Budget Resolutions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), who is no longer in his place, stated that levelling up is not just about geography. Although I am not yet clear what it is, I do agree with that. It is not just about people knowing that they will have decent schools, good hospitals, connected transport and investment in local jobs, no matter where they were born, grew up or live now; it is also about a society in which all people—no matter their situation, who they are or where they live—have an equal chance not just to survive, but to thrive. Public services and infrastructure are obviously part of that, and public services include the provision of social security.

It is not shameful to receive social security. That is important and not said enough. It is not shameful to be born without enough, for someone to lose their job, or to have health difficulties or caring responsibilities. As many in North East Fife and across the UK have found in the last 20 months, anyone can require to be in receipt of social security. The way that the Government have treated social security in the Budget suggests that they feel otherwise. Although it has taken some time, I am pleased that the Government now seem to recognise that universal credit is an in-work benefit. Yes, the taper rate for universal credit has been cut, but that restores only a third of what was taken away by the £20 cut, and it helps only those people already in work. There are thousands of other people struggling to enter the workplace, or in receipt of legacy benefits—and what about those, still predominantly women, with childcare commitments?

Research done earlier this year by the University of York found that most mothers claiming universal credit struggle to meet the work conditionality requirements because work coaches do not understand the commitments of childcare. The childcare element of universal credit barely covers costs anyway, but cannot be claimed until the end of the first month of paid work, so people are supposed to do up to 30 hours of work search each week while caring for their children. I know from experience, and I hope that anyone who has or had small children knows, that that is just not possible. Without reforms of conditionality and better access to full-time childcare, parents—particularly mothers and single parents—will continue to be left behind.

What about those who provide unpaid care to their loved ones and receive either carer’s allowance or the caring element of universal credit? Our society relies on those unpaid carers, but the Government’s refusal to uprate those benefits, or to give additional support, almost amounts to abandonment of those people, who do so much.

I could mention many more groups who will not experience a levelling up through the Budget, but I am aware of time, so finally I turn to vulnerable and homeless young people—young people starting their life with nothing but barriers before them. The Government appear to base their policies for under-25s on their own experience of being young. In response to a One Parent Families Scotland campaign that I and other hon. Members have supported on the young parent penalty, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said that young people need less social security than older people because they can rely on support from their parents. How does that thinking apply to young parents who are living independently with their children, to care leavers, to homeless young people, or to those who, through no fault of their own, have no parents or care givers who can step in when things get tough?

Last week, at the launch of Centrepoint’s report on the experience of vulnerable and homeless young people in the social security system, one young person asked, “If it is not good enough for you or your children, why is it okay for us?”. I ask the Minister to think about that when reflecting on the Government’s policies. The Government can change this. By failing to even acknowledge the needs of those who provide and need support, the Government are failing to level up before they even get started.

Community Renewal Fund and Levelling Up Fund in Wales

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, and I apologise for my delay in making it to the Chamber. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on securing this debate.

The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) said that we should be outcome focused, and I absolutely agree, but I also argue that good processes help to deliver good outcomes. The initial deadline of 18 June means there were 74 working days, in the context of responding to the pandemic, for local authorities to process what was needed and to make applications. That is clearly insufficient time. For the community renewal fund, the spending must be completed by 31 March 2022. Therefore, applications are limited to projects that are ready to go, rather than those that would take a longer time and arguably deliver better outcomes. I reiterate the point made by the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns): this disadvantages smaller local authorities that do not have the same capacity and will not have an ongoing programme of funding bids.

Previously, 40% of Welsh apprenticeships were funded by EU structural funds. The current funding will provide £220 million to the whole UK. Wales, as many Members have said, is guaranteed at least 5% of that, which is £11 million. I struggle to see how else that can be explained other than as a loss of over £300 million of funding to Wales. The prospectuses of both funds stress that they are competitive and point to the need to get value for money. That intrinsically suggests that the process is driven by cost savings and not communities.

Other Members have mentioned the process of how the two funds have been created and that their formation has not been transparent. The Welsh Government do not appear to have had any meaningful engagement. This lack of transparency makes it appear, at the very least, as if that information has been given strategically to Conservative Members of Parliament. Both funds state that the only role of the Welsh Government in the decision-making process is to consult as appropriate. Ultimately, this is the centralisation of a decision-making process and it omits the devolved Administration.

