Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Stephen Kinnock

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Dame Eleanor, as we enter the third day of Committee on the Bill. As we do so, it is evident that instead of working to fix the genuine challenges that the protocol poses, the Government continue to push forward with a Bill that disregards the UK’s international legal obligations and threatens to throw Britain’s global reputation into disrepute, and which also—we shall discuss this today—gives them sweeping powers without restriction. Tearing up binding agreements, threatening to break international law and walking away from the table are not the composites of a good negotiating strategy; they are the hallmarks of a zombie Government, out of steam—a Government who have constantly put their own party squabbles and obsessions before the interests of the people of the UK, and indeed the people of Northern Ireland.

Tragically, they also risk dividing the UK and the European Union when we should be standing shoulder to shoulder in opposing Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine, and in finding ways to make Brexit work in a spirit of trust and co-operation. This is not how a responsible Government should behave, and many Members across the House know that. What we need is cool heads, statesmanlike behaviour and a search for long-term solutions.

On the Opposition Benches, we feel that the Bill is counterproductive, but that solutions are there if the Government are prepared to seek them. That requires compromise, hard work, and flexibility on all sides, including of course the EU, not knee-jerk reactions. I have listened to the very many genuine concerns that have been voiced about the functioning of the protocol. I have the pleasure of being a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in addition to my shadow Front Bench role. I have listened to businesses. I have been in Dublin and Belfast. I have listened to people on all sides and have heard genuine concerns, including from those in the Unionist community.

For months, Labour has called on the Government to do the responsible thing—get back around the table to do what we have always done, and what any Government worth its salt would do, which is to negotiate, in the interests of finding workable, practical and technocratic solutions that command the consent and support of all communities in Northern Ireland, and have the means to bring back power sharing in a meaningful and lasting way. In that spirit, we have offered amendments to the Bill today in good faith, to begin to correct the issues that are manifest across this legislation—starting today with the Henry VIII clauses that we have heard about, and which the amendment that we have tabled in this group address.

As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), set out during Second Reading, 15 of the 26 clauses included in the Bill confer powers directly on UK Ministers. Those include the power to use secondary legislation to amend or modify Acts of Parliament—Acts that have been subject to the full scrutiny of this House. As the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law sets out, the Henry VIII powers given to Ministers in the Bill

“are numerous, extensive and subject to very low hurdles before those powers may be exercised.”

Indeed, Professor Catherine Barnard of Cambridge University has called these powers “eye wateringly broad”. The Hansard Society, deeply respected on both sides of the House, describes them as “breath-taking”. And we should not just take their word for it. The Chair of the Justice Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), last week put it perfectly when he said,

“there are Henry VIII powers and Henry VIII powers; and this is Henry VIII, the six wives, Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell all thrown in together.”

He went on to describe the Henry VIII powers as

“almost Shakespearean or Wagnerian in their scope and breadth.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 370.]

Awarding Ministers these enormous powers is not a strategy, and the people of Northern Ireland will see it for what it is—a blatant power grab.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst identified one of the key problems with these powers when he explained that the test that Ministers must meet before using these powers is “extraordinarily low”. I agree. As the Bill currently stands, in many cases Ministers may use these powers merely if they consider it “appropriate” to do so. That is simply not good enough. Not only is that a woefully low threshold, but it lacks any kind of objectivity. We cannot have a situation where Ministers can make sweeping changes that are not necessarily in the interests of all communities of Northern Ireland, and without proper scrutiny and process; and those of us on the Opposition Benches are extremely concerned about what Ministers may deem appropriate in the future.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I have just one point to add. Does he agree that there is a certain irony in the fact that probably large numbers of the 52% who voted for Brexit voted to strengthen, solidify and consolidate parliamentary sovereignty, but these Henry VIII powers are strengthening the hand of Government and weakening the hand of Parliament? Does not that seem to run directly counter to what many people who voted for Brexit were voting for?

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed the Bill not only takes powers away from this place, but takes on powers without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Stephen Kinnock

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s experience and expertise, particularly in the field of foreign affairs. However, I think her proposal does not really make sense for where we are right now in this Chamber. We need to see a Government showing leadership. Those brave ladies who have come forward are showing that leadership, and I hope this Government will pay heed to it. The moment of truth is upon us, and we need to see that vote and that leadership now. These women have courage beyond their service to our country. They are showing this Government the way. I urge colleagues across the House to support the amendment.

