Taxation (Post-transition Period) (Ways and Means)

William Cash Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

I beg to move,

That provision (including provision imposing and regulating new duties of customs) may be made in connection with goods in Northern Ireland and their movement into and out of Northern Ireland (whether the movement begins or ends in Great Britain or elsewhere).

It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.

In less than a month’s time, the UK will reach the end of the transition period and resume its place as a fully sovereign trading nation. As colleagues across the House will be aware, our negotiations with our counterparts in the EU continue. The Government remain cautiously optimistic about the conclusion of those talks. However, there is no doubt that we have a responsibility to the people of the United Kingdom to be ready for every outcome. The measures contained in the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, which will be introduced and published following this debate, will play an important part in those preparations. The Bill will help to give confidence and certainty to the owners of businesses small and large throughout the United Kingdom after the end of the transition period.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend explain exactly how this matter we are dealing with now will be affected by the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about an hour ago, which also deals with the question of goods to be considered not at risk, and with questions relating to customs and tariffs, and the decision that appears to have been taken that the Government have agreed in the Joint Committee with Mr Šefčovič on a number of matters of which at the moment we only have an outline? I know the Chancellor will make a statement tomorrow, but perhaps my right hon. Friend could assist us in this matter, because it quite clearly has relevance to what he is saying now.

[Jesse Norman]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the question, and I will touch on it in my remarks in my opening speech, but I should say to him that I am not better sighted on the breaking news than he is. He will have ample opportunity to address this matter tomorrow with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he comes to the House. As my hon. Friend will be aware, this matter was a product of a joint negotiation with the Commission, and the UK Government do not control the timing of that, and therefore the Chancellor will come at the earliest opportunity to the House to discuss the matter with colleagues from all political parties.

Today’s debate is on the important but technical ways and means motions that we need to pass before the Bill is debated tomorrow. If I may, I will talk a little about the Bill’s key elements in greater depth in order to foreshadow what we are going to see over the next day or so. The Bill will take forward important changes to our tax system to support the smooth continuation of business across the UK. In particular, it will ensure that we meet our commitments to the people and businesses of Northern Ireland in relation to the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. It will help to uphold our pledge to protect the UK’s internal market by ensuring that Northern Ireland goods have unfettered access to Great Britain. To that end, the Bill will set out a new framework for the UK’s customs, VAT and excise systems following the end of the transition period, so that there are clear rules in place for goods movements.

If I may, I will start with the areas of the Bill that relate to customs. The motion before us relates to legislation that will be required for customs duties and processes to support the practical implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. I want to underline to right hon. and hon. Members that the legislation follows directly from the commitments made in the Government’s Command Paper on the implementation of the protocol, which was published in May of this year. The House will recall that the Northern Ireland protocol guaranteed no checks or controls at the Northern Ireland-Ireland land border and maintained the UK as a single customs territory.

The legislation will achieve its aims through a series of targeted changes to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, focusing on five specific areas. First, the changes will ensure that EU goods imported to Northern Ireland from the European Union—for example, goods moved across the Ireland-Northern Ireland border—are not subject to customs duties or processes.

Secondly, the changes will introduce a framework for charges on goods arriving in Northern Ireland, both from Great Britain and from the rest of the world, that are considered at risk of moving into the EU, subject to conditions agreed under article 5 of the Northern Ireland protocol.

Thirdly, these alterations to the TCTA will establish the framework for the UK Government to offer waiver and reimbursements for tariffs that are still incurred when that is needed.

Fourthly, the customs aspect of the legislation will ensure that the UK’s customs regime applies to goods moved from Northern Ireland to Great Britain if they do not qualify for unfettered access. Anti-avoidance rules will prevent goods from being re-routed through Northern Ireland in order to enter Great Britain without undergoing UK import processes.

Finally, the rules will ensure that customs enforcements, penalty, review and appeal provisions in relation to duty can continue to work alongside EU legislation in Northern Ireland and can apply where required in relation to movements of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

I will, if I may, respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who raised the point earlier. He was right to point to the EU-UK joint statement that has just been made. This sets out the agreement in principle regarding the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. The Government are therefore not introducing the so-called notwithstanding provisions to the taxation Bill. In the light of that, the Opposition’s proposed amendment to the first motion is unnecessary.

This Bill will also allow us to amend and modify certain provisions in relation to VAT and excise, including mechanisms to ensure that, in so far as is possible, VAT will be accounted for in exactly the same way as it is today. In addition, the Bill will make provision for amending current legislation for excise duty to be charged when excise goods, such as alcohol, tobacco and certain fuels, are removed to Northern Ireland from Great Britain.

[Sir William Cash]

As my right hon. Friend knows extremely well, all these matters relating to the Northern Ireland protocol and the withdrawal agreement have direct relevance to the question of sovereignty. A statement was made by the Paymaster General yesterday relating to the question of negotiations, but the matters that have just been raised by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his statement to the press and to the public, but not to this House so far, have not been dealt with properly, because that statement has not yet been made to the House of Commons, although it has been published in general.

The point that I wish to make is simple and I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend addressed it. In withdrawing the “notwithstanding” provisions—clauses 45, 46 and 47 of the internal market Bill—which have a direct relevance to the question of sovereignty, does he have any comment to make and could he please help the House to understand, if these provisions are being withdrawn from the internal market Bill and will not be introduced in the taxation Bill, for which he does have responsibility, what are the implications for sovereignty with respect to what has been announced? I understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will make further comment tomorrow.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my hon. Friend for having another go at this issue. Let me address the questions that he raises. I do not accept the point that he tries to make about whether this is, in some sense, an inappropriate procedure. As I have indicated, this is a product of a joint negotiation. The UK did not control the timing. It is as agreed with the other party to the debate and the discussion.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be coming to this House at the earliest opportunity once he returns from Brussels, in order to make a statement to discuss this and to receive scrutiny from my hon. Friend and from other Members of the House. That seems to me entirely appropriate. I cannot, of course, comment on matters relating to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, but what I will say is that, in withdrawing these “notwithstanding” provisions, we do not regard that UK sovereignty is being in any way impeded or undermined—on the contrary. Therefore, I think his concern can be and should be allayed, but I leave it to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to address those points tomorrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. What I am actually doing is giving him a preview of a Bill that will be published in the normal way, after the resolutions debate has concluded. This is a debate on the resolutions required to lay the Bill, and we will do so as soon as the debate has concluded and the measures have been voted on. At that point, he will have a chance to see the Bill and its details.

[Sir William Cash]

In view of the statement that has been made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—a press statement has been put out; we do not have enough notice of that at the moment—will my right hon. Friend explain whether the Bill, which we will receive in a few moments, or whenever the ways and means resolution has been completed, will contain those notwithstanding provisions? On the basis, as I understand it, that it will not, as the Minister responsible for the Bill which is being brought in, I think, would he not know that the notwithstanding provisions had been removed? Presumably, they are not contained in the Bill—or are they?

[Jesse Norman]

I salute my hon. Friend’s astonishing indefatigability, but I am afraid his memory plays him false. I have already said that the notwithstanding provisions will not feature in this Bill. I said that earlier in my speech, but I am sorry that that was not as clear as it should have been, because that is the state of affairs.

This Bill will help the UK to cement its position as an independent trading nation at the end of the transition period. It will give businesses throughout the UK certainty about the arrangements that will apply from 1 January next year, and it will play a part in safeguarding the unity and integrity of this country, both in the months ahead and long into the future. I therefore commend these resolutions to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I have already made a number of comments to the Minister in charge of this motion, also in respect of the Bill that we have not yet seen. It seems quite extraordinary, if I may say so, that we are being asked to give such blanket agreement to the Ways and Means resolution, which is the manner in which the money is raised to deal with the questions that arise in respect of the Bill, when we have not actually seen a copy of the Bill itself and therefore do not know what the provisions refer to.

I see, for example, that the motion includes reference to amending section 9A of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, part 3 of the Value Added Tax (Place of Supply of Goods) Order 2004, schedule 4B to that Act, which relates to call-off stock arrangements, section 18A of that Act, which affects fiscal warehousing, and paragraph 114(2) of schedule 8 to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. It also includes proposals relating to the rate of fuel duty on aviation gasoline, amending section 6(1A)(aa) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979. It also deals with value added tax questions relating to such matters, and makes provision regarding value added tax in cases involving

“supplies of goods by persons established outside the United Kingdom that are facilitated by online marketplaces”,

or

“the importation into the United Kingdom of goods of a low value.”

There are also provisions relating to the insurance premium tax in respect of the liability of the insured, amending section 65 of the Finance Act 1994, and matters relating to the recovery of unlawful state aid in respect of controlled foreign companies, in particular dealing with the Commission decision of 2019 relating to state aid

“concerning the CFC Group Financing Exemption.”

That gives some indication of the breadth, and also the depth, of these matters. It is very difficult, to put it bluntly, to dissect, comment on and make what I would describe as a full analysis of a provision that we have not yet seen, and as I had not actually seen these—nor did I know that they were going to be included until I got notice of them just now—I am not in a position to be able to do more than to say that I regard the whole question of these provisions as something that will obviously have to be dealt with when we actually see the Bill. What we have not seen, we cannot really comment on. It is really almost Alice in Wonderland, isn’t it? The fact remains that there are important issues of principle in relation to all this, and the notes that I have received raise some interesting questions. I do not know whether those notes have been made generally available.

[John Redwood]

Will my hon. Friend comment on the sovereignty issue, which is at the heart of all this? I was not satisfied by the Minister’s reply, when my hon. Friend was asking very good questions. Does he share my worry that we have not solved the sovereignty issue over Northern Ireland in this provision, and that we are making it worse?

