Levelling Up

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Young]

I am delighted that Halesowen is receiving funding in this round of the levelling-up fund. My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for his constituents in Halesowen and I look forward to working with him to ensure that the project is delivered as quickly as possible.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

Northern Ireland is missing out on this. It would be nice if we had a devolved Executive working with the Department, but that has not been the case in the past anyway, even whenever the Executive was sitting, so the Minister’s rationale simply does not stack up. Can he confirm that the money for Northern Ireland, which has been denied today, will be ringfenced, and what sort of timescale he envisages—including without a restored Executive—for spending that? Will there be a fresh round 3 in Northern Ireland, or will it too be a continuation of round 2?

[Jacob Young]

I do not believe it is accurate to say that Northern Ireland is not benefiting. As I have already outlined, we have spent £120 million across the levelling-up fund in Northern Ireland, and we will continue to work with Northern Ireland communities on the delivery of those projects. With regards to the hon. Gentleman’s other questions, I will be happy to write to him after this session but, as I say, the £30 million that would have been spent in this round has been set aside for levelling up in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The new national planning policy framework ensures that the Planning Inspectorate will work with, not against, local communities. The Planning Inspectorate also has a wonderful new chief executive officer—an official from my Department who helped to deliver the homes for Ukraine programme and understands what communities need and want.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

T2. With around 1,000 jobs and 17,000 placements at stake in Northern Ireland, the shared prosperity fund is too little, too late for those organisations that are currently availing themselves of European social fund support. Can the Minister ensure that, at the very least, decisions on funding will be taken before the end of March to allow successful bids to continue without interruption?

[Michael Gove]

We will do everything we can to expedite that funding to Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and her impassioned advocacy of better support for children and families in the first 1,001 days of a child’s life has helped to shape Government policy. The wider roll-out of family hubs, support for children’s services and, in particular, targeted intervention when children are at risk of abuse or neglect will, when taken together, help to ensure that we level up opportunities across this country. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for all her work on this issue.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

European social fund projects in Northern Ireland face a financial cliff edge. Over 1,000 jobs are at risk and over 17,000 service users fear for their future. Can the Secretary of State give me an assurance that there will be an investment plan and a process in place to give those organisations the chance to apply for shared prosperity fund support ahead of next April?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, and I will work with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make sure that there is an investment plan in place.

Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Although I do not know all the details of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, it seems to me that what he wants to do is wholly admirable and something that we should facilitate. I will ask my team to be in touch with the hon. Gentleman and East Ayrshire Council to make sure that they can deliver in the way required.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

May I press the Secretary of State further on the situation in respect of Northern Ireland? Will he clarify whether the registration works at the UK level or the local level? Will the matching and the vetting be done at the UK level? How will Northern Ireland Departments access resources—will there be a Barnett consequential or will they apply for a grant from the UK Government?

[Michael Gove]

On the first point, I believe that, unless told otherwise and unless there is any barrier—by which I mean a technical barrier, not a legal barrier—any UK citizen anywhere in the United Kingdom can act as a sponsor. On the second point, we are discussing with the devolved Administrations how we can provide additional support, because if we were to restrict it simply to a Barnett consequential and then found that, as it happened, there were many more sponsors in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales than in other parts of the United Kingdom, that would not be fair on those individuals. We want to take a flexible approach.

Shared Prosperity Fund: Devolved Administrations

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is not often that I am called first to speak. Indeed, I am always shocked that it should happen—and very pleased, too; thank you so much, Sir Edward.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) on her excellent representations for the project that we all wish to see more of—the shared prosperity fund. As she said, we want to see more funds filtering down to our constituencies. She referred to three or four things, including the TieTa group and its three owners from Monaco. I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), “Who wants to live in Monaco when you can live in Millisle?” That is because Millisle is in my constituency, of course—at least, part of it is.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

Just for the record, Millisle is in my constituency.

[Jim Shannon]

No, for the record, the Drumfad Road—the Drumfad estate right up to the car park—is in mine. I know it is, because I knock those doors.

I am very pleased to support the hon. Member for Belfast South in bringing the debate forward. There is absolutely no doubt that the shared prosperity fund is needed to build on work that has been done in every region of the United Kingdom through EU funding. Not to be too pedantic, but it is always great to get a percentage of the money that we funnelled into the EU back into our communities. I am very pleased that we have been able to do that.