I turn now to Lords amendment 2, which places the same legal responsibility to have “due regard” to the armed forces covenant on central Government as the current drafting requires of local authorities and other public bodies. This Bill piles new and often vague statutory responsibilities to deliver the covenant on a wide range of public bodies, but, mysteriously, those do not apply to central Government. In practice, this would create a farcical situation whereby the chair of school governors has a statutory responsibility to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, but Government Departments—including the Ministry of Defence—do not.

As the Royal British Legion has pointed out,

“many of the policy areas in which members of the Armed Forces community experience difficulty are the responsibility of national government or based on national guidance.”

Help for Heroes, Cobseo and other service charities know this too, as do Conservative Members, both in this House and in the other place. Ministers must not be allowed to offload responsibility for delivery.

How can it be that social care, pensions, employment and immigration are among the long list of areas we know will not be covered by this legislation? The exclusion of the Ministry of Defence from the responsible public bodies also means the Bill offers little to actively serving personnel. Our armed forces have gone above and beyond both to support our frontline response to the pandemic in the past year and, as I have mentioned, in Afghanistan. What a contrast between the selfless service of our military personnel and a Government who are missing this crucial opportunity to make long-overdue improvements to the standard of service accommodation, while at the same time handing most of them another real-terms pay cut this year.

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

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend mentions immigration, health and a whole range of central Government Departments responsible for delivering the covenant for our armed forces personnel. Does he agree that there is a missed opportunity in this Bill to deal with the situation facing many foreign and Commonwealth veterans who have bravely served—alongside our Welsh regiments, for example? We know the contribution of Fijians in that regard. There is a missed opportunity here, but there are other opportunities coming up where these issues may be resolved; does he urge the Government to support them?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s personal and political expertise in this area. He is absolutely right that this was an opportunity to right the wrong he has so eloquently set out. There will be an opportunity tomorrow—our Front Bench has tabled an amendment—and there will be other opportunities, but it is a moral point of principle, and I hope the Government will listen and do the right thing in the vote tomorrow.

Without this amendment, the Bill’s principles will not deliver practical action for the squaddie in dilapidated single living accommodation who is without basics such as heating and hot water, the veteran struggling with their mental health who has to endure waiting times for treatment more than twice as long as Government targets, or the dispersed service family who struggle with the cost of childcare and getting in to work. Ministers must not be allowed to offload responsibility for the delivery of the covenant to cash-strapped local authorities and other overstretched public bodies. Central Government must be held to the same measurable, enforceable, national standards as local authorities and agencies. Only then can we truly end the postcode lottery on the armed forces covenant.

The Government are set to reject these amendments. Their majority means they may well win the votes, but in so doing the Conservatives will lose any credible claim to be the party of the armed forces. Service personnel will be asking why this Government’s manifesto pledge to put the covenant further into law delivers no improvements to their day-to-day lives. Veterans will be asking why they still face uneven access to services. Women will be wondering whether a career in the services is for them. These arguments will come back to the Government again and again—from this House, including from Government Back Benchers, from service charities, from armed forces communities and from the Opposition Benches, because Labour will always stand up for our armed forces.

UK Steel Industry

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Stephen Kinnock

Thursday 21st January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thank you, Mr Walker. I defer to your better judgment, but I would be more than happy to continue that debate outside the Chamber.

In the light of what we are discussing, will the Minister explain why the Government will not go further in using Government procurement to support the British steel industry? It is one thing to put in place procurement guidelines, but driving the message home across Government, let alone the private sector as well, is another matter. Words are easy, but actions are far more difficult, and those actions require leadership. With Hinkley Point B, the Government have a real chance to show leadership by using procurement to support British industry. However, they seem to be squandering that opportunity, with no British steel due to be used on the project.

I would also like to ask the Government about the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. First, they need to get on and approve the project—each day of delay is costing months or years of progress on it. However, I also ask them to show some leadership and to commit to sourcing all the steel for the turbines, or as much of it as possible, from the United Kingdom steel industry. The tidal lagoon not only provides the entire Swansea bay area with job opportunities, which are desperately needed in the light of Monday’s announcement, but supports local jobs at the Port Talbot Tata Steel plant.

British steel is among the highest-quality steel in the world, and we should make better use of it. British-based certifiers have among the most robust standard regimes, particularly on environmental and social impact, so it is unusual to say the least that the Government appear to favour BES 6001, rather than the far more robust BS 8902, as the standard for reinforcing steel. No Chinese steel meets the stringent quality and sourcing criteria of BS 8902, so its adoption as the Government standard would help to protect against Chinese steel dumping and support high-quality British steel.