[Sir William Cash]

My right hon. Friend might have anticipated that I would raise this very question with the Minister, as I did when he was in mid-flow at the beginning of these proceedings. That was the question I asked, and my right hon. Friend has now referred to it. I am extremely supportive of the Government in relation to Brexit and to the statements that have repeatedly been made not only by the Prime Minister but by other members of the Cabinet, including the Paymaster General in the statement that she made yesterday, in which the word “sovereignty” was completely reaffirmed and stated over and over again, and I take the Government at their word. But of course issues of the kind that we are dealing with do get somewhat obscured sometimes by provisions of legislation, particularly when we have not seen the legislation but are asked to comment on it. That makes life quite difficult in being able to identify with precision exactly what effect this would have on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, save only to say that yesterday the House of Commons, by a majority of something like 90, passed provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, and one would therefore have expected the Bill that is under consideration now—which must have been prepared yesterday when we were debating the other one, because otherwise it could not have been printed—to have contained similar provisions.

I am left in a bit of quandary until we can see that this Bill does not contain the notwithstanding provisions that were put in yesterday, which the House decided on, in principle, in the interests of sovereignty. I know a bit about that. I was also responsible for section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was passed by a majority of 120 with notwithstanding provisions in it at the beginning of the year. So for practical purposes, the principle of whether notwithstanding provisions are needed has already been established.

I repeat that I am very supportive of the Government and very supportive of the Prime Minister, and I make that absolutely crystal clear, but that makes it absolutely essential for us to have a very clear understanding about the reasons for withdrawing the provisions that were passed in respect of this Bill and were passed in respect of the other Bill yesterday, on the same principles of sovereignty as would need to be put forward under section 38 of the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act, which, by the way, is still in statute and can still be used —and will be, I hope, as we move forward.

The Government are withdrawing these provisions of the Bill, which is presumably done for some reason that I cannot quite get but is to do with managing to assuage some of the hostility in the House of the Lords and the hostility that has led the European Union and the Commission to threaten legal proceedings unless we withdraw them. No doubt all this is being done in an attempt to arrive at some sensible or other kind of conclusion and settlement.

[John Redwood]

rose—

[Sir William Cash]

But I reserve judgment on that until I have heard what my right hon. Friend says.

[John Redwood]

Is it not up to Parliament to withdraw the provisions that we were asked to support, and did support, yesterday? Was there not a long debate in which my hon. Friend made a contribution, while I was arguing the case elsewhere? Were we wasting our time? It seems to me that Parliament needs to be asked again if Ministers have changed their minds.

[Sir William Cash]

Indeed.

It is extremely important to point out that these notwithstanding provisions are directly related to the issue of sovereignty, but also related to the substance of our leaving the European Union. Not until we see a copy of the Bill will we be able to make the judgment about the extent to which they would impair or affect that sovereignty. We will have to wait until tomorrow to see exactly what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster presents to the House. We have an outline, but no more than that. The question of sovereignty will no doubt be much discussed tomorrow during his statement.

I heard the Opposition spokesman declaiming, in line with the amendment that they have tabled, that this is all about breaches of international law. I have to say to the hon. Lady that in the context of the continuous provisions on a whole range of matters, including Finance Bills that the Labour party was responsible for bringing in when it was in government, there are stacks—hosts—of treaty overrides. As I said in my contribution yesterday, such overrides have been passed as Labour party proposals when it was in government, by the coalition in 2010 and the years following that when the Liberal Democrats were involved, and also in some Conservative measures that have been passed that are overrides of international law. I pointed out yesterday that it has been done in the past for very good reasons of national interest, including economic national interests, as they clearly have been in the past. Some of them were hugely important constitutional issues—for example, affecting the independence of India and Pakistan—and there were other provisions that I will not go into in detail now, but I have put them all out there on the record.

The extraordinary thing is putting down this amendment based on so-called breach of international law, when actually the Labour party itself has done exactly the same in consistency with—not inconsistent with, but in consistency with—international law. Article 46 makes this abundantly clear. I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) conceded that point on the Floor of the House yesterday when he said, at last, that he was going to support the Government on this question. Lord Judge, a very distinguished judge in the House of Lords—the ex-Lord Chief Justice—who has been leading the argument on the question of international law, has said, in effect, that in principle he knew there was a moment at which there were circumstances whereby a given Government would be entitled to take such steps as were necessary in order to protect the national interest.

Nothing could be more important than protecting our sovereignty. That is what this whole Brexit is about. It is about being able to ensure our having left the European Union lawfully by having passed all the Acts of Parliament—and the House of Lords having passed all those Acts of Parliament as well—and in addition to that, having had a referendum on the votes of the people of this country, which itself was based on the authorisation by Parliament that the referendum should be allowed to take place. That was passed in the House of Lords and the House of Commons—in the House of Commons, incidentally, by six to one—and it was followed, as I have said, by a series of other enactments.

The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 was passed by 499 to 120, including by the Labour party, so there should not be any question about that, and I do not believe that the Labour party has anything to gain by trying to argue that somehow or other we have unlawfully left the European Union, which is what it seems to be implying in its amendment. Then we move on to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which, as I pointed out in an intervention, was passed by 120 in this House on Second Reading. It contained the notwithstanding provisions, in section 38, that I had proposed to the Government on 17 October last year. For all these reasons, we have not only lawfully left, but lawfully left on the basis of our sovereignty, which has been endorsed not only by the referendum and by the voters of this country, but by their representatives in this House as the House of Commons. They are elected, unlike the House of Lords, and in the House of Commons they have endorsed these provisions by massive majorities. So what on earth would be the purpose of removing provisions that ensure that our sovereignty can be maintained?

I can almost hear somebody on the Government Benches perhaps thinking to themselves, “Well, they’re not needed because, actually, the situation has now been firmly dealt with in the Joint Committee”. Of that we know nothing, more or less, because I have asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster three times to appear in front of our European Scrutiny Committee, and thus far he has not come on these matters. He knows that, and I have had some very diligent, shall we say, correspondence with him on his not attending, although he did allow the Paymaster General to come and she did appear before us a few weeks ago.

The point I am making is that this is a critical time in our history. This is the moment when we regain our sovereignty. It is not just a philosophical statement or a constitutional theory; it is actually about the practicality of how this country is governed. It is as simple as that. We are governed by a constitutional arrangement under which, through parliamentary government, the Members of Parliament who are who are elected by the voters pass laws that are imposed upon the people by the consent of those representatives. It is as simple as that.

[John Redwood]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that when his admirable clause 38 was tried on the previous Prime Minister, she rejected it on the grounds that it would mean that Parliament could unilaterally override the withdrawal agreement if it wished, and she did not want that?

[Sir William Cash]

Absolutely, which was precisely why I brought it forward. It solved a lot of problems.

I must say that the reasons for the notwithstanding provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill were based on the same principle of sovereignty, and the same applies to the taxation Bill, in which it was understood that the notwithstanding provisions would be included. I have not seen the Bill yet—I wait to see it with interest—but I am assuming that the adjustment will not appear. Therefore, I reserve my position with respect to the question of the notwithstanding arrangements, because I need to be satisfied that there is no impugnment of our sovereignty by virtue of the removal of those provisions in this Bill. It is as simple as that. I could say much more, but I do not think it will be strictly speaking necessary for me to do so, because I have dealt with all the matters of principle that arise.

I am not quite sure how authoritative the material I have been supplied with is, only because it was given to me by somebody associated with the Government and I am not at all sure whether it is in the Library of the House of Commons; all I can say that it is quite extensive and that it deals with a lot of matters that the Minister has already dealt with and that no doubt will be further examined when we get to see the Bill itself. However, I notice that it does include such matters as the fact that, whatever the outcome of the FTA and joint committee negotiations,

“we have an obligation to the people of Northern Ireland to make sure that they continue to have unfettered access to the UK under all circumstances, to ensure that there are no tariffs on goods remaining within the UK customs territory and to ensure that there is no legal confusion about the fact that, while Northern Ireland will remain subject to EU state aid rules for the duration of the protocol, Great Britain will not be subject to EU rules in this area. That is the Government’s overriding priority.”

I have heard that said before, in one form or another, but I think we need to note that that is what this Bill does. There are other provisions relating to Northern Ireland customs and Northern Ireland VAT and excise on goods, and a provision that says:

“VAT will be accounted for the same way as it is today, with Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK’s VAT and excise system”—

we will check that when we see the Bill.

“HMRC will continue to be responsible for the operation and collection of the revenues, which will not be passed on to the EU”—

a-ha!—

“while Parliament will remain responsible for setting VAT and excise rates across the UK.”

I am not going to be entirely negative about all this; I never am. I rely with confidence on what the Government have said with respect to sovereignty and with respect to tax.

These are important questions. I have confidence in the Prime Minister. I have confidence in the fact that we have had a general election and that the manifesto made the whole of the Brexit question quite clear to the people who voted, giving us a majority of around 80 and, in my own case, as much as 63% of the vote in my constituency, for which I am deeply grateful to my constituents. All I can say is that we will be watching all these matters with great diligence and with a constructive approach, because we hope and trust that, when we have been through the full proceedings on this Bill and, indeed, finalised the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, that confidence will be entirely justified and there will be no impairment of our sovereignty as the United Kingdom, which is what this is all about.

I will conclude simply by saying this. Not since 1688 have we been faced with a situation of such historic importance, other than when we went into the European Union under the false pretences of a White Paper that turned out, unfortunately, to be misleading the British people. There have been two world wars where people have tried to take over this country by force of arms—in particular Germany—and I simply say this: this is the most important moment in our history in the last 250 years, whereby we have regained the sovereignty that was embedded in the arrangements after 1688-89.