I share a semblance of the dismay outlined by the hon. Lady, my Northern Ireland colleague—we are from different parties but very much on the same page on this issue—yet I am perhaps a wee bit more optimistic. I suppose I tend to be more optimistic about life—the glass is always half-full rather than half-empty—because there are good things happening. To be fair to the hon. Lady, she outlined the issues but also where we can go with this, and I want to do the same.

When the new Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns)—it is lovely to see him in his place—was appointed, I quickly asked him to come down to the most beautiful constituency in the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Strangford. I say to the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) that that is not in dispute. I was very pleased to bring the Minister down to Strangford. I know that he has a deep interest in Northern Ireland—it has always been in his blood and in his life—so it was good to get him down to Strangford to introduce him to some of the issues on which the shared prosperity fund could make the difference.

I want speak to those issues and to give the Minister a taste of the concerns. I spoke to him before the debate and said, “Here are my thoughts; are those things that you would like to do?” and he very quickly said that he would. Issues such as the local high street and how it should feature, and our education system, are key for every one of us. We had a chance to go to Castle Gardens School, and we went to the high street and met the chamber of trade in Newtownards town. There is also our tourism industry; we went to Mount Stewart, and we had a lovely lunch in Harrisons in the constituency. That is one of the tourism projects that has taken off.

In two major areas in which the EU has had control over subsidies in the past, we spoke to the fishermen and, importantly, to the community representatives. The Minister asked for that specifically, and I was very pleased to make that happen. Those are the sorts of things—the changes in the community—that we want. I think I referred to them as the journeys that people have taken away from the past to a new future. Those are the sorts of things that I wish to speak about.

The Minister acknowledged the awful handling of the situation so far for the fishermen. I know that the fishermen in Portavogie were particularly enthralled with the Minister. Sir Edward, if you ever want somebody to imitate our Prime Minister, he is the man who can do it—nobody can do it better. For one minute, if I closed my eyes, I thought it was the Prime Minister. The Minister issued a promise to get it right with his colleagues; he did that for us, and we appreciate that. I got him to meet with the local community representatives from one of the estates in my area, a very progressive community group that is probably one of the best in the Ards area. I did so with a clear view of showing him how far so many have come in our town, and the giant leap forward there has been in the work that they carry out. It is work that it is essential to continue. That is why the shared prosperity fund is so important; it makes a difference and builds a future that we can all wrap our arms around and be part of.

I felt that the Minister took seriously the five areas that I had highlighted. The group he wanted to meet again was the community group, and in particular, its young people. I could see that the Minister was interested. He, like myself and the community group, could see where the future needs to be built. The shared prosperity fund is one way of doing that. We heard how the community wanted to move away from the actions and the reactions of the past. They want to train the new generations in a new way of doing and looking at things. They want to train the new generation to look at things in a way that, some time ago, the community did not, and, if I am perfectly honest, in a way that I did not 40 years ago either. The Minister saw the value of facilitating the local community network through European funding and his response was clear: the work must continue. I subscribe to that. That is what the hon. Member for Belfast South wants. I believe it will continue, but we need a wee bit of help.

We look to the Minister. I know I have been referring to the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office—he will forgive me for that, but I wanted to tell the story because it is part of where we are. I look to the Minister for a positive response. That cannot happen without dedicated funding. I have highlighted the areas in my constituency that need help from the fund, including the small businesses that we met on that day; people working in fishing and agriculture, which are still major employers; tourism, which Ards and North Down Council believes is key to building the economy; and our community and educators. Funding for innovation is also essential for large business expansion.

All of that is necessary for a flourishing Northern Ireland—a Northern Ireland for everyone. That is what I want to see, it is what the hon. Member for Belfast South wants to see, and it is what the Minister wants to see. I am sure that everyone else here wants to see the same thing. There is work to be done, and more to do. We have moved forward with a contribution from both sides of the community working together. There is an appetite to do it; there is an appetite from elected representatives, from the Minister and from others here today.

I encourage the Minister to announce the parameters of the fund, to allow every area—not just my constituency, but Belfast South and every constituency in Northern Ireland—the support. We need to help Northern Ireland, and indeed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as whole, to live up to our potential. I believe that Northern Ireland has that potential, we just need help through the shared prosperity fund to do that. There is no pressure on the Minister, whatsoever, but will he tell us what he will do for us? We want to take that journey together—all parties and all representatives, along with our Minister and our Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) for securing this important debate today.

