewhere is a deterrent to participating in public life for those of us who want to visit our cities, towns and attractions. Some call this a “urinary leash”, with people not feeling comfortable leaving their homes at the thought of being caught wanting in public and with no access to a loo.

Of course, closing public loos has not stopped people needing them; it has just created additional barriers to access for those who need them most. According to the Royal Society for Public Health, the treatment of natural bodily functions as something altogether taboo has proved the touchpaper for ignoring public loos for what they really are—a vital public health resource. The lack of attention paid to public toilets, if you will indulge me, Dame Rosie, is quite frankly potty.



As a constructive Opposition, we on these Benches broadly support the Bill, as we have consistently made clear, since it helps address some of the problems in financing the upkeep of public lavatories. We will not stand in its way or push the amendments to a vote.

However, in many respects the Bill is no more about loos than it is about local government funding—or the lack of it: the fact that it has been brought before the House is a reflection of the need to prop up council finances. After a decade of austerity, councils simply do not have the cash to run public loos, which are estimated to cost between £15,000 and £60,000 each year just to maintain.

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Luke Hall)]

May I start by thanking the Opposition Front-Bench team for the constructive tone with which they approached this important debate? This is a vital Bill and we have heard excellent contributions from Members from across the House about the importance of this issue. I completely agree with those who said that we should be talking about this issue more and not be afraid of talking about the importance of public toilets to people in our community. The Bill recognises that importance, and when the Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), opened this debate he made the point that when we emerge from the lockdown it is going to be more crucial than ever that people have access to appropriate toilet and hand washing facilities. Members from across the House will know from discussions with their own constituents that the provision of appropriate facilities is vital and can make a huge difference to people’s ability to leave their home to go out to see friends and family and to do shopping. That makes a huge difference to people’s quality of life and their mental health, which is a huge part of why this Bill is so important. We have been hugely grateful for the contributions today.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for his tireless work in championing this change. He talked powerfully about the fact that he has been campaigning for it for eight years since he was made the cabinet member at Cornwall Council and that he has taken this to Secretaries of State and Prime Ministers to secure agreement. It has taken his drive, and that of other hon. Members, to push this forward. I also thank him for the points he made about the importance of public toilets to rural and coastal communities, and the tourism industry—he is right to highlight that. Let me also take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to the town and parish councils in Cornwall that he mentioned, because of course we recognise the point he made about the significant costs placed on such councils. He also made an interesting and important point about what more we can do to make sure that money is reaching the right places in town and parish councils. That is exactly why my hon. Friend the Minister of State has made it clear in his communications that money should be being passed down to those councils to manage these important facilities. We are happy to keep speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay as this Bill progresses to see what more can be done to make sure that money is getting to the right places. We have stressed the importance of that time and again, but he is right to raise it in the House again today.

The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), a west of England neighbour of mine, rightly gave a passionate speech about this issue. I have lived in Bristol, and I know we are both aware of the issues associated with the occasional lack of availability, so she is right to address them in the way she has. She made important points about the additional cleaning and covid pressures that can come with running these sorts of public facilities. She asked a number of questions which I hope to address throughout my remarks. She asked whether there was something we could do during the passage of this Bill to check her calculations and work with her to make sure we are bringing forward appropriate information to inform the debate. My colleagues will be happy to work with her to make that happen and look at that throughout the Bill’s passage. We are happy to work with her on that issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) rightly and powerfully talked about the importance of toilets and public facilities needing to be available for all. A number of Members talked about the importance of making sure that toilets are available for all, including those with special access requirements. It is important to note that the Bill will help with that. The 100% relief applies equally to all facilities, including accessible facilities. But of course we want to go further to support increased provision, in particular Changing Places toilets that are fully accessible for those with the most significant needs who may need assistance to use the toilet. Following our consultation last year, we have committed to change building regulations guidance to mandate the provision of Changing Places toilets in new public buildings. We expect that this provision will come into effect in early 2021.

Additionally, at Budget this year, we confirmed that we would be launching a £30 million Changing Places fund, and would be working closely with the Changing Places Consortium, stakeholders and Members of this House to help to accelerate the provision of accessible facilities in existing buildings. My ministerial colleague mentioned the important £2 million investment from the Department for Transport in its inclusive transport strategy and the £2 million made available by the Department of Health and Social Care in order to install over 100 Changing Places toilets in NHS hospitals throughout England. These measures will make a real difference in maintaining the dignity of people with special access requirements when they are away from home.

We also heard points made about the safe reopening of toilets as we come out of lockdown. That is of the utmost importance as we ensure that access to public toilets can happen in a safe way. It is for councils to decide to reopen their facilities as we come out of lockdown, but we have been strongly encouraging them to open public lavatories wherever possible, as has been noted a number of times in the debate. We wrote to local authorities to encourage them to do that. We thank them for their work in making sure that public lavatories can now open in a safe and timely way. We are sincerely grateful for all their work to help to make that happen.