By gradual evolution, we developed parliamentary government and representative government. We are described as the mother of Parliaments, as John Bright put it. This is our sovereignty, and we have absolute, total determination—as I understand it, so does the Prime Minister—to maintain that. It is about democracy; it is about freedom. It is what Churchill was proud of; it is what Margaret Thatcher was proud of; it is what we are proud of. I simply make this final point: we will maintain our sovereignty at any price.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps I should send the Minister my copy-and-paste job from earlier and that would help him out.

But this really matters. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) talked earlier about people, supermarkets, food arriving and places, and what the impact will be. The Road Haulage Association’s director, Martin Reid, has warned:

“Regardless of whether there is a deal or not, there will still be customs requirements and it’s the customs requirements that will cause the delays. Those delays could run on for at least the first quarter”

of next year. The post-transition situation will be chaotic and that will be devastating for business, particularly the way the Government are going about it. Further to that, speaking to The Press and Journal, Mr Reid said the fact that issues still remain to be resolved is shocking:

“The hauliers’ handbook that they produced contains links that take you nowhere, so we’re nowhere near the level of information that is required basically. For goods moving to Ireland, we are still not 100% sure what it’s going to look like; as for moving through the short straits, we still have a great deal of concern as to the government’s capability either to have the right people in place.”

Nothing the Minister has said this afternoon—or indeed, the scuttling that is going on, on the Government Front Bench just now—gives us any reassurance as to what is going to happen.

Business bodies in Northern Ireland’s legislative committees have expressed concern about potential compliance costs for the future operation of VAT and excise, and nobody knows what it is going to look like. Businesses and farmers in Northern Ireland have been clear that they are not ready for a no-deal scenario. They have said it will place them under unbearable and unnecessary strain. The UK Government are providing no technical detail and very little guidance to those businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) pointed out so well earlier on, the IT system to support all of that just is not there. We heard similar evidence to the Treasury Committee. Businesses have begged the UK Government to reach an agreement, but the UK Government have indulged in bad faith negotiating at every turn.

[Sir William Cash]

On the question of bad faith, I do not know whether the hon. Lady heard what I said yesterday, but I will say this: there has never been a more egregious example of bad faith than the manner in which the EU sought to bounce the Government in the middle, and indeed at the end, of the negotiations. It is quite outrageous and in itself warrants the use of article 46, which is there to terminate the agreement if the Government cannot get what they need to preserve our sovereignty.

[Alison Thewliss]

I do not really agree with the point the hon. Gentleman makes. That probably will not surprise him. The difficulty with all of this is that the UK has never really known what it wanted.

[Sir William Cash]

Sovereignty.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman says sovereignty. I am not sure he really understands that either.

The UK Government have not known what they wanted from this situation from the start. I commend the Brexiteers on the Conservative Benches. They have taken this as far as it can go and they have got what they wanted. Perhaps they knew what they wanted, but the Government have not had a clue. That has been clear all the way through and that is part of the reason we are in the difficulties we are in.

The resolutions in front of us do not represent clever negotiating tactics by the UK Government. On the Opposition Benches, on the Government Benches and in Brussels, everyone can see quite plainly the Government’s recklessness in this scenario. At every stage of this laborious and unnecessary process, they have sought to undermine trust in proceedings. Any remaining shreds of goodwill that the UK Government have internationally are in absolute tatters. The UK Government are at the wind-up at a time when we no longer have time to waste. An EU diplomat quoted in the Financial Times this morning said that the moves of the UK Government amounted to the UK

“trying to use rogue behaviour as leverage”.

Presumably the UK Government have caved today in taking the clauses out of the Bill, but we have to ask why they were there in the first place. How does it help us to say that we will break international law? It is a pretty basic principle that the Government have breached. Presumably, if the negotiations take a further slide backwards, the clauses can be put back in again. With apologies to Mark Durkan, because it is the kind of thing he would have said, it is hokey-cokey legislation.

It is perhaps not a surprise to those of us in Scotland that the Prime Minister and this Tory Government would sell a devolved nation down the river in order to appease those on the more extreme fringes of their party—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

I do not agree, and nor did Scottish voters when they were asked this question. We do have a great democratic country and I was a great enthusiast for the people of Scotland deciding whether they liked our Union or not. They said, yes, they liked our Union. Then the people of the United Kingdom were asked whether they liked the European Union and they said they did not. So I found myself in the happy position of agreeing in two big referendums with the winning side. It is such a pity that the Scottish National party lost both and has never understood the democratic principle that it then has to accept the verdict. I was on the losing side in a former referendum; like my whole party, I was against the principle of Scottish devolution, and we got that wrong. We lost that referendum and from the day after that we did not fight it, delay it or dilute it. We said, “Yes, devolution is the wish of the Scottish people.” We got on and implemented it.

[Sir William Cash]

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can recall this, but when that Bill was introduced by the late Donald Dewar in 1997 I put forward a proposal that the devolution settlement should be decided by a referendum of the entire UK. Perhaps it is some encouragement for him to know that despite a three-line Whip half the Conservative Back Benchers went through the Lobby behind me on that question of having a referendum for the whole UK on this devolution issue, about which he is being so extremely articulate.

[John Redwood]

We are probably straying a little away from the resolutions before us, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not try your patience any more. I have made my two main points, but just to summarise: we need more vision from the Government to use our power to tax in our own way, because our current tax system is ill fitting and not yet geared to promoting that recovery we want —we need greater simplicity, lower taxes and a lower incidence of taxes to get that recovery going; and we need reassurances from the Government that sovereignty is not something one can bargain away or compromise over, but is fundamental. We either have a free trade agreement between an independent UK and the EU, which is our preferred model, or we have no deal. It is as simple as that. The choice is theirs.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

Yes, I was simply paraphrasing the point that my right hon. Friend made.

Under the terms of the protocol, we need to treat goods at risk of such onward movement into the EU differently from those groups that are not at risk. On the specific details of what will be defined as at risk or not at risk, the House will be aware of the EU-UK joint agreement made this week setting out that an agreement has been reached in principle regarding the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. In accordance with that statement, the draft texts will now be subject to further consideration in both the EU and the UK. Once that is complete, a joint committee will be convened to adopt them formally. Further details will be set out in due course, and before the end of the year.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the question of jurisdiction was raised, and perhaps it is best to use the right expression, rather than paraphrasing. The fact remains that EU officials will be there for the purposes of enforcing the jurisdiction of the European legal arrangements, which will be enforced subject to the European Court. In those circumstances, will the Minister now accept that actually there is an infringement of sovereignty in that respect? As the “notwithstanding” clauses are being taken out, there is therefore a further complication, and if I may say so respectfully, that is slightly in contradiction of his allegation that we would now take over as a sovereign, fully independent power.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question. He is right that it is expected that there will be EU officials. The checks will be levied and done by HMRC inspectors, and the system that we are putting in place gives effect to the Northern Ireland protocol, which, as he will recognise, already recognises the balance that is being struck in Northern Ireland between its status under the Union customs code and its status within the UK customs system.

If I may proceed, the Bill will allow the Government to put in place decisions made by the Joint Committee on goods that are not at risk of entering the EU, ensuring that they do not have to pay the EU tariff. However, if I may underline the point, this Bill does not itself seek to specify the classes or categories of goods or movements that are at risk or not at risk. Instead, that will be set out by regulations that the Bill permits us to make once legal texts have been formally adopted. The “at risk” or “not at risk” definitions will also determine whether the UK or EU tariff applies when goods arrive in Northern Ireland from rest-of-the-world countries, again in line with the Northern Ireland protocol.

In relation to the so-called “notwithstanding” clauses, as part of yesterday’s EU-UK joint statement, the Government have agreed not to introduce these provisions into this Bill, and we have also committed to remove the three “notwithstanding” clauses from the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.

[Sir William Cash]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I suspect we are going to go around this many times, but I am happy to give way again.

[Sir William Cash]

Could I simply say to my right hon. Friend that this does raise a question? I am not going to go into it in an intervention on him, but I will in my speech. I believe that those provisions may well be needed, because we do not know the outcome of the negotiations yet. I will leave it at that for the moment. We do not know, but we have been told that the clauses are going to come out. The question of whether they should have been put in is a separate question, which I dealt with yesterday.

[Jesse Norman]

I am not quite sure where that was heading, but we have the Bill in front of us and the Government have made it clear that the so-called “notwithstanding” clauses will not be introduced.

The legislation follows from commitments made in the Government’s Command Paper on the implementation of the protocol, which was published in May. The Bill will ensure that EU goods moving into Northern Ireland remain free from customs duties or processes. Although we recognise and are addressing the challenges relating to the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, we should not lose sight of the benefits to Northern Ireland of having continuing access to the EU market.

In addition, this legislation will ensure that the UK customs regime applies to goods moved from Northern Ireland to Great Britain if they do not qualify for unfettered access. The Bill will also introduce anti-avoidance rules to prevent goods from being rerouted through Northern Ireland to avoid UK customs duties or associated obligations, and its measures will ensure that customs enforcement and penalties, along with review and appeal processes, are in place in relation to duty and that they continue to work alongside EU legislation in Northern Ireland and can be applied, where required, to movements of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

Of course we need application and a determination to conclude a deal on both sides; that surely is obvious. But the fact remains, as I will go on to describe, that it was the UK Government that, rather than tabling this Bill many weeks ago, which they could have done, decided to effectively retain provisions that threaten to break international law. That is on the Government’s head, and it is something that the Government must surely be responsible for.

The irresponsible approach that we have seen recently speaks to a wider pattern over the last 12 months of recklessness with public finances, broken promises to the British people and short-term thinking that is doing long-term damage to our country. The Prime Minister promised the British people that he would get Brexit done. He said he had an “oven-ready” agreement. Whatever he has got cooking ahead of his dinner with von der Leyen tonight, my message to him is to get on and deliver what was promised.