I conclude with two questions that I would like the Minister to address today. Given the importance of maintaining strong UK relationships—as a Scottish MP, I take an interest from that perspective, too—will the Secretary of State and the Minister commit to a meaningful relationship with the Welsh Government in the formation and administration of the UK shared prosperity fund? Was it discussed at last week’s four nations meeting? When will Parliament receive a full read-out of that meeting from the Government?

Secondly, can we get a clear outcome on how the Government plan to meet their pledge that Wales will not lose out on funding that it previously received from the EU, including whether certain areas and priorities will lose funding?

Covid-19: Hospitality Industry

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

For about half of the past 12 months, the brilliant hospitality industry in North East Fife has been forced to close its doors. Obviously that has had a profound impact, from the Ship Inn in Elie, to Kingsbarns Distillery, to our many fantastic and historic golf clubs, to wedding venues such as Kinkell Byre, to street food like the Cheesy Toast Shack in St Andrews. There has been support, for which I am grateful, but I have spent much of the past year arguing for the people and businesses who either missed out on support or for whom the support received has been inadequate. My casework team have done a brilliant job in navigating through the often complex support schemes of both the UK and Scottish Governments.

All being well, this will be the last time that I speak on hospitality before the businesses in North East Fife can open their doors again on 26 April. I, for one, cannot wait to finish our door-knocking sessions with an ice cream from Jannetta’s in St Andrews. But it will not all be plain sailing from that point. Social distancing requirements, limits on households and table service will be a reality for all these businesses. Even though in Scotland indoor hospitality is opening on the same day as outdoor, no alcohol can be sold indoors initially, so there is a disadvantage for premises that do not have outdoor seating.

The obstacles go further. Mainland Scotland moves back into level 3, but that will mean travel restrictions preventing anyone from entering or leaving a local authority area. When Fife was in level 3 last year, that presented a real difficulty for many hospitality businesses in the area. Indeed, I have previously spoken in this place about the Peat Inn, which is a Michelin-starred restaurant that attracts most of its business from outwith Fife—tourists who come to stay in bed-and-breakfasts and hotels. Under level 3, it was legally able to open, but business was so limited that it was forced to shut its doors again. The Scottish Government’s approach thus far has been that businesses that can legally open are not eligible for the grant support available to level 4 areas, and that has not changed in intervening months since last autumn as we now enter the spring. It was a real difficulty then and it is still a real difficulty now.

It is hard to justify that lack of support: first, because they are Government restrictions that are hampering business by preventing travel into the kingdom of Fife—as many others have said, the likelihood of seeing overseas visitors this year is fast diminishing—and secondly, because both the UK and Scottish taxpayers have now provided so much support to businesses around the country through the furlough scheme, rates relief, and the small grants administered by local authorities. The whole point of that support has been to get those businesses through what has been, in effect, three winter seasons in a row, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said. Now, thanks to the public’s hard work in following lockdown restrictions, we are in a position where we can begin to recover, so let us not take the support away too early, or all the efforts over the last year will have been wasted. Now is the time to enable our businesses not just to survive but to thrive. Let us put recovery first.

Bereavement

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I absolutely agree. There are some specific things that we in this House can do and that the Government can do in relation to the bereavement standard.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

rose—

[Grahame Morris]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, who also indicated earlier that she would like to intervene.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Does he agree that although work is being done in the private sector around the bereavement standard and we have the Government’s Tell Us Once service, we are still getting too many clumsy mistakes when we are dealing with grief? I had a constituent who received a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions addressed to his wife to tell her that she was no longer eligible for employment and support allowance because she had died. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to do more?

[Grahame Morris]

I completely agree with that, and I want to develop those arguments.

Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

As I have said in response to other questions, it would clearly be beneficial for the sector for there to be a multi-year settlement. This was not the opportunity to do so. I do not think that this would have been the right time when there is so much instability and uncertainty surrounding the delivery of public services by local councils. Perhaps next year—I will certainly be making representations to the Chancellor to encourage him to do so.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The Secretary of State has said that it is not the right time to pursue wholesale reform of local government finance, which will be a relief to many local authorities across England. However, the threat of the reform will hang over the heads of those authorities as they work to recover from the financial difficulties of the pandemic and longer-term budget cuts. Will the Secretary of State confirm when he plans the reform to take place?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am not able to confirm when we will bring that forward. As I have said, it will not be on this occasion, but we will have to make a judgment, as to the position of local government, whether next year would be right for, as she says, an undoubtedly significant change.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