My comments largely reflect Northern Ireland, but there will be a large degree of commonality between the situations in Scotland and Wales. I speak as a former Minister for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland with overall responsibility for the administration of the European social fund. I also have direct knowledge of the application of the European regional development fund as well, so I can testify to the huge value that both of those played in Northern Ireland.

To follow up what the hon. Member for Belfast South indicated, we were told that Brexit was all about taking back control. Well, may I say that when we were members of the European Union, Northern Ireland Departments had more control over that money than we will have in the context of the shared prosperity fund. That is a rather ironic situation, to say the least.

I have numerous concerns to highlight. The first involves governance. To reiterate the point, this cuts across the devolved settlements in all three nations and regions of the UK. In the case of Northern Ireland, it cuts across the Good Friday agreement itself, and that is a fairly serious thing to do. It also creates a real mess in terms of governance itself. In essence, we end up with the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive both as players essentially on the same pitch trying to do things in the same areas, whether it is around skills, apprenticeships, labour market inclusion, economic development or economic regeneration. Rather than that being greater than the sum of the parts, I fear this will become lesser than the sum of the parts because there will be built-in inefficiency in terms of what happens.

With all the best intentions in the world around co-ordination and communication, it has been far from perfect up until now. Even if that is remedied, nothing will replace the same teams in the Northern Ireland Departments having overall control over the resources and applying them in the most efficient way. That then begs the question as to what happens in terms of things like the programme for government and measurements of impact. I am not sure whether those have been highlighted by the Department at all.

We are hopeful in Northern Ireland of having an outcomes-based programme for government if and when devolution returns after the Assembly election. In that context, it is important that whatever happens, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities works hand in hand to the same objectives. If not, again we are going to miss the opportunity to make the best use of the resources.

The same point applies to measurement. How on earth will the Department measure the impact of its interventions on, for example, skill levels, if it is only one part of a wider equation in which Northern Ireland Departments, notably the Department for the Economy and the further education colleges and universities, are all trying to do the same thing? How on earth do we disaggregate all of that? There is then the issue of the scale of the spending. Like Wales, Northern Ireland was told that we would be no worse off under the shared prosperity fund than we were under the structural funds, and yet the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and the wider Executive have made it clear that Northern Ireland risks losing up to £70 million per year of spending power. I would be grateful if the Minister could reconcile those two seemingly contradictory positions.

We then come to the nature of the spending itself. There has been a long-established pattern in terms of the areas where European funding has been put to use. In terms of investment in skills, a large part of apprenticeship funding in Northern Ireland has come through the European social fund, and almost the entirety of areas such as disability employment have been funded through European funding. The ERDF supported a wide range of economic development measures and regeneration issues. Indeed, Invest Northern Ireland, our main inward investment organisation, has depended on that type of funding, and its budget faces a very uncertain future.

Even if those issues are clarified, there are issues around the switchover between the next—and final—round of ESF and the start of the shared prosperity fund. There are a lot of groups working on the margins that are deeply concerned in that regard. There are fears of gaps in the provision of programmes, and of some programmes ceasing altogether. There are concerns about those who are employed. Unlike the civil service, the community and voluntary sector has to put people on notice of redundancy whenever funding comes to an end. There are a lot of people out there who are very worried about their own futures.

Finally, I want to ask why the actions and role of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in Northern Ireland will not be covered under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. By contrast, both the Northern Ireland Office and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are covered under section 75. The spending that will potentially come through the Department is much greater than that which comes through either of those bodies, so the situation is slightly incongruous. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the discrepancy.

Levelling Up

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, she represents a constituency with one of the finest universities in the country and she recognises the vital importance of higher education, further education and schools working together to extend opportunity.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

Speaking as a former Minister in Northern Ireland, our Executive had far more control over the allocation of structural funds when we were in the EU than they do over levelling-up funds today. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the UK’s approach to levelling-up funds, particularly the shared prosperity fund, means only reduced resource for Northern Ireland and risks duplication and waste, as well as competition in the shared public space over the scarce resources that remain?

[Michael Gove]

I respectfully disagree, but I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has a wealth of experience in this area, so I want to work with him, his party and his party’s Minister in the Executive to make sure that we minimise bureaucracy and maximise effectiveness.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Stephen Farry Excerpts

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

[Paul Scully]

I can indeed.