[Sir William Cash]

I would just like to point out to the hon. Lady that Labour Governments, not to mention Conservative Governments or the coalition Government after 2010—there is a host of examples by a number of Governments—have passed treaty overrides, on exactly the same principles relating to Finance Bills, in the past. If she wants to construe that as breaking international law, she can, but the reality is that it is consistent with article 46 of the Vienna convention.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentions that situation, because it has been referred to by those who favoured the Government’s approach previously. However, I gently state to him that if he is referring in particular to provisions against tax avoidance—the example of a general anti-avoidance rule—then, sadly, I believe he is mistaken. In that case, that commitment and the ability to apply such rules was actually a fundamental principle agreed to by this country as part of a multilateral agreement that it concluded with the OECD, so I fear that that example is not as telling as he may wish it to be.

With just three weeks to go until the end of the transition period, the Government published late yesterday afternoon the 116-page Bill that we are discussing now, setting out detailed new rules for tax and customs duties. Members of this House have been given less than 24 hours to scrutinise a major piece of post-Brexit legislation that will impact businesses and individuals across the country, especially in Northern Ireland. Many of the clauses in the Bill, particularly those covering customs and excise duties, require the Treasury to make regulations that will set out the actual detail of its proposals at a later date, so even with the publication of the Bill, businesses and individuals still do not have the information they need to prepare for the end of the transition period.

Earlier today, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said there would be “further clarity” forthcoming on these matters, but again without saying when. In fact, the Minister talked a few moments ago about those details coming in due course. His letter to Members spoke about the fact that there would be information on this later; “in the coming days” was the formulation at that time. How can he really expect businesses to plan on that basis—on the never-never up to 1 January?

This last-minute approach was not necessary. It is no use pointing to the complexity of the ongoing negotiations. We know that this Bill could have been published a long time ago because the Government have been floating a Finance Bill for months, so why yet another last- minute scramble? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) set it out very clearly: because the Conservatives had a not-so-cunning plan to use this Bill as negotiations reached a critical point by threatening to override the withdrawal agreement. At a time when we are seeking to negotiate new trading relationships across the international community, and when the Government are trying to project an image of global Britain to the world, this tactic certainly sent a clear message, albeit not the message the Government intended.

It is welcome that the Government finally saw sense yesterday, although we have already seen damage being done. Both in relation to the provisions in the Bill and more generally, the time is running out to ready our country for the challenges ahead. The Public Accounts Committee was clear last week that:

“Government is not doing enough to ensure businesses and citizens will be ready for the end of the transition period”.

It expressed concern at reports from industry bodies that the Government had not provided the key information needed for businesses to prepare. Indeed, the Committee indicated that more than a third of small and medium-sized enterprises still believed that the transition period would be extended.

The Cabinet Office has admitted that it is well behind in recruiting the customs agents desperately needed for 1 January, despite more than £80 million having been spent so far. Yet again, earlier today, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster refused to specify exactly how many additional customs agents had been recruited. Overall, £4.4 billion has been spent by the Government on preparations for Brexit and the end of the transition period, yet we are still not ready.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I simply would like to put on record it on Second Reading the fact that, as I made clear in a point of order earlier, consideration on Report will take place next week and a lot will happen between now and then. The UKIM Bill at the moment has the “notwithstanding” provisions in it; they have not yet been taken out. We do not yet know what will transpire this evening or at any point between now and the Report stage of this Bill next week. Therefore, I have given instructions for the tabling of amendments to reinsert the “notwithstanding” provisions for the purposes of this Bill, which would have appeared but for the fact that the decision had already been made yesterday, before a statement was made to the House of Commons. That was dealt with today in principle, although not the question of what actually is going to be done. Therefore, for practical purposes, all I need say on Second Reading is that there are relevant provisions within the scope of this Bill, in clause 9, which is entitled “Recovery of unlawful state aid”.

Earlier this afternoon, I chaired, as I always do on Wednesdays, the European Scrutiny Committee. We have a 10 or 15-page paper on this question. The report, which will be signed off today and then published, covers reform of state aid rules and potential implications for the UK and includes a full description of what the state aid rules would mean; what the evaluation is at the moment by the European Commission; what it intends to do with respect to state aid in relation to enforcement proceedings; matters of sovereignty regarding the United Kingdom; the timetable for amendments to the EU state aid rule book; and the continued relevance of EU state aid law to the UK.

I am reading out some headline points, which also include infringement proceedings for state aid granted before 31 December; state aid law under the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland; state aid commitments—this is of course highly relevant to what the Minister said at the beginning, and I strongly advise him to read the report carefully—and state aid commitments in the EU-UK trade agreement, which the Prime Minister is going to be discussing today, and we do not know the outcome of that; the impact of EU subsidy controls on the competitors to UK businesses; and article 10 of the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) referred to. Indeed, I did too this afternoon, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made his statement and I pointed out that not only do I agree 100% with what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions on all those relevant matters, wishing him well for this evening, but that what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced yesterday, in principle, and then reaffirmed today must not be allowed to undermine the unfettered sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. That sovereignty is based on the referendum, the votes, the Acts of Parliament that everybody in this House on the Government Benches and the House of Lords agreed to, and, for that matter, section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was passed by a majority of 120 in this House—not a word of dissent from the House of Lords and not a word of dissent from any Member of this House.

In conclusion, I intend to table these amendments to examine the question when we get to the Report stage next week.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir William Cash]

It is always a pleasure to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have been jousting on these questions for the best part of 20 years.

[Mr Carmichael]

I hate to think it is the best part, but certainly it has been almost 20 years. The hon. Gentleman gives an interesting list of topics that his Committee has considered. The actual, practical application of these matters will be very different if the ratio decidendi in the Factortame case continues to have application in Northern Ireland post 31 December. Is that a matter he has considered, and what impact does he think it has on these things?

[Sir William Cash]

As somebody who has taken a great interest in Irish matters since I came into this House, I can only say the answer to that is yes. However, I also know that there is an enormous amount of malicious rubbish talked about the implications for the hard border. We are not going to impose a hard border. If anybody does, it will be the EU. If the EU gets its way on these matters, believe me, we are going to end up with difficulties that will have been created by the EU, not by us. I remember Martin Selmayr saying that the price the United Kingdom would have to pay would be the loss of Northern Ireland. I mean, it is as bad as that. I therefore say that I do take a great interest in it, because I want the Union to survive and to prosper. I believe it can, but it will not be able to if we end up with provisions that undermine the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.

On the specific question of state aid, that is a matter within the scope of the Bill. I therefore expect our amendment to be able to be called. Precisely what I do about it at that time will depend on the outcome of the negotiations, but I am not going to buy a pig in a poke and accept the idea that it is all over and done with because somebody who happens to be a Government Minister made a statement yesterday from Brussels and then came to the House to put forward his case today. We have not seen the details, so I want to reserve my position until I know exactly what the outcome of the negotiations is. I would warrant that the 70% of the British people would agree with me.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Provisions of Act to have effect notwithstanding inconsistency or incompatibility with international or other domestic law—

(1) The provisions of this Act have effect notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent.

(2) Accordingly (among other things)—

(a) regulations under this Act are not to be regarded as unlawful on the grounds of any incompatibility or inconsistency with relevant international or domestic law (and section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply in relation to the making of regulations under this Act);

(b) all rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures which are, in accordance with section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law, and enforced, allowed and followed accordingly, cease to be recognised and available in domestic law, or enforced, allowed and followed, so far and for as long as they are incompatible or inconsistent with any provision of this Act;

(c) section 7C of that Act ceases to have effect so far and for as long as it would require any question as to the validity, meaning or effect of any relevant separation agreement law to be decided in a way which is incompatible or inconsistent with a provision of this Act; and

(d) any other provision or rule of domestic law that is relevant international or domestic law ceases to have effect so far and for as long as it is incompatible or inconsistent with a provision of this Act.

(3) Regulations under this Act are to be treated for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 as if they were within the definition of “primary legislation” in section 21(1) of that Act.

(4) No court or tribunal may entertain any proceedings for questioning the validity or lawfulness of regulations under this Act other than proceedings on a relevant claim or application.

(5) The period mentioned in each of the following provisions (standard time limits for seeking judicial review), or any corresponding successor provision, may not be extended under any circumstances in relation to a relevant claim or application—

(a) rule 54.5(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules in relation to England and Wales;

(b) section 27A(1)(a) of the Court of Session Act 1988 in relation to Scotland; and

(c) rule 4(1) of Order 53 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) 1980 (S.R. (N.I.) 1980 No. 346) in relation to Northern Ireland.

(6) The jurisdiction and powers of a court or tribunal in relation to a relevant claim or application are subject to subsections (1) and (2).

(7) In section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, in subsection (5)—

(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (e); and

(b) at the end of the subsection insert “, and

(g) the provisions of the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Act 2020 (provisions to which this section is subject).”

(8) In this section—

“relevant claim or application” means—

(a) a claim for judicial review in relation to England and Wales,

(b) an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session in relation to Scotland, or

(c) an application for judicial review in relation to Northern Ireland, where the claim or application is for the purpose of questioning the validity or lawfulness of regulations under this Act;

“relevant international or domestic law” includes—

(a) any provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol;

(b) any other provision of the EU withdrawal agreement;

(c) any other EU law or international law;

(d) any provision of the European Communities Act 1972;

(e) any provision of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;

(f) any retained EU law or relevant separation agreement law; and

(g) any other legislation, convention or rule of international or domestic law whatsoever, including any order, judgment or decision of the European Court or of any other court or tribunal, but does not include the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (see section 1(1) of that Act);

“relevant separation agreement law” has the meaning given by section 7C(3) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

New clause 3—Treasury use of powers—

(1) The Treasury must, within four working days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a report setting out the timeframe within which it will use the powers to make regulations conferred by—

(a) section 40A(2) of TCTA 2018;

(b) section 40B(1) and (2) of TCTA 2018;

(c) section 30A(4) of TCTA 2018;

(d) section 30B(1) and (3) of TCTA 2018;

(e) section 30C(5) of TCTA 2018; and

(f) section 5(2) of this Act.