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

Any improvement to the Bill would be welcomed, but the proposed amendment does nothing to protect the devolution settlement—the Minister said as much in his opening remarks—and the provisions will simply allow this Parliament to overrule Scottish Parliament and Welsh Parliament decisions. It is incredible to hear Labour Front Benchers trying to take credit. They say that they led the way, but they have actually paved the way for this Bill to do that to the Scottish Parliament. They talk about the guile they have shown, but it is gall that they have when they talk about this. You can understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, why Labour has only one MP in Scotland.

Instead of taking this Bill apart, as they should have done, those on the Labour Front Bench spend more of their time talking about the democratically elected Members of Parliament that they have here, who, as I pointed out, are in vastly greater numbers than the one Labour MP from Scotland. They are not listening to Scotland—they never do—and Labour has allowed this aberration to come forward in this way by abstaining in the House of Lords.

The amendment does not protect devolution, as I said: the Minister has laid that out clearly today for everybody to hear. Westminster Ministers will still have the right to impose lower food, environmental and other devolved standards on Scotland, regardless of the view of Holyrood. This Bill is the biggest assault on devolution in the history of the Scottish Parliament. It undermines devolved policy making, grabs spending powers, and removes state aid from being a devolved responsibility. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly refused to give this Bill consent, and it is outrageous that the UK Government are once again ignoring the wishes of the people of Scotland as well as Wales.

In welcoming the amendment, Professor Aileen McHarg warned:

“There are still significant problems with this Bill: it changes the scope of devolved decision-making; it reserves additional powers to Westminster; it empowers the UK Government to spend in devolved areas that have nothing to do with markets (eg prisons, sport, international student exchanges); and above all—unlike EU law—it has an inherently asymmetrical effect on decision-making for England and for the devolved territories.

This is a Bill which squarely falls within the scope of the Sewel Convention, and the necessity of which is deeply questionable.”

But of course the Government have not listened to that, and Labour has capitulated on it.

The only reason for this Bill as it now stands is to demolish devolution. If the Government take this Bill forward today, as they obviously will, that is what they will be doing. Any pretence thereafter by the Scottish Tory MPs that they respect the democratic rights of the people of Scotland will be blown apart if they support this today. In fact, they have already supported it, because it seems that it will go through. They have done nothing to protect the democratic rights of the Scottish people.

People in Scotland are watching. People in Scotland, when they see the effects of this Bill, will be angry about the fact that their rights are being taken away by these Tory Ministers, aided by their Labour bedfellows. They will be furious about the fact that their rights are being stripped from them. They are listening, they are watching, and they are seeing developments in this place. They are understanding, now, that the only way to protect their Parliament, their rights and their democracy in Scotland is to go forward as an independent nation—and they will be voting for that, I am sure, in due course.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Yesterday I said that there was still time for compromise, so I am glad that the Government have finally gone for some degree of a consensus approach, and there is no doubt that what will be on the statute book is an improvement on the legislation that was initially introduced back in the autumn. I would like to acknowledge the Minister’s engagement over the Bill. I also thank my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Lords, who have played an important role, and our staff teams across both Houses.

However, I do still have concerns about the Bill, one of which is about the Office for the Internal Market. The Government need to be transparent about what role that office will play in future trade deals. Can foreign investors in a US trade deal use it to undermine the devolved nations? I have asked that question repeatedly. I am also conscious that the legislative value of this Bill might, in practice, be limited, or indeed pretty much non-existent, especially if we reach a trade deal and a standards agreement with the EU. We obviously need more clarity on this, as the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said.

Unfortunately, as I pointed out yesterday, these changes, while positive, are too late, because the damage has already been done. The Minister heard the speeches of SNP Members yesterday, but I wonder whether he listened. With this Bill, the Government have been pouring fuel on a fire, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). I ask the Minister: what has this all been worth? If the Government are committed to the future of the United Kingdom, they need to start acting like it.