Part 5 of the Bill contains vital provisions to ensure that this will always be the case, whatever the outcome of our negotiations within the EU. Since these clauses were originally introduced, the UK and EU have worked constructively together through the withdrawal agreement Joint Committee discussions, which continue to progress, and final decisions are expected in the coming days. I can confirm today that if the solutions being considered in those discussions are agreed, the UK Government will be prepared to remove clause 44, concerning export declarations, from the Bill. The UK Government would also be prepared to deactivate clauses 45 and 47, concerning state aid, such that they could be used only when consistent with the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under international law.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I wonder whether the Minister could reflect on two points. First, I am relatively new to this place, but my understanding is that there has not been a bigger vote in the other place against a proposal from this House for many decades, if not centuries. Secondly, does he recognise that the majority of people and businesses in Northern Ireland want to see the solutions he set out work through the Joint Committee and not through any breach of international law? It is important that there should be a solid legal framework to enable businesses in Northern Ireland to conduct their affairs.

[Paul Scully]

Indeed, we all want this to be dealt with through the Joint Committee. That is why the discussions are continuing, and that is why, in these crucial hours of negotiations between the UK and the EU, we wish them well in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

I was struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) said about the practicalities of this. The United Kingdom needs to be ready for whatever the outcome of these negotiations is. We hope for, we expect and we are working towards achieving a deal that is in the mutual interest of all concerned. In the event that that breaks down—as many have commented, that would involve breaches of good faith and potentially of the law on both sides—we need to be ready to ensure, in exactly the way that our friends and allies in the European Union are, that we have the arrangements and powers in place to deal with whatever consequences might come our way. That is why I believe that the Government are taking the right course and I intend to support these measures and vote against the Lords amendments this evening.

[Stephen Farry]

I want to focus largely on the Lords amendments to part 5 of the Bill and to speak in support of them. I am conscious that we may well be part of a charade this evening, in the light of discussions that are happening elsewhere, but it is surely self-evident that no deal with the European Union can be concluded, let alone ratified, if the offending clauses remain part of the Bill. If we end up with a no-deal situation—I very much hope that we do not—the UK will face huge economic damage and will be forced back to the negotiating table. I think most people privately would recognise that that is the reality. Once again, these issues will have to be addressed and overcome.

Since this House last debated the Bill, we have had the very welcome election of Joe Biden as President of the United States. It is clear that there is no prospect whatsoever of a trade deal with United States if there is any threat to the Good Friday agreement, in particular from this Bill or, indeed, the subsequent taxation Bill that may well follow. Obviously, that is of fundamental importance to the UK going forward. I think that the Biden Administration will be very much open to a deal with the United Kingdom, but that will not come at the price of undermining the Good Friday agreement, which Americans of both parties are extremely proud of in terms of their role in and contribution to. The internal market Bill is not helping those negotiations at all. At best it is a distraction from them, and certainly not a source of leverage, but at worst it gives the indication that the UK cannot be trusted with regard to agreements. In particular, if there is a sudden deadlock around issues of governance, the European Union will be very reluctant to give too much in that respect, given the very sad precedent that has been set. Again, the UK is shooting itself in the foot in terms of crucial negotiations.

I want to stress that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the majority of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the majority of businesses in Northern Ireland do not want the UK breaking, or threatening to break, international law on their behalf. The outcomes from this Bill are of course very seductive, but they represent a false solution. The only way to address these issues is via the withdrawal agreement and the Joint Committee on the Withdrawal Agreement. To achieve these flexibilities and derogations, we must again look to that word “trust”, which is again being undermined by these actions. That will make it more difficult to reach a conclusion through the Joint Committee processes.

Breaking international law may give some short-term relief to businesses, but it actually ends up hurting them because it puts them in the situation of not having a secure legal environment in which to do business going forward. That is of fundamental importance to businesses. It also potentially risks the return of a border on the island of Ireland. I know that some people want to dismiss that, but the difficulty comes from the fact that if there is not a guaranteed alternative system via the protocol, the pressure from the EU to protect the integrity of its customs union and single market falls back on the island of Ireland. That is one of the key concerns in terms of how the Good Friday agreement may well be breached through this Bill.

Some people seem to think that everything can stay the same as regards how things operate across these islands. The difficulty is that this reflects the choices made by the UK and its Government around Brexit and the nature of Brexit. Northern Ireland is a different place, and because of those choices special arrangements have to be put in place. The backstop was a better alternative, but the protocol is where we have landed, warts and all in terms of the negative consequences from that.

[Alan Brown]

Yet again we have been reliant on the Lords to try to remedy matters in this Bill, which from the outset has shown a complete disregard both for the rule of law and for devolution. The fact that the Government are going to overrule the Lords amendments tonight prompts the question: what is the point of the Lords even when it is doing good work?