(2) The Treasury must publish an annual report setting out how it has made use of the powers referred to in subsection (1).

(3) Each report under subsection (2) must include an assessment of—

(a) what considerations the Treasury made when deciding to use its powers, and

(b) the impact of the regulations on individuals and businesses throughout the UK, and specifically in Northern Ireland.

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 43, at end insert—

“(4A) The Treasury must publish guidance setting out its proposed approach to the reliefs, repayments and remissions referred to in subsection (3)(b) within four working days of this section coming into force.”

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 4, line 24, at end insert—

“(5) The Treasury must publish guidance setting out its proposed approach to the reliefs, repayments and remissions referred to in subsection (4)(a) within four working days of this section coming into force.”

[Sir William Cash]

The clauses before us are directly related to what was originally in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, and they were there for a very good reason. They were there because it is absolutely essential that we maintain our sovereignty, and the decisions must be taken by Parliament, and should not be taken by the House of Lords, whose Members are unelected. We are the House of Commons, and that part of the House of Commons which is elected has a Government who were elected in December 2019, almost exactly one year ago. In that general election, it was made quite clear that the decision before the British people was effectively to be decided in line with what was decided in the referendum. There are therefore two things joining together, in conjunction with one another: the referendum in 2016, followed by a whole series of enactments of Parliament. That includes the decision on the notification of withdrawal, which was accepted by the Labour party and was voted through in the House of Commons by 499 to around 120. It is not as if anybody could say that the supremacy of Parliament was not made manifest in the light of the referendum.

There was then a series of other enactments, and we eventually ended up with a confirmation of Acts of Parliament, including the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was passed after the general election. Section 38 of that Act made it abundantly clear that we had the right to insist—as a matter of constitutional principle and through the enactment of an Act of Parliament—that the United Kingdom was sovereign, and, furthermore, that we would be allowed to override the withdrawal agreement. That was contained in section 38(2)(b), which specifically refers to section 7A and in turn therefore directly relates, through the use of the word “notwithstanding”, to the overriding direct effect. That is a very important point—a point that is conveniently overlooked by some people, who continually assert that somehow or other the Government have been out of order, breaking international law or breaking constitutional principles. But they never come forward with any arguments; as I said in a recent speech in the House regarding the attitude of the House of Lords, they were basically strong on assertion and empty in argument.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those of us who could only vote for the withdrawal legislation because it contained clause 38 understood fully that it was a conditional agreement to the withdrawal agreement, because the EU always said that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and we wished to see the full package before deciding whether to allow it to be untrammelled?

[Sir William Cash]

Yes, indeed. I sometimes find that Lewis Carroll has some very useful ways of putting things. There was the famous exchange between Alice and Humpty Dumpty, in which Humpty Dumpty says: “Words mean what you choose them to mean. The question is who is to be master, that is all.” Words can be used in all kinds of different ways to try to justify propositions that are unsustainable.

I say with respect, but none the less very firmly, that in this particular case it is absolutely clear that when the decision has been taken by the British people—the voters—in the referendum and has then been endorsed by an Act of Parliament and a whole series of other Acts of Parliament, including section 38, it really is not down to the unelected House of Lords to resist it on the scale that they have, and to claim that they can override the House of Commons. We have just had a whole series of agreements and disagreements going backwards and forwards on the UKIM Bill alone.

As Lord Bingham made absolutely and abundantly clear in chapter 12 of his magisterial book “The Rule of Law”, it is for Parliament to make law and pass Acts of Parliament; it is not for the judges to intervene, to seek to make law and to impugn the sovereignty of Parliament. Anyone who wants to get the full flavour of it should read chapter 12 of “The Rule of Law”, because it is the most explicit and clear statement that one could possibly imagine.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

If section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 has such overarching reach, why are new clauses 1 and 2 necessary in this Bill?

[Sir William Cash]

Because what section 38 does is reaffirm the capacity of Parliament to be able to make such provisions in other enactments should it be necessary to do so. Because of the complexity of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the issues it raises—for example, as I have said in a previous speech this afternoon, with respect to the Northern Ireland protocol itself—there remain a number of matters that are still subject not only to the negotiation over in Brussels going on right now, but to the operation of the internal market of this country. I support that Bill, but I still believe it was a mistake to withdraw the “notwithstanding” clauses, because I think we are going to find that we will need them and we may yet need to reintroduce them on a future occasion. However, it will be section 38, which is explicit with regard to the withdrawal agreement, that will give us the authority and the statutory basis for doing that, and the same applies to the provisions I am referring to here. With regard to this Bill, we had expected that the “notwithstanding” clauses would be included in it and they were not, so I have taken the opportunity—in, one might say, my usual manner—to ensure that we have an opportunity to debate this issue today.

I now turn to the reasons why I am so clear in what I have said about state sovereignty in the context of international law. The United Kingdom as a state retains its sovereign right, and it was always capable of doing this, to withdraw from the EU. The EU is an international organisation; it is not a sovereign state. On the basis of state sovereignty, it would actually be contrary to the legal position under international law that the UK would require EU consent or agreement to leave the EU, but we do have article 50 and we did implement that in the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.

State sovereignty is paramount to international law. As has been said:

“If States were not sovereign, no international law would be possible”.

It is quite an interesting idea. International law would be impossible if states were not sovereign, because they combine together to create the circumstances in which it applies. Each state has internal supremacy over how governmental functions are run and is shielded from external interference without consent. The UK as a sovereign state has a right to withdraw from an international organisation, and this right is recognised by the EU treaties themselves. This is evident from the words of article 50:

“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.”

It could not be clearer from what I have said and from what everybody knows, as they have been through this passage or on this journey, that we have been through enactment after enactment. Nobody could possibly say that we have not done it lawfully. It has been done completely in the sight of the world, and I am astonished that anyone would even consider that we had not done it in the proper manner—we have done so, lawfully and in accordance not only with our constitutional law but with international law. In short, the UK’s right to withdraw from the EU is approved and agreed by international law, and only limited by UK constitutional law and thus by our own discretion, which we have exercised.

Following the Brexit referendum, the United Kingdom exercised its sovereign right to leave the EU and, as far as I am concerned, I believe this cannot be disputed. It is quite clear that we have done what was required under our own constitutional requirements and also, in my judgment, with regard to the question of international law itself. That was confirmed, for example, by the German federal constitutional court in the Maastricht treaty constitutionality case—I am now speaking about the Germans’ view of this, but it is interesting to observe—in which it said:

“Because the German citizen entitled to vote exercises his right to participate in conferring democratic legitimacy on the institutions and bodies entrusted with the exercise of sovereign authority principally through the election of the German Bundestag,”—

this is the same point I was making about our voters being represented by our Members of Parliament who passed the enactments in question—

“that parliament must also decide what is to be done about Germany’s membership of the European Union, its continuance and development”.

In other words, the principle is a common one between us and the German constitutional court.

That is of great importance in our understanding the context in which we must have the right to legislate ourselves in accordance with what our voters expect of us. We are entitled to do that in relation to the UKIM Bill or the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, and we are entitled also to have a “notwithstanding” clause if we so decide. It is not for unelected persons—whether they are distinguished or otherwise, and whether they are numerous in the House of Lords or otherwise—to interfere with that.

The UK Parliament, being the supreme body in the British constitution, has the right to enact legislation inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement—I have already dealt with section 38—thereby explicitly reversing the direct effect option under article 4 of the withdrawal agreement. That is crucial, because article 4 says that, but for the fact that we are entitled to do that, it would have direct effect. That position has been set out on the UKIM Bill, which was published in September, and it was specifically stated that we would ensure that we had a “notwithstanding” clause. That has been unwisely removed, but we may come back to that on a future occasion.

The next question is, what is the position regarding the EU’s own attitude towards international law? I am afraid to say that it is guilty of recurring double standards. Article 3(5) of the treaty on European Union states:

“In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall…contribute to peace, security…and the protection of human rights…as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.”

But in the Kadi case, it was held that EU law is an autonomous legal order, meaning that in order for an international agreement to form part of EU law, it must not call into question the constitutional structure and values on which the EU is founded.

In the second Kadi case, the European Court of Justice, confirming its previous findings in the first case, ruled that the EU Courts

“must…ensure the review, in principle the full review, of the lawfulness of all Union acts in the light of the fundamental rights forming an integral part of the European Union legal order, including review of such measures as are designed to give effect to resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.”

It is worth pointing out that the Security Council resolutions in question were adopted under chapter VII, which meant that those resolutions were adopted for the purposes of maintaining international peace and security and had to be carried out by members of the United Nations directly. Article 103 of the charter states:

“In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”

It is clear that our capacity as a sovereign nation is endorsed by the United Nations charter as well.

What is the position regarding the necessity of these “notwithstanding” clauses in principle? I have already explained the general power to override treaties,  particularly by reference to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. In the Miller case, a majority in the Supreme Court said that Parliament, in the exercise of its sovereignty, is free to legislate in any way it sees fit, including contrary to the UK’s international obligations, thus

“the sovereign power of the Queen in Parliament extends to breaking treaties”.

That was confirmed in a series of other cases, such as in Salomon, in EN (Serbia) and in the Attorney-General of Ontario v. Attorney-General of Canada. The Supreme Court has unambiguously stated that this power is a corollary of parliamentary sovereignty. I have already referred to what Lord Bingham said in chapter 12 of “The Rule of Law”, so I do not need to repeat that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend said a few moments ago that Parliament has a general power to override treaties. How would that work in the case of the free trade agreements that we have negotiated with other nations? Can we simply override those treaties at will if we do not like the findings of an investor-state dispute service?