I cannot count the number of newspaper articles I have read over the past year reporting a reset in the Government’s approach to the Union, that a new Cabinet Committee has been set up to finally solve the Government’s problem as regards relations with the devolved nations, or that the Prime Minister is going to love-bomb Scotland. I urge the Government: this is not about Committees, or grand new offices in Edinburgh, or bridges or tunnels over or under the Irish sea. Those of my constituents who are uncertain about where they want Scotland’s future to lie will not be convinced by Union Jacks on UK Government infrastructure projects: cack-handed stuff, as the passage of this Bill clearly indicates. What they will be convinced by is a UK Government who treat the devolved nations with respect, maturity and honesty, and who work together with the devolved nations to find consensus, because I do believe that we have too much in common for borders to divide us. Are we in this place capable of that? I like to believe we are, but for too many of my constituents, it has not felt like that over the last few months with this Bill.

So I do urge the Government: compromise and consensus were the reluctant final steps they took with regard to this Bill. Noting the comments of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) in relation to the Welsh Government’s statement, let the first steps the Government take in their future relationship with the devolved nations be that compromise and consensus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

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

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

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

[Wendy Chamberlain]

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

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town provided this summary:

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

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

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

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

So here we are again. I am glad that the Lords have continued to press their points on the common frameworks and the impact of the Bill on the devolved Administrations. The Lords seem to understand that the Bill poses a great threat to the devolution settlement, so I cannot understand why the Government do not even accept the damage that this Bill has caused in the devolved nations. We are told by the Minister that it is not a political Bill. It is almost laughable. I wish the Government would just be honest with us. If they want to have a debate about the merits of devolution, many Members, not just on this side of the House, would be willing to argue in its favour. The Minister would also do well to remember that it was not the Scottish National party that brought about devolution in Scotland in the first place.

A case in point of the Government’s failure to own up to the impact of this Bill on devolution can be seen with the amendments that have been brought by the Lords on the common frameworks. Last week, I raised the question of what the Bill was for, in situations where common frameworks were already in place. I again ask the Minister to address that question. There is a huge hole in the Government’s argument, and they have left that question unanswered. There is also a real question about the interaction of the Bill with any potential EU trade deal, and I urge the Minister to address this. If we reach agreement with the EU on regulatory standards, which I hope we do, what will become of those clauses of the Bill on standards and frameworks? Will they ever come into effect, or will they become obsolete, with future standards being the subject of regulatory alignment with the EU? If the answer is the latter, I hope the Government will reflect on what this has all been for, and whether it has been worth it.

The Bill had two main aspects. The first was the part that broke international law, which was removed last week. That part of the Bill has resulted in huge damage to our international standing. It was reported this weekend that the serious mistrust sown as a result of those clauses has been a significant barrier to getting the trade deal that the Government claim they want. It has caused huge disquiet among our allies, including President-elect Biden. All that, for clauses that will never even reach the statute book.

Then we have the parts of the Bill that impact the devolution settlement. Those clauses will reach the statute book, but if there is a deal, it is likely that they will have no practical effect. However, the damage has already been done. This has caused deep dismay to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and given those SNP Members sitting around me grist to their mill. Congratulations! This is what you might call a PR nightmare for the United Kingdom and for the Union. Although in many respects it is already too late, I urge the Minister to accept the Lords amendments and finally deliver some form of limited consensus on this Bill.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Most of us here in the Chamber recognise that Brexit is an exercise in self-harm, and this Bill is an attempt to ensure that no one escapes that harm, no matter how sensible they are. No one will be safe from English Government decisions—and they will be English Government decisions because, as Professor Michael Keating notes in his excellent paper on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill:

“In the UK, England has 85 per cent of the population so…it will be English standards, set by the UK Government, that prevail.”

So no one will be safe from the English Government’s decision to impose lower safety standards on food, electrical appliances or kids bikes, or on personal protective equipment for the NHS that has been produced by some ministerial crony with no experience in that field at all.

These Lords amendments, which are sadly ever-diminishing in strength, will none the less provide some small protections, because the Bill as it stands allows a Prime Minister sitting in Downing Street to casually cast aside the concerns of the Scots and the Welsh as he sells out safety for the sake of some second-rate trade deal. Consumer protection is being discarded by the scorched-earth shenanigans being pursued by this UK Government. Perhaps it is more fire sale than scorched earth, with the protections that consumers—our constituents—value so highly being sold so cheaply.

Farmers already know that their livelihoods are being thrown into the gutter by the abandonment of any pretence of protecting food standards. They know that England’s shift from farm subsidies for food production will adversely affect England’s farmers and indirectly threaten Scotland’s ability to support farmers. We all know that the courts will be busy with a procession of spivs seeking to remove protections so that they can make cash. What we can see will be disastrous; what we cannot yet see may be even worse.