In this Chamber, right from the outset of the debates on the internal market Bill, we have been treated to Back-Bench Tories standing up and telling us that they are proud Unionists. However, saying that they are proud Unionists wedded to the idea of the United Kingdom and the Union jack while supporting a Bill that rides roughshod over devolution shows that they do not really care about the Union, and they do not care about Scotland, or understand Scotland. That goes for the Prime Minister, in particular. We know that the Lords has Unionists, and the Lords has told the Government that this Bill puts the Union at risk. Are the Government and their sycophants wilfully stupid or just naturally stupid, because they are certainly not listening?

I want to focus on Lords amendments 48 and 49, which aim to delete the clauses with the same numbers. This is the real power grab about spending in Scotland. Lord Hope summarised the debate:

“It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this Government regard devolution as an inconvenience”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 1468.]

As a matter of balance, I will quote Lord Forsyth, who reckoned:

“The…Act of Union…has brought about more than 300 years of prosperity.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1323.]

If the Union has been so successful and brought so much prosperity, why are this Government having to embark on a levelling-up agenda? Why do Scotland and other regions around the UK have to rely on EU structural funds to plug the gaps from Westminster over the years? Incidentally, the EU has never imposed a single project on Scotland against its will, whereas this Bill allows the Government to create projects and spend money against Scotland’s will. Where is the shared prosperity fund anyway? Sadly, it is missing in action.

If the Union was so successful, why are this Government legislating for support for cultural activities, projects and events that Ministers consider benefit the UK and devolved nations? The same goes for sport, education and training activities. What kind of education projects do they want to impose in Scotland? Why do they think that that should be in the Bill in the first place? It is clear that they want to subject us to a Union jack fest, but I can tell the Minister that that will not go down well in Scotland either; actually, it will help our cause.

We have also been told that infrastructure spending will mean additional money coming to Scotland, yet when we look at the spending review we can see that we have just suffered a 5% cut to our capital budget. It is quite clear that that the Government will top-slice the Scottish budget, take some money off and then recirculate it in Scotland with a Union jack. It is so transparent, and the fact that the national infrastructure policy says that the Bill allows the Government to spend directly in the devolved nations tells us that it has been planned all along.

The consequential clause 49 remains a complete affront. Basically, the UK Government can interfere and spend money in Scotland on projects that might not be wanted by the Scottish Government, and clause 49 then allows them to impose repayment conditions on the taxpayers in Scotland. That is ridiculous—it is a con. Any Scottish Tory who argues that this is not a power grab and who thinks that these conditions are acceptable must be completely devoid of self-respect.

Lord Dunlop, a former Scotland Office Minister, said:

“I hope the Government will think long and hard before overturning in the Commons, on the back of Conservative votes alone, any sensible changes”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 585.]

There is no long and hard thinking being done on the Government Benches, but there is by the people of Scotland. Those who voted no in 2014 are changing their minds rapidly, because they know the contempt with which this Government treat Scotland.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Stephen Farry Excerpts

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

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

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

[Paul Scully]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

I approach the Report stage of the Bill as a Welsh MP for a border constituency where protecting and enhancing the relationship between England and Wales, and the whole Union of the United Kingdom, is not a conceptual political argument but a vital matter of day-to-day practicality. Thousands of my constituents in Clwyd South go across the border each day to work, attend school or college, visit family and friends, or go shopping, so I am strong supporter of the Bill, which will ensure that businesses in all parts of the UK can continue to trade seamlessly across the UK as they do now—protecting jobs and supporting the economy by avoiding unnecessary burdens and costs being placed on businesses or consumers.

The rest of the UK is Wales’s biggest trading partner by some way, accounting for 61% of Wales’s exports, worth £30.1 billion, and 64% of Wales’s imports, worth £34.3 billion.

Much of those are found in small businesses close to the border with England, such as those in Clwyd South. This Bill will protect the UK’s centuries-old internal market, by ensuring that goods and services in one part of the UK are recognised in the others, and ensure a fair playing field for all companies. As has been mentioned, the Bill will enshrine the principle of mutual recognition, so that goods and services in one part of the UK will be recognised across the country, and the principle of non-discrimination, so that there is equal opportunity for companies trading within the UK, regardless of where they are based. The Bill will also ensure that high standards are protected across the whole UK by promoting co-operation between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures. There will be no reduction in our food hygiene or animal welfare standards.