The Opposition asked what extra support is going to be available for public lavatories during covid. I would put on record the extra £3.7 billion that we have supported councils with over the past few months as they deal with a very difficult set of circumstances—reduced income and increasing costs—throughout the course of this pandemic. That was on top of a good local government finance settlement this year, with a 4.4% real-terms rise in core spending power—another £2.9 billion.

The Opposition also highlighted a concern about toilets in other public buildings. They are right to raise that issue. We want to be clear that the relief will apply to properties that are wholly or mainly used as public toilets. In general, it will not apply to toilets within shopping centres, for instance, as was highlighted, or public libraries. We have wanted to target the relief to best support the provision of public lavatories. In particular, we want to support facilities that exist where there are unlikely to be other publicly available toilets or where removing the additional costs of business rates could make a real difference to their ability to stay open. Of course, we are happy to work with the Opposition throughout the course of the Bill’s passage.

This Bill will benefit the public and reduce costs for councils and others that are seeking to ensure facilities can stay open. It has wide-ranging support in this House, and we look forward to working with colleagues as it progresses. I want to put on record my thanks to the businesses, charities and local authorities who have been so important in the management of these facilities. The Bill will support the provision of facilities for those individuals for whom access to toilets is particularly important, whether for health reasons or because of the nature of their work. It complements our wider efforts around the provision of more Changing Places toilets. We are very grateful for all the thoughtful contributions from Members across the House as we look to deliver this vital change for our local authorities. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Non-domestic rating (Public Lavatories) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(David T. C. Davies.)

Question agreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I suspend the House for two minutes.

Housing, Communities and Local Government: Departmental Spending

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £22,567,364,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament—(James Morris.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call Clive Betts, I give notice that, again, there is time pressure on the debate, so I am likely to introduce an immediate three-minute time limit because we must finish by 5 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

Normally I would give way, but Madam Deputy Speaker is looking askance at me, so I think I had better move on.

The second question is can the Government not bring forward a bit sooner the apportionment of losses from council tax and business rates? Waiting until the spending review introduces an extra element of uncertainty.

I have another question about compensation for losses in the leisure sector. Many authorities—about 60, I think—of all political persuasions do not provide leisure services directly; instead, they provide them through arm’s length arrangements. Sheffield does it through Sheffield International Venues and has some magnificent facilities, including Sheffield Arena and Ponds Forge, which is an international-class swimming pool, and lots of community facilities. What we need is an assurance that income losses for councils in that situation will be treated the same as income losses for councils that provide the services directly. That is an important point for many councils up and down the country.

It still feels like local government is on a life support machine, waiting for the next bit of revenue to trickle down from the next ministerial statement, rather than having the certainty that they need to plan. Many councils are now looking at making cuts and emergency budgets and talking openly about section 114 notices. Yes, okay, the Ministry has said, “Come and see us before you issue a 114 notice,” but that is too late. We do not want councils to reach the point where they are thinking about a 114 and planning for it. We want them to have the certainty of getting funding so they are not driven into that position.

This is not just about funding for this year; it is about funding for next year as well. Many councils, including Sheffield Council, have reserves to see them through this year, but using them will just postpone the problem to next year. Also, many councils had plans for efficiency savings, which have been put on hold as managerial expertise is put into dealing with the current crisis. Efficiency measures that have had to be put to one side for the time being are another loss for councils that needs to be recognised properly.

Let us have more certainty that all the costs that local authorities incur in covid-related matters will be covered by the Government. Let us have another discussion with the LGA and consider whether it is fair that councils should have to stand even 25% of income losses. Let us have an assurance that arm’s length arrangements for leisure will be covered. Let us bring forward the commitment on council tax and business rates to before the spending review. Let us not get to the point of discussions about section 114 notices by providing certainty of funding.

Finally, there is the future. What local authorities need is a proper long-term sustainable financial settlement.

The covid crisis offers a watershed, a turning point, an opportunity to change things, but I want to put down five markers for the Government, drawing on the Select Committee’s report in 2019. First, we want at least a multi-year settlement, to give that certainty. The last four-year settlement was welcome. I understand why it has not been repeated in the current crisis, but it is certainly needed.

Secondly, we need a recognition that local authorities need a significant real-terms increase in their funding. The Local Government Association’s calculation of an £8 billion gap, even before covid came along, has to be recognised. Thirdly, if we really are to end austerity, it is not just about funding local councils so they do not have to make more cuts; it is about giving them the money to restore many of the essential services they have had to cut.

Fourthly, we have to devolve to councils the power not merely to spend but to raise resources in the first place. If we do that, however, we must recognise that some councils are less able to raise resources than others, so if we devolve more spending arrangements to councils, we will need a fall-back position—a central fund for councils to deal with the equalisation problem.

Finally, let us have a proper, cross-party, long-term funding agreement for social care. The two Select Committees proposed a solution with a social care premium three years ago. Let us reactivate that. Giving councils that direct source of funding for social care will also release funding for other essential services. I say to the Minister: think of MPs here today arguing for extra funding as allies in the battle with the Treasury to get the money that councils need to fight the covid crisis, but to fight it in a way that does not produce extra cuts to essential council services already devastated by 10 years of austerity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We will start with a time limit of four minutes.