The Governments of Scotland and Wales know that the Bill spells danger for the citizens of their countries. The Senedd and the Scottish Parliament have similarly made it clear that it is not acceptable; both Parliaments withheld legislative consent and made it clear that it will be damaging to them and to the people they serve.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will call Mr Scully to close the debate no later than 2.30 pm.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today, having been unable to do so on Monday.

Because of the international law-breaking clauses, I believe that insufficient attention has been given to how this Bill affects the devolution settlements, which is a matter of great regret. Throughout its passage, my colleagues and I have been keen to work constructively on that aspect. Now that the law-breaking parts have been taken out of the legislation, I hope we can ensure that the voices of the devolved nations are listened to.

At earlier stages I tabled amendments to ensure that the devolved Administrations had input into the membership of the Competition and Markets Authority, following the precedent set by the Scotland Act 1998. The Lords have made amendments to the common framework and the functioning of the Office for the Internal Market, and on engagement with the devolved Administrations—amendments that build on the devolution settlement rather than undermine it.

I have found the Government’s rationale for refusing these changes to be highly frustrating. A case in point is the interaction between the common frameworks and the UK internal market. Why do we need this legislation when the common market frameworks have buy-in from all the devolved nations? The Government tell us it is because the internal market deals with cross-sector issues, whereas the common frameworks deal with specific sectors. Yet when the Minister appeared before the Scottish Affairs Committee, I asked him whether he could give an example of a cross-sector issue that the Bill will help to solve. He could not. When he wrote to the Committee on this matter—I am grateful to him for doing so—he said:

“We would refer you to pages 81-83 of the White Paper, which sketch out a cross-sector example in the form of an illustrative supply chain in the agri-food area.”

I think that says it all. The Government cannot provide a real-life example of an affected product that is cross-sector. Indeed, the implication in the White Paper is that there are no common frameworks in those different sectors. I do not see how, if the common frameworks are in place, there should be an impact. Therefore, there is no need for the Bill’s provisions.

The Government’s refusal to support Lords amendments on common frameworks, in particular amendments 1B, 1C and 1D, is therefore frustrating, but I am also concerned by the Minister’s response to the Committee on the role of the Office for the Internal Market, which will have huge powers. The worry is that parties involved in trade deals—the example I gave in the Committee was that of US investors—could sue the devolved Administrations or indeed the CMA. The Minister’s response to that point was:

“The CMA is therefore able to accept reporting requests from bodies and individuals with relevant concerns connected to”

the operation of the internal market,

“including those from outside of the UK.”

Although the letter then suggests that such reports would not interfere in devolved competences, can the Minister confirm that, by submitting a request to the CMA, foreign investors could potentially interfere with devolved Administrations? If the CMA refuses such a request, could those foreign investors then challenge that in the court?

The Minister has insisted that is not a political Bill, but given that the Paymaster General just this morning was unable to confirm to me whether the Government would bring forward international law-breaching clauses in future business, such as the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) referred to, if the outcome of the EU negotiations is no deal, then it is clearly nothing but.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

First, I welcome the fact that the provisions in clauses 42 and 43 safeguarding Northern Ireland’s position within the internal market and its unfettered access to that internal market, and also within the customs union, have been maintained. I am not grateful to the Lords that they have not removed them; it would have been a scandal if they had decided to abandon Northern Ireland in that way.

However, I say to the Minister that if we are maintaining those clauses to safeguard Northern Ireland’s position within the UK market, with unfettered access, and the UK customs territory, thereby ensuring no barriers to trade in the form of tariffs and so on, then the means to deliver that must be in place, because it is still under threat, regardless of the agreement reached in the Joint Committee. Some of these issues are under review. Some businesses in Northern Ireland will still be subject to EU tariffs; therefore, there is a tariff barrier between Northern Ireland and GB. The means of safeguarding and delivering on the commitments made in the Bill are therefore important. What I am surprised about, though, is that the Government have accepted the Lords’ removal of the clauses on state aid.