[Sir William Cash]

Interestingly, I made some reference to the principles that are under discussion in the current negotiations. Of course, we do not know the outcome of those negotiations as we speak—as I said in the previous debate, I wish them well—but it has to be made clear that, certainly as far as I and those of my friends who agree with me are concerned, one of the most crucial questions is that of state aid, because that issue is right at the heart of the discussions and negotiations this week. I asked the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to assure the House that nothing in any treaty text or subsequent Act of Parliament will prevent the UK from having its own sovereign state aid rules, including on energy, so that we are not subjugated to EU state aid rules, nor to the European Court, given that the EU intends, as it has stated over the past week or two—in very bad faith, in my opinion—to impose and enforce its rules against us. Ultimately, of course, that would be done by a majority vote in the Council of Ministers, behind closed doors, without our even being at the table after 31 December. The fact is that we have to assert our sovereignty in the negotiations so that any treaty that emerges from them—if one does—must comply with the assertion of the sovereignty of this House, this country and this Parliament, and must at the same time apply whether in respect of direct or indirect effect.

[John Redwood]

Is it not also the case that the agreement with the European Union is muddled and contradictory? The EU has always said that it understands that the UK is going to be sovereign, so if this House simply asserts our sovereignty, as it can do, that is, in a way, our fair interpretation of the agreement.

[Sir William Cash]

Yes, absolutely. Sovereignty is also a question of fact. I do not want to get into the intricacies of 15th century history, but there was a chap called Henry VII who made it abundantly clear that as far as he was concerned he won the battle of Bosworth and that was it. I do not think we need to pursue that one too much, because sovereignty is quite a simple thing when it comes down to it: it is called political will and legal arguments of the kind I am addressing.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am interested in my hon. Friend’s point about sovereignty over free trade agreements. In 2009, an American firm called Cargill was awarded around $90 million because Mexico had broken a free trade agreement with the United States by, in effect, banning soft drinks that were made with high-fructose corn syrup, putting Mexican producers at an advantage. Mexico acted unilaterally, with sovereignty; is my hon. Friend saying that Mexico was allowed to do that? That is not what the dispute-settlement service determined.

[Sir William Cash]

I cannot speak for that dispute-settlement service and nor can I speak for the Joint Committee that is currently considering some of these matters. We do not really know exactly what is being decided in that Joint Committee, which is why I was concerned earlier to point out that I have asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to appear before my European Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman and on which I have served for 35 years, so I have a little experience of how it operates. Under our Standing Orders, it is our task—our duty—irrespective of party politics, to examine matters of legal and political importance and report to the House, and we are doing that. Of course, we need evidence, and we need to have people to appear before us and give evidence, and sad to say, despite the fact that I have written four letters to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he has declined to appear in front of the Committee, although he seems to be happy to see the House of Lords equivalent Committee and also the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I just want to clarify one matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can do that. When it comes to sovereignty and the free trade agreements that he and others have referred to, can he give me an educated guess on where Northern Ireland stands with sovereignty? Do we have the same freedom and the same rule of law across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or will Northern Ireland be treated differently?

[Sir William Cash]

Provided the treaty itself, and therefore the Act of Parliament that follows from it, maintain the principles I set out in my question to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy yesterday, there is no question as to whether we will be entitled to exercise our sovereignty and to displace European Court jurisdiction and the EU laws, for example—there are many others—on state aid. We will be entitled to do so, but it is a matter of constitutional law and also, as I have explained, international law.

I am afraid that there has been a great deal of assertion that we are so-called potentially in breach of international law, but international law recognises the fact that a country can exercise its sovereign rights to defend its economic interests from a national point of view. In fact, Helmut Schmidt did precisely that in, I think, 1998 over the question of the deutschmark and the dollar. There are many examples, and we have not got time to go into them all today.

I will turn to some of the precedents just to illustrate the fact that it is not such a novel idea somehow or other to use a “notwithstanding” clause or formula, and that applies to all parties, whether that is the Labour party, the coalition, where the Liberal Democrats joined in and voted with us on these matters, or the Conservative party. For example, the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 provides that the parts that diverge from treaty obligations—the language of the section was completely unambiguous—were “notwithstanding anything contrary” to those arrangements set out in the Act. The section was enacted to retaliate against the introduction of unitary tax systems adopted by certain states in the US, most notably in California. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) may know about that.

What I am saying is that such provisions are not exactly unusual. Indeed, in the Finance Act 2013, which was under the coalition, the Liberal Democrats went along with allowing Parliament to effectively write a blank cheque to interfere with international treaties—approximately 130 of them, in fact. That provision is still in force. No one questioned the Chancellor’s right to introduce any such legislation or, indeed, the lawfulness of the work of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which still relies on it in combating questions relating to such arrangements.

Then there are other precedents. I shall stick to Finance Acts at this juncture as that is what we are dealing with in the context of this particular Bill, which is, of course, a finance Bill. Section 52 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1945 overrode aspects of the Ireland-UK tax treaty of 1926. I hope I may be allowed a slight smile here, as I look across the Irish sea and consider the position with regard to the Irish Government in relation to the “notwithstanding” clauses, because we actually did this in 1926. The Act was used as an example in a case involving Collco in which the court said that if the statute is unambiguous, its provisions must be followed even if they are contrary to international law. It could not be clearer. The Finance Act 1955 again overrode the Ireland-UK tax treaty. In the Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Collco Dealings, Viscount Simonds said, “The company has no rights under any agreement. Its rights arise from the Act of Parliament, which confirmed the agreement and give it the force of law.”

Section 59 of the Finance Act 2008 excluded UK residents from benefiting from provisions in respect of profits from the trade etc. Then there is the coalition arrangement under the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 where, again, the position was made entirely clear in accordance with the precedents.

Indeed, it is not just the UK, or even a party in the UK, that has been doing this over a period of time in its economic and national interests. An example from 2020 is the European Central Bank’s bond-buying scheme. In May 2020, the German constitutional court sought to override EU law and the Court of Justice, suggesting that the ECB’s public sector purchase programme was unconstitutional. Then there are the bail-outs. Every one of the bail-outs from 2010 to 2015 could justifiably be described as in breach of article 125 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. I will not read out the details, but I shall give some examples: the first Greek bail-out in 2010; the Irish bail-out in 2010; the Portuguese bail-out, the second Greek bail-out; the Spanish bail-out; the Cypriot bail-out; and the third Greek bail-out in 2015. There are so many examples—whether in the UK, or in relation to other member states, or, indeed, in relation to the EU itself—that have demonstrated that, when it comes to the question of sovereignty and the ability to override treaties, this is done quite often as a matter of course. I am not saying that it is done generally. I am not saying that it happens every week or every day. What I am saying, however, is that it happens and that it happens for good reasons which are directly related to the arguments on sovereignty which I gave at the beginning, and it is not for the unelected House of Lords to tell us. That is why, in this Bill, they would not have been able to do so because of the issue of financial privilege.

I am bringing forward these amendments. I shall decide as we proceed whether I will press them to a vote. I will leave it at that for the moment, because I am more than fascinated to hear the usual Europhile utterings of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) who is about to speak.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I rise to speak to new clause 3 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and, with it, amendments 1 and 2, which are also in his name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. These amendments are pro-business and pro-compliance. They are motivated by trying to get as much information to the businesses affected by the changes in this Bill in as short a timescale as possible.

The Bill that we are discussing sets out a number of taxation changes, many of them as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol. These measures will have an impact on businesses throughout the United Kingdom, but in particular, businesses in Northern Ireland and those who trade with them. In a recent evidence session for the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, HMRC was asked how many new declarations there would be under the kind of system set out in the Bill. The official giving evidence said, to be fair, that it was a new system, so they could not be sure, but that there could be about 11 million new declarations a year. That is a sizeable additional amount of information that businesses have to publish.

The amendments we are putting forward this afternoon try to help those businesses to cope with the changes set out in the Bill. I should stress that nothing in these amendments alters the terms of the changes set out in the clauses or the purpose of the Bill. The Government have signed up to the protocol and we want to see them abide by the agreement they have made. There may be those in the Conservative party—in fact, there almost certainly are—who do not like the obligations that the protocol entails, but we believe that the Government should stick by the commitments they have made. The changes in the Bill are largely, though not entirely, a consequence of that agreement.

However, many of the clauses in the Bill are enabling in their nature. They confer on the Treasury powers that are to be filled in at a later date. For example, clause 1 says that the Treasury may by regulations provide a definition of goods being imported into Northern Ireland that

“are at risk of subsequently being moved into the European Union.”

It goes on to talk about which duties shall apply in the case of these so-called at-risk goods. Very similar language is used in clauses 2 and 5 and a number of the schedules—that the “Treasury may by regulations” provide.

To be fair to the Minister and to the authors of the Bill, there is nothing unusual about a Bill taking enabling powers that are then to be set out in further detail in regulations that come after the Bill has passed its parliamentary proceedings, but what is unusual is the context and the timescale involved. The end of the transition period is in just 16 days and, in the middle of those 16 days comes the Christmas holidays, so the Government are asking businesses to absorb, prepare for and comply with a new series of taxation regulations that those businesses have not yet seen, and to do so over a two-week period coinciding with the biggest holiday of the year. And they are doing that at the end of a year in which the very same businesses have already faced unprecedented turbulence in the wake of a global pandemic.

The businesses concerned do not want to fall foul of regulations. They want to comply. They want to be able to get this right. Businesses in Northern Ireland and the trade bodies that represent them have put in enormous efforts over the past few years to try to prepare for this moment. Of course, they could have spent all that time and effort doing what they were set up to do, which is to provide goods and services to their customers, but the process of Brexit and the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland, which are now enshrined in the Brexit withdrawal deal, have meant that a great deal of effort has had to go into trying to understand the trading and taxation rules that will kick in after the end of this year. So here we are with this Bill, with just over two weeks to go. With the best will in the world, how do the Government expect them to do this on this kind of timescale?

The purpose behind the amendments is very simple: it is, even at this late stage, to encourage the Government to get a move on. When I moved a similar amendment in Committee last week, the Minister said that guidance had been published in October, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the details of the regulations enabled by this Bill, which was published only last week.

The Minister cannot seriously be telling the House that everything covered by the Bill was dealt with in October, and there is nothing more to add. If that was the case, it would prompt the question as to why it was published only last week. The answer, of course, is that the Government wanted to use it to hold the threat of the kind of provisions that the hon. Member for Stone has just been talking about over the trade negotiations—a damaging and self-defeating tactic.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I rise to support what may be an amendment that we are going to vote on or may be a probing amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), because I think there has been a deliberate misunderstanding by the EU and its friends over what Brexit is about and what we need to do in order to achieve a proper Brexit. A proper Brexit is taking back control; it is recreating the sovereignty of the people of the United Kingdom through their Parliament.

My hon. Friend has a distinguished career in this place trying to rebuild that sovereignty and watching, year after year, more and more of our powers taken away by successive treaties, by successive directives and regulations, many of them automatic ones over which the UK had little or no influence, and by court judgments which, again, we had precious little ability to shape. He is right that, as we come to legislate for our new arrangements as a sovereign country from 1 January next year, we need to make quite sure that we have back under the control of people and Parliament all those powers that we need to regulate, to govern and to take wise decisions on behalf of the United Kingdom.

I am very worried about some elements of the withdrawal agreement. I was told, as we were all told, that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed, and that that meant the future relationship as well as the withdrawal agreement. The EU decided for its own convenience to sequence things and say, “You have to sign the withdrawal agreement first and then the future relationship agreement will follow.” A bit of flesh was put on the bones of the future relationship in the so-called political declaration, which one would have thought there was a lot of moral pressure to go along with even if it was not as strictly legally binding as they hoped the withdrawal agreement would be.

I now think there has been a lot of bad faith, because, according to both sides, the central feature of the future relationship was always going to be a free trade agreement, and where is the free trade agreement? We now discover that the EU wishes to take all sorts of other powers away from us as the price for the free trade agreement, which we have already overpaid for in the withdrawal agreement and which one would have thought, in good faith, the EU would now grant. It is very much in its interests—even more than it is in our interests—given the huge imbalance in trade, and above all in the trade that would attract tariffs if we had no free trade agreement: the trade in food.

That is really what we are talking about: are there going to be tariffs on food or not? We, the United Kingdom, run a colossal £20 billion trade deficit with the EU on food. We have to impose pretty high tariffs on food from the rest of the world—that makes absolutely no sense where we could not grow any of it ourselves; it may have some benefit for some of our farmers some of the time—but we are not allowed to put any similar tariffs on EU-sourced produce where we could produce it ourselves.

The EU system is to try to use tariffs to buttress domestic production, but it has not worked for the United Kingdom; it has worked the other way. The tariffs have been taken off in order to benefit the Dutch, Spanish, French or Irish suppliers of our market with food at zero tariffs. The EU already has rather more interest in tariff withdrawal than we do, because we could have a range of tariffs that would probably achieve the aims both of cutting food prices by having a lower average tariff and of having a bit more protection on the things that we really could make and grow for ourselves here, which we are not allowed to protect against continental products at the moment.

I therefore think that the Bill could be improved by reminding the EU that we will not be pushed around and we will not suffer too much bad faith from those original negotiations or from the withdrawal agreement itself. I think it was a very imperfect agreement. It is pretty ambiguous in places; it is imprecise in places. I have never felt that anything the Government have done, or thought of doing, was in any way illegal. Lawyers could make a perfectly good case under the withdrawal agreement treaty terms themselves, and anyway, we have the protection of my hon. Friend’s section 38, which made it very clear that this Parliament’s acceptance of the withdrawal agreement was conditional. Why else would anyone have put section 38 in the withdrawal agreement Act unless they were making a point?

[Sir William Cash]

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that it was the Prime Minister who, after an eight-hour meeting I had in No. 10 that day—17 October 2019—insisted that section 38 was necessary and appropriate?

If we go back to the previous Administration, just imagine where we would be when we consider the Chequers arrangements, and then imagine what it would have been like if we had not decided to vote against that dreadful withdrawal agreement in its original shape. There were provisions that needed to be rectified, and section 38 provides the mechanism that enables us to do that.

[John Redwood]

Indeed. I think my hon. Friend has confirmed that under the previous Prime Minister, when those of us who could not vote for her agreement said that we needed a sovereignty escape clause, we were told that that would not be permissible because it would not be effective implementation of the agreement; which was then reassuring to us, not liking the withdrawal agreement very much and realising that it was a provisional agreement and would be completed only were there to be a satisfactory outcome to the total range of talks. It was a totally artificial constraint that the EU invented that it had to be sequenced, when up until that point everybody had always rightly said that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed.

I would like to hear from the Minister a little more explanation on the detail of the Bill. As I understand it, the Northern Ireland protocol would apply only to goods that are passing from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and then on to the Republic of Ireland, or the reverse—goods coming from the Republic to Northern Ireland and then passing on to Great Britain. Am I right in thinking that that is a very small proportion of the total trade? In what ways will the Government ensure that it is properly defined, so that we do not catch up most goods in those more elaborate procedures? The bulk of the trade will be GB to Northern Ireland and back, or Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland and back, and it should not in any way be caught up in any of these proposals. I am not sure that we do have a de minimis way of dealing with the so-called things at risk.

It is not clear how the system will work for items at risk where we agree that they are at risk—and I hope it is a UK decision about what is a risk, not some other kind of decision with EU inspectors. It would be helpful to me and the wider community interested in this debate to know how a business would proceed if it had such a good at risk, to whom it would answer, and what decisions would be made about such a good in Excise, because it sounds a rather complicated and difficult arrangement, both for the business concerned and for those who are trying to enforce.

I am trying to tease out from the Minister, in pursuit of the interests of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and myself on sovereignty, whether we are really in control if the trade has started off from GB and is going to Northern Ireland. What kind of external intervention can the EU or the Republic of Ireland engineer—how is that fair, and how will it be determined? I think that is what we are most worried about in this piece of legislation, and we would be more reassured if there were the override that my hon. Friend proposes. I should be grateful for some explanation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. I will speak particularly to new clause 1 and new clause 2 because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said, this is a matter of sovereignty. I am very keen to explore where sovereignty ends and international law starts, and that is right at the heart of those new clauses, I guess.

We have made reference several times in these debates to section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2020, where it says that,

“the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.”

If that is the case, and I accept that it is the case in areas of our jurisdiction, is there a need to reiterate it in every piece of legislation, or is it simply a fact that Parliament is sovereign?

My hon. Friend has rightly stated quite clearly that the UK Parliament has a general power to override treaties, but I am very keen to understand how that works in the sphere of international treaties, particularly in terms of trade agreements. As I quoted in my intervention earlier, there was a case between Mexico and the US, settled in 2009, where a US company, Cargill, took the Mexican Government to court on the basis that they had breached the general agreement on tariffs and trade regulations of 1994. The Mexican Government had applied some punitive tariffs on soft drinks coming from the US, produced by Cargill and other companies, which effectively blocked access to the Mexican market.

[Sir William Cash]

Let me respond briefly. This provision is really going to apply only where there is an impugnment —an infringement—of sovereignty itself. In this case, the entirety of our leaving the EU, as is well understood by the EU and provided for by article 50, and which we have done lawfully, demonstrates that when the EU and the remainers start prattling on about the idea that somehow or other we should do it on their terms, which is the basis on which the whole thing was constructed when the negotiations began, however many years ago it was—I cannot quite remember, as it seems so long ago—we see that the bottom line is that they have acted in bad faith. That is the problem. If it were not for that —we had reasonable negotiations—we probably would not be having to discuss these matters now. Most recently, we have seen that over the state aid rules, with their saying, “We’re going to punish you if you don’t do what we want.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Therein lies the difficulty, does it not? As soon as a nation, however powerful, is allowed to make a subjective judgment, it leads to international chaos. We can have international agreements that people sign and adhere to, with independent resolution. My point is that as soon as we have done that, we have handed over the settlement of the issues and disputes to another body, and we are, in effect sharing some of our sovereignty. We do not have total sovereignty at that point. We have sovereignty to sign the agreement and to exit the agreement, but I cannot see how using sovereignty to override an agreement works. I think it would result in chaos.

[Sir William Cash]

This is about when the issue of the override is to do with sovereignty itself—that is the point. That is why this matter is essential. That is why international law actually recognises it, in article 46. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) accepted that, as, indirectly, did Lord Judge, on this Bill. So, for practical purposes, I have quite a lot of support, even from those who originally opposed my proposals.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The trouble with new clause 1 is that it says the provisions have effect

“notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic law”.

Subsection 2(g) states that that means “any other legislation”. This Parliament’s decision would affect any other legislation, and so this is an overarching amendment. The key thing is that we would all agree that international agreements and free trade are important, and we need to make sure they are fair on all parties subject to those agreements. We must not forget that this is a two-way street. We want the other signatories to these trade agreements—be it Canada, Japan, the EU or whatever—to adhere to these agreements as well. It is not just about the UK heading into these agreements. We partly do that through the agreement itself, of course, but also through the soft power that the UK holds and the respect that people have for the United Kingdom.

There are some special circumstances regarding the withdrawal agreement, because there were two sides to the coin. Yes, there were the commitments that we made under the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, but there was also the EU’s commitment to use its best endeavours to deliver an ambitious free trade agreement. As Members on both sides of this Chamber have said, there is no doubt that some of the things that the EU has done over the past few months have indicated that it was not using its best endeavours and that it was acting in bad faith, particularly on things such as requiring exit summary declarations for products manufactured in Northern Ireland and then shipped to the rest of the UK. That is simply unacceptable. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, what on earth would the EU do with these things if we exported them from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK? Describing all goods that went from Great Britain to Northern Ireland as “at risk” would also be simply unacceptable. I was very pleased that those key issues were resolved last week. It largely went by without notice or recognition from many Opposition Members and some parts of the media. New clauses 1 and 2 are interesting. I will not be supporting them, but I will be supporting the Bill.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr Deputy Speaker.

When I put my name down to speak in this debate, I guess I did so more out of intrigue than expectation, given the shenanigans and the boorach of last week. We all saw what unfolded over the Ways and Means resolutions, the Bill coming 24 hours later and then off to Committee of the whole House, where nothing changed whatever. A week later, here we are on Report, with, as far as I can see, a very clear likelihood that the Government’s Bill will move forward without a single change, despite the best valiant efforts of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and his desire again to get the Government to break international law.

In that regard, I must pause and reflect; I find it utterly fascinating that, despite getting what they appear to want, Members of this Parliament who have—from what I have heard—seemingly spent their entire lives working towards the political cause of leaving the European Union still seem thoroughly unhappy. I take a little bit of joy in knowing that they are so bitterly disappointed that even their friends in the Government still refuse to do just what they want. Now, I cannot be the only one who has looked at Twitter, and it appears that there may well be a breakthrough in terms of an EU trade deal. I do not know whether the Minister is sighted on the developments on this occasion, because I do not think he was last week, but I do not think that I am overreaching or overstepping in any way, shape or form to suggest that, although that may be the case, the hon. Member for Stone may still be unhappy.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Flynn]

Of course I will let him intervene.

[Sir William Cash]

I am so glad. I can only say that, actually, sovereignty is not just a theoretical concept; it is a practical necessity. It is on the basis of that that we are able to enter into arrangements internationally that are justified by our own terms of reference. The problem with the EU is that it wants to impose its terms of reference, and it never wanted us even to be able to compete with it as a third country after we had left. But it could not deny that it was lawful, so it resorted to all these other obstructions.

[Stephen Flynn]

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s repetition, but ultimately, when it comes to sovereignty, there is only one sovereignty that I am interested in: the sovereign will of the people of Scotland. When we look at the European Union in terms of sovereignty and the will of the people of Scotland, our views have been completely ignored. The people in my constituency voted overwhelmingly to remain. Aberdeen city as a whole is projected to be the hardest hit city in the entire UK as a result of Brexit, irrespective of whether we get a deal or not. Although I do not want to encourage the hon. Gentleman any further, I simply cannot understand the premise of his argument—that he is willing to break international law and is talking about sovereignty, while simultaneously rejecting the sovereign will of the people of Scotland.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman take one last intervention?

[Stephen Flynn]

No, the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunities to intervene and, indeed, speak today, and I think I will be doing everyone a favour if I just continue. I see that the Minister is laughing as well.

On the purpose of the Bill, I would like to reflect on the comments of the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), because what he said was incredibly important. I apologise if I am misquoting him but I think he talked about the Bill hovering as a threat. That is an important point to reflect on, particularly as we look at what was being undertaken last week and the entire process that we have gone through.

I want to conclude, because I am aware that I am close to havering, and in Scotland, when someone starts doing that, they should probably sit down. As we look forward to what the Bill will do for online sales and the level playing field that it will create on VAT sales, which is important—I see the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) nodding his head, and it is worth repeating that we agree on this point—we know that that level playing field should go further, because Northern Ireland will, in effect, have a beneficial agreement compared with anywhere else in the United Kingdom, be that Wales, England or Scotland. The level playing field that the Government are putting in place for online sales should also apply to Scotland to help our ability to access EU markets, and I would encourage the Minister to reflect on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the debate. I will address the proposed amendments and then come to the specific points that have been raised.

New clauses 1 and 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), would, if adopted, mean that the provisions in the Bill would apply notwithstanding any domestic or international law. The House will be aware that on 17 September, the Government set out that Parliament would be asked to support the use of so-called “notwithstanding” provisions in clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and any similar subsequent provisions in a Finance Bill, but only in circumstances where the fundamental purposes of the Northern Ireland protocol would be undermined. Only in those circumstances would Parliament be asked to support the use of so-called “notwithstanding” provisions, as described.

[Sir William Cash]

We do not really know exactly how the Northern Ireland protocol is going to be interpreted, nor do we actually know its full content, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is declining to appear before my Committee to explain it.

[Jesse Norman]

What we do know is that the agreement was reached by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster acting for the Government on a duly legitimately and democratically elected basis in the exercise of our national sovereignty, and that should, I think, be enough for my hon. Friend.

These clauses were previously introduced as reasonable steps to create a safety net so that the Government would always be able to discharge their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland in the event that a negotiated outcome could not be reached in the Joint Committee. Following intensive and constructive work over the past weeks by the UK and the EU, the Government have now reached an agreement in principle on all issues in relation to the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland. This is an agreement that discharges the Government’s commitment to the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that there are no tariffs on goods remaining within the UK customs territory.

As part of the agreement, the Government committed to removing the notwithstanding provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and not to introduce them or any similar provisions in this Bill. As was noted by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his statement to the House last week, in view of the agreement these provisions are no longer required. On that basis, I hope the House can agree that new clauses 1 and 2 are unnecessary.

New clause 3 and amendments 1 and 2 tabled by the Opposition would, if adopted, require the Treasury to publish guidance setting out its proposed approach to any reliefs, repayments and remissions for which the Bill allows provision to be made. The provisions contained within the Bill ensure that the Government have the flexibility they need to establish the framework for such reliefs, repayments and remissions. Details of any policies along these lines would be announced in due course, and HMRC will publish detailed guidance providing certainty to traders and businesses, as is its normal procedure. For this reason, putting such additional provisions in the Bill is unnecessary, and therefore I urge the House to resist these amendments.

New clause 3 would, if adopted, require the publication of various reports setting out the timeframes in which the customs duty charges contained in clauses 1 and 2 would be implemented as well as the factors taken into account when using these powers. The provisions contained in clauses 1 and 2 allow the Government to establish customs charging provisions to support the practical application of article 5.1 and 5.3 of the protocol and to deal with the movement of goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. This is important legislation, which will ensure that the Government are able to implement the Northern Ireland protocol as required in UK law ahead of the end of the transition period. The regulations that set out the detail of the charging regimes will be laid after the Bill receives Royal Assent.

This Bill thus provides the framework, and the detail will be provided alongside the relevant regulations. When bringing forward regulations the Government will also provide explanatory material in the usual way.

If I may, I will now turn to some of the questions raised by Members who spoke in the debate. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) encouraged the Government to get a move on; as he will know, the Government have been proceeding extremely rapidly and energetically in this area ever since the issues first arose. He also asked about guidance, and of course he is right that in the normal course of these things guidance will follow the publication of the Bill, but he also ought to be aware that the guidance that will be published follows the Northern Ireland protocol and the Command Paper and that in relation to other matters, which is what I was referring to, the House has seen customs guidance on 7 August, the trader support service launched on 20 September, guidance on VAT and excise on 26 October, and a whole host of other information designed to support traders and others involved in these changes.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what new systems are being put in place, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), so let me respond on that. My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in terms of the agreement for at-risk and not-at-risk goods, there is a requirement for there to be genuine and substantial use for the goods to be classified as at-risk. HMRC expects there to be up to 11 million declarations in relation to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Customs Declaration Service, which has been put in place, has a minimum viable product up and running as we speak.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) referred to hokey-cokey clauses, but of course the clauses have never been included. They were themselves a response to a perfectly plain concern, which every Member of the House should feel, that, as matters stood, even a bag of salad would be considered an at-risk good, a consequence of the previous understanding that was patently absurd and which has been removed by this change.

The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) talked about a last-minute approach, but I would remind him that when this point, or this attempted point, was made by the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), I asked her if she could recall a single occasion when the EU had ever failed to negotiate except at the very last minute of a negotiation, and she was unable to point to such a case. That is, I think, the principal reason why we are in the position that we are in.

With those remarks, I would urge the House to resist these amendments.

[Sir William Cash]

We have had an interesting debate and, as far as I am concerned, the Government had originally proposed putting these clauses in the Bill itself. I personally think that they will find, in due course, a necessity to have something that is on exactly the same lines, and the same applies to the UKIM Bill. However, in the circumstances, because I want this Bill to go through, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my new clause. I just simply say: sovereignty is indivisible.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Treasury use of powers

“(1) The Treasury must, within four working days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a report setting out the timeframe within which it will use the powers to make regulations conferred by—

(a) section 40A(2) of TCTA 2018;

(b) section 40B(1) and (2) of TCTA 2018;

(c) section 30A(4) of TCTA 2018;

(d) section 30B(1) and (3) of TCTA 2018;

(e) section 30C(5) of TCTA 2018; and

(f) section 5(2) of this Act.

(2) The Treasury must publish an annual report setting out how it has made use of the powers referred to in subsection (1).

(3) Each report under subsection (2) must include an assessment of—

(a) what considerations the Treasury made when deciding to use its powers, and

(b) the impact of the regulations on individuals and businesses throughout the UK, and specifically in Northern Ireland.”—(Mr McFadden.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.