Business and Planning Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury]

This has been a constructive debate, and I thank Members across the Chamber for their positive contributions and suggestions, which I hope will be taken up in the other place. I thank the Government, and I thank the Minister in particular for his positive engagement. We are happy to withdraw amendment 2 in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I look forward to moving amendment 3. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Interpretation

Amendment made: 3, page 7, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) Subsection (1B) applies for the purposes of—

(a) the reference in section 1(5)(a) to a highway to which Part 7A of the Highways Act 1980 applies, and

(b) the references to traffic orders in section 3(6)(a)(i) and (b) (which, by virtue of section 3(7), have the same meaning as in that Part of that Act).

(1B) The definition of “traffic order” in section 115A(2) of the Highways Act 1980 is to be treated as if it included an order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 made pursuant to subsection (1)(b) or (c) of that section under the procedure provided for by regulation 18 of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/1215) (procedure for temporary orders made for purposes connected to coronavirus).”—(Mike Amesbury.)

This amendment secures that the provisions about pavement licences apply where a highway is subject to a temporary traffic order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for reasons relating to coronavirus.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I will now suspend the House for three minutes to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of hon. Members for the next.

Rough Sleeping

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Rough sleeping is not inevitable in a country as decent and well off as ours. The cost of a decade of austerity has been over 700 deaths last year on our streets and huge numbers of children and families in bed-and-breakfast and temporary accommodation. It is the defining mark of this Conservative Government. Any improvement on that record is welcome, but today’s figures show that the number of people sleeping rough in shop doorways and on park benches is more than double what it was when Labour left government. That shames us all and it shames Conservative Ministers most of all. It must end.

Today’s figures come with a big health warning: everyone, from the Secretary of State to homelessness charities, knows that these statistics are an unreliable undercount of the true scale of the problem. The figures have been refused national statistics status—a mark of

“trustworthiness, quality and public value”

Yesterday, Labour’s shadow Housing Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), wrote to the UK Statistics Authority to ask it to investigate their accuracy.

That follows new data obtained by the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act, showing that Ministers have been dramatically under-reporting the scale of rough sleeping. The BBC revealed that 25,000 people are sleeping rough in England—five times the number recorded by the Government’s statistics. Even on today’s unreliable figures, the Government are set to break their pledge to end rough sleeping by the end of the Parliament. At the current rate of progress, they will not end rough sleeping until 2037, so while the Secretary of State’s ambitious words are welcome, how does he intend to reach his target without further investment?

The announcement today that the Government will go some way towards following Labour’s proposals and fund housing for rough sleepers following the Housing First model is welcome, but we remember that the Secretary of State’s party promised 200,000 starter homes and did not build a single one. When the Prime Minster was Mayor of London, he promised to end rough sleeping in the capital by 2012, but rough sleeping doubled. We are right to be sceptical and ask the Secretary of State to clarify: by what date will these homes will be made available? How will the locations be determined? And is the funding genuinely extra, as he claims, or has it been diverted from other programmes in the Department’s budget?

It is not just that the Government have turned a blind eye to the homelessness crisis for so long—which they have—but they have refused to face up to the fact that they actively created the crisis. They have cut £1 billion a year from local homelessness reduction budgets and there is no commitment to reverse that. They have cut investment in new homes for social rent to record levels, with no commitment to reverse that, and they have failed to deliver on their pledge to end unfair evictions—the leading cause of homelessness.

Much like other symptoms of the housing crisis, such as the spiralling housing benefit bill, the funding needed to tackle rough sleeping will continue to rise if we do not invest in addressing the root causes of the housing crisis. That means more than warm words about bringing health and housing together; it means facing up to the impact of deep cuts to welfare, mental health support and addiction services since 2010. However, the Government are in denial about the root causes of homelessness. Perhaps that is why the Housing Secretary chose to appoint someone as his Parliamentary Private Secretary, with specific responsibility for rough sleeping, who thinks that sleeping rough is a lifestyle choice and who claimed that

“many people choose to be on the street”—[Official Report, 29 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 858.]

He also claimed that it is more comfortable than going on exercise in the Army— [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

[Sarah Jones]

That is particularly insulting to the hundreds of our armed forces veterans who are sleeping rough, who this Government have abandoned despite their years of service to our country.

As the first snow of the new decade falls on our streets outside, we must face up to the human cost of this Conservative Government: two people a day are dying on our streets; 127,000 children are homeless in temporary accommodation; and the rough sleeping figures are five times higher than the official statistics. Homelessness was tackled by the last Labour Government when we inherited a similar scale of crisis. We reduced rough sleeping by three quarters. The Secretary of State’s announcements today will not go far enough to deliver on his targets. To quote Louise Casey:

“We have gone from a beacon of success to an international example of failure”,

and we

“must not allow this issue to be ignored, we must feel its impact and act as the country we are proud to be.”