Live Events and Weddings: Covid-19 Support

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Live events are obviously very important across North East Fife. Although nightclubs are thin on the ground, unlike in Newcastle upon Tyne North, North East Fife is the home of golf, and we look forward to welcoming the Open back to St Andrews in 2022 for its 150th occasion. However, I want to limit my remarks to weddings because, as many Members have already said, I have also been contacted by venues that are a key contributor to the local economy.

Kinkell Byre is a wedding and events venue that has been operating in its old farmsteading as a venue since 2003. It normally holds about 80 events a year, the majority of which are weddings. It is a small business with two full-time staff and three part-time, but it contributes substantially to the local economy because every wedding means revenue for not only Kinkell Byre, but a huge range of local suppliers, from photography and music to catering. It means 100 guests staying in North East Fife for two or three days, each of them spending in other locations on food and accommodation. Samantha from Kinkell Byre told me:

“The coronavirus pandemic has made it impossible for us to operate in any capacity. Our revenue has been reduced to virtually zero while costs still need to be paid to keep the business afloat for the upkeep of the old buildings, wages, insurance, marketing and professional services. We have tried to launch new ventures such as farmers’ markets and beer gardens but…have been prevented from going ahead by the local Environmental Health”.

She told me that the Government support so far has been “amazing”, and I recognise that support, too. However, she also says:

“under the current guidelines we cannot operate or generate any revenue and the business will not survive much longer…we have the space and the capacity to do events safely but with larger numbers than the current guidelines permit…The limit should be linked to the capacity of the venue.”

The guidelines are different in Scotland, where there is currently a maximum cap of 20 guests, but when England comes out of lockdown there will likely be a similar cap. To get through the pandemic, the UK and Scottish Governments have had to take on a great swathe of extra powers, but we need to ensure that they are exercised in the best way possible.

Not only Kinkell Byre is affected, but the hotels and B&Bs where the guests stay and the suppliers that I mentioned earlier. I want to mention one supplier: Amy, a small business owner whose florist business is largely focused on flowers for weddings. She moved to online only, giving up her shop, but remains hugely impacted by the restrictions. People are moving their weddings to next year or even 2022, and she is losing business as a result. She says we should change the restrictions and make them more sensitive to venue size. That surely is a way forward, alongside comprehensive testing, tracing and isolating. Amy highlighted that, to make matters worse, there is the looming threat of a no-deal Brexit, which would mean an 8% tariff on imported flowers, and there is simply not enough supply of flowers in the UK to meet the demand. If the Government do not agree a trade deal, that really will push her business over the edge.

If the Government will not change the restrictions, or cannot, they need to provide further financial support to enable these businesses to survive through until March. The furlough has been extended, but, for a business like Samantha’s, wages are a pretty minor cost in the scheme of things. Business grants were available over six months ago and are unlikely to have lasted in bank accounts until now. North East Fife would be nothing without those businesses. We often hear that small, locally owned businesses are the backbone of the local economy, but in North East Fife they are the face of the economy, too. They are what we encounter when we travel throughout the Kingdom.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

This is why I struggle with some of the amendments today and with some of the sentiments that have been expressed. The idea that there are no hard choices in trade is for the birds. The idea that the negotiations will not be difficult or choppy, when much will be on the table to be used as leverage—

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I will not. I apologise, but I wish to make some progress.

The idea that the negotiations will not be difficult or choppy is unrealistic. Our values of openness, internationalism, free trade, partnership, fairness and freedom never change, but we have to prepare our domestic legislation and ensure that it works. Certain key questions remain, however. What else can be done? How else can this be remedied? How can the United Kingdom protect its own interests, its fundamental, historic economic integrity and its right of self-determination? I have yet to hear one realistic alternative to the legislation in front of us today that would create a functioning, coherent and integrated internal market, based on a historic precedent, that would work and that would, as a result, allow us to be clear with our friends over the channel that, as a consequence, the economic integrity of the United Kingdom must be respected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitford]

The Conservatives tend to count on the farming community in Scotland. I echo what others have said: the National Farmers Union of Scotland is none too happy with what has been happening, particularly the failure to protect standards.

That brings us to the dreaded chlorine-washed chicken. Of course, it is not the chlorine that is the issue—if someone is not a great swimmer, they will have swallowed more in a swimming pool; the concern is about why the chicken is washed in chlorine in the first place. Because of the overcrowding of poultry and poor animal welfare standards, the US has between seven and 10 times the salmonella food poisoning rate of the UK, even after washing its poultry. It is clear that most consumers are none too keen on chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-fed beef, but the labelling restrictions under the Bill may well mean that they are not allowed to know. A lot of people may consider becoming vegetarian when such products appear, but that will not help them, because the US also allows higher pesticide residues.