The fourth area on which we have repeatedly called on the Government to act is the dumping of Chinese steel on the British market, which is the greatest challenge facing the British steel industry. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is no fan of the European Union, but he seems to be a fan of hiding behind it. The Secretary of State and the Minister know that far more can be done to support the steel industry without the Government’s breaching state aid rules. The Government must work with Europe to deal with the issue of Chinese steel dumping. Last year, China produced 441 million tonnes of steel more than it consumed, much of which was dumped in the UK.

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

My hon. Friend is making an extremely strong speech. I congratulate him on securing this debate. Given that a number of us have been raising the issue of Chinese dumping and providing detailed statistics and examples for years, not just months, is he surprised that the Government have taken so long to take action?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am surprised. I believe that the Secretary of State had to look up Brussels on a map to work out how to get there last year.

The critical point is that the European Union sets the rules of the game, and it is up to the member states to invoke those rules and deploy defensive trade instruments. I would like to share something with my hon. Friend. I read a very interesting interview from 2012, which was posted on Twitter by Laura Kuenssberg. She interviewed the then managing director of Tata Steel in Port Talbot—[Interruption.] I know my hon. Friend is well acquainted with it. I apologise for that connection; I assure him that it was completely coincidental. Guess what the managing director of Tata Steel asked for? He asked for action on anti-dumping, on high energy costs, on public procurement and on business rates. We have had four years of inaction, and here we are again. It is like a nightmare version of “Groundhog Day”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend sets out clearly how the situation affects her constituents. The impact on not only the directly employed workforce in all the plants and operations across south Wales and the UK, but all those working in the associated industries, cannot be overemphasised.

While we have the steel backbone that I described, we also have steel veins and arteries running out into many other industries—related manufacturing, training and expertise, and engineering. The loss of highly skilled jobs in the plants themselves has a knock-on effect on communities right across south Wales and the UK.

I pay tribute to the trade unions and especially Community, which plays a constructive role not only in these debates, but in facilitating the relationship between us and workforces in the plants to enable us to understand what is happening on the floor of the melt shop, and in the rod and bar mill, so that we can see with our own eyes the efforts that the workforces are putting in.

I will not reiterate a lot of points that I have made in previous steel debates, whether from the Front or the Back Benches. Instead I shall emphasise several of the points that have been made and ask specific questions of the Minister. I will focus on constructive solutions. I praise the work of the current steel Minister, and the Secretary of State for Wales has been open about and engaged on this matter with me and other south Wales Members but, to be honest, a lot of this is far too little, far too late. When I was elected in November 2012, one of my first meetings was about the steel industry. The Celsa management and I went to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to meet senior officials and Ministers. We presented detailed and carefully constructed warnings about what was happening in the market in terms of Chinese dumping and energy costs. We presented thought-through solutions, and we wanted to work together co-operatively and in partnership to find solutions. Unfortunately, a lot of the warnings were ignored.

I think back to a particular meeting I had in November 2014 in the Wales Office with the Secretary of State for Wales and the then steel Minister, who is now the Minister for the Cabinet Office. To be fair, the Secretary of State made an effort—I genuinely think that he cares about the future of the industry in south Wales—but I am sorry to say that that was simply not matched by the former steel Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and officials in the Treasury and elsewhere. There has been a constant battle between those in government who genuinely accept that there is a problem and want to do something, including the current steel Minister, and others who either act with typical Whitehall caution, saying, “Oh, we can’t do this, Minister. We can’t do that, Minister,” or are actively not interested at all and are pursuing a laissez-faire ideology.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The promises, and the lack of delivery on those promises, specifically on market economy status for China, have been a constant theme. China’s current non-market economy status will be up for review in December 2016. The first step in reaching a decision will be the European Commission making a recommendation. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the British Commissioner, Lord Hill, to stand up for British interests in Brussels and to make it absolutely clear that the British Government will not support market economy status for China? Surely it is time for that promise to be made and, for once, not to be broken.

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. Such promises have been the hallmark of much of the relationship with Europe of this Government and the previous one. There has been a lack of engagement. We can argue about the reasons why, but things have not been followed through until far too late in the day. I know that the Minister will talk about the actions she took, which were very welcome—I praised her for them publicly—but that was the first action after many similar requests in terms of our relationship with Europe.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon talked about market economy status, and my biggest concern is China. It is basic economics. The statistics show that Chinese steel exports have increased every year—they rose in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. If we look specifically at statistics for the EU, we see an upward trend of Chinese exports since the start of 2011. In 2014, they increased by 53%. They peaked in quarter 4 of 2014 at 27.1 million tonnes, but in quarter 3 of 2015, a new record was set of 29.4 million tonnes, which was an increase of 17% in one quarter.