After clause 46, which takes back control of spending in devolved areas, the mutual recognition clauses will have the biggest impact in respect of removing powers from the devolved Governments. Mutual recognition will mean that any devolved legislation to maintain or drive up standards will end up applying only to local producers and not to goods from elsewhere in the UK. That would, of course, put local producers at a disadvantage, without achieving the benefit that the devolved Government were seeking. The EU single market is based on mutual recognition, but the EU generally sets higher standards rather than lower ones and, as was mentioned previously, new standards are agreed by all 27—previously 28—nations. Unlike the UK, the EU accepts derogation for social benefits such as public health, consumer protection, waste reduction or tackling climate change. The Bill has no such derogations at all.

It has often been the devolved nations that have driven forward ideas and legislation in the UK. That should be welcomed, not obstructed. On health, Scotland was the first UK nation to introduce the smoking ban in 2006, and it led the way on the minimum-unit pricing of alcohol in 2018, which Wales is now seeking to follow, but this was specifically attacked as a regulatory restriction in the White Paper and could fall foul of either mutual recognition or non-discrimination—the Government do not seem to be very clear on that. While legislation that is already in place is exempt, any change to that legislation could bring it within the scope of the Bill, so that might act as a disincentive to increasing the unit price on alcohol in the future. Indeed, the whole Bill is a disincentive to creative legislation within the devolved Governments to improve life for their citizens.

On the environment, Wales was the first to charge for carrier bags in all shops in 2011, followed a couple of years later by Northern Ireland and Scotland. England finally followed in 2015, but only for large retailers. Last year, Scotland was the first UK nation to ban plastic stemmed cotton buds, which make up 5% to 10% of marine waste. Yet Scotland’s plans for a deposit return scheme to increase recycling and reduce litter is attacked in the White Paper. If the devolved nations have to always wait for the slowest, innovation and action will be stifled.

Part 3 of the Bill establishes similar new rules over professional qualifications and, ironically, seems to be modelling itself on freedom of movement. Under clause 22(2), anyone recognised as professionally qualified in one part of the UK must be accepted in all other nations of the UK. Of course, medical qualifications such as mine are part of a UK-wide registration, but there are professions with specific requirements to be registered in Scotland and Wales.

I note that, miraculously, there were still enough lawyers left in the Government to make sure that the new rule did not apply to the legal profession, as Scots law is of course completely separate, but what about other professions? England has introduced nursing apprentices and nursing associates, while Scotland still maintains nursing as an academic profession. Scotland and Wales both require a teaching qualification, but in England anyone with a degree can become a teacher without any formal teacher training. Education in Scotland was not devolved 20 years ago, but like Scots law and the Church of Scotland, it has been a separate entity since prior to the Act of Union and was protected in that Act.

This Bill is a piece of wanton vandalism. The Tories never supported devolution, and this Bill is driven by anti-devolution politics and control freakery, rather than anything to do with economics or business. There is an alternative to this high-handed and heavy-handed legislation. The UK Government should get back to the table and continue working on agreeing common frameworks, instead of winding back two decades of devolution.

I can tell the House that, regardless of their views on independence, the vast majority of people in Scotland support devolution. They appreciate the value of maintaining a unified public NHS and of Scotland’s wellbeing policies, from the baby box to free personal care. Last Friday was the sixth anniversary of our independence referendum, when the people of Scotland held control of their future in their own hands for 15 hours, but sadly gave it back. Among the broken promises of “Better Together”, which achieved that outcome, were “Vote No to stay in the EU” and promises of more devolution, not less, and of Scotland being an “equal partner” in a “family of nations”. This Bill leaves any shred of such a claim twisting in the wind. If the Prime Minister and his Government think this Bill will strengthen their precious Union, I have news for them: it will do precisely the opposite.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I rise to speak to new clause 9, which I have tabled with the support of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. During the Bill’s passage through the House, we have frequently heard from Ministers and the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), who is no longer in his place, that this is not a political Bill. Last Tuesday, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) emphasised that in his wind-up. He said that he wanted

“to put the Bill into context, so that we can see where it sits…This is an economic Bill”.—[Official Report, 15 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 263.]

I simply disagree. I will leave to one side the fact that the Bill breaks international law. I am just talking about the sections of the Bill that are before us today, for which the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is responsible.

This is a political Bill because, at its heart, it is about the question of who decides, which is of huge constitutional importance. The powers that went to the European Community nearly 50 years ago are returning to a UK that has had, despite appearances, a constitutional makeover. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all now have devolved Governments, and that constitutes profound change. To expect that the responsibilities that are returning from Europe will map neatly back on to our new constitutional settlement is to live in the past.

Looking at some parts of the Bill, we have to wonder whether those drafting and proposing it truly understand what is devolved and what is reserved and the implications of that. We have heard from some Members today who have not previously engaged with this either. The Government clearly believe that the default position in relation to returning powers should be to Westminster, whereas the Scottish Government believe that it should be to Holyrood unless specifically reserved. I go back to what I said in relation to part 4 of the Bill last week. Breaching this divide means consensus, consultation and collaboration—a four nations approach, which has to be the root of all we do as a United Kingdom.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there requires to be added another “c”: consent? We hear a lot about consent for the people of Northern Ireland, but for such a radical change and undermining of devolution, we hear nothing of any consent to this process for the people of Scotland.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I would argue that consensus also implies consent, because it is about seeking agreement from all parts.

There are other areas where the Bill gestures towards the reality of our constitutional settlement but simply offers no compatibility. As I mentioned last week, there is no answer on the face of the Bill as to how disputes between the four nations will be resolved, which is surely crucial to the functioning of the internal market.

This Bill applies more pressure to the splintering foundations of our constitutional settlement, so of course it is a political Bill. If the UK Government and members of the Conservative and Unionist party care about the United Kingdom, they will have to educate themselves. Measures such as those in this Bill that fail to respect the devolution settlement are giving the Scottish National party and its Members here free rein in relation to their narrative about Scotland being ignored and controlled from afar, with the only solution being to leave the UK. How can a Bill like this not be political when the future of the UK is arguably at stake?

We urgently need to assess how we work together as four nations—as one United Kingdom—if we are to overcome the politics of grievance and division. That means a real focus on working collaboratively for the whole UK while respecting the devolution settlements. I call on the Minister to recognise that there are plenty of ways in which the Bill could be improved in that regard, not least by giving the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments the ability to appoint a member to the board of the Competition and Markets Authority, as proposed by my party’s amendment to part 4 last week, which would give real ownership. I would be interested to hear his response to that.

It goes beyond this Bill. We need a total rethink of how the four Governments interact, because our constitutional settlement does not work for the whole UK. There has been substantial change since 1973, and devolution is now 20 years old. The UK remains a country with one of the most centralised Governments in the world. With devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but the UK Government operating under the old pre-devolution structures, we have created the perfect storm for those who wish the end of the UK to drive a coach and horses through an unwritten constitution.

Members of this House have to recognise, when they look at increasing support for leaving the UK, that the feeling that our constitutional settlement is broken is not limited to Scotland. If we do not attempt to fix it, we will lose it. My new clause 9 aims to improve the Bill but also to provide a way to allow us to reinvent our constitutional settlement. It would require the Business Secretary to publish a framework for a UK council of Ministers three months after the passage of the Bill. The council would ensure the effective functioning of the internal market, with representation from all the devolved Administrations, as well as the UK Government. That would be a way of getting back to a model of collective buy-in, working collaboratively for the whole UK while respecting the devolution settlements. We can work in a much more transparent and accountable way together. It is entirely possible.

This new clause would also be the first step towards the development of a more federal approach to the UK, which will benefit all of us. Ultimately, that is what this Union needs to survive. We cannot rely on the old institutions, which are not fit for purpose. The hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) highlighted the consensual approach to standard agreements within the EU. Given the Scottish National party’s desire to join the EU, such a federal step, if taken by the UK Government, would arguably negate one of the central arguments for departing the UK. A more federal approach would give people in the devolved nations a degree of autonomy that, had it been on the ballot paper in 2014, would have been voted for.

I call on the Minister to reflect on the measures in the Bill. We have to do so much more to ensure that the devolved nations and regions of England are listened to and can play an active part. I urge the Government to bring forward amendments that will give the devolved nations a degree of buy-in to this piece of legislation. That would at least